Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073

User Noteduck HOUNDING and violating AE civility warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Noteduck is a relatively new editor who opened their account in Dec 2020. They made a few edits with a prior account Spungo93. In a short period of time it became clear that Noteduck had civility issues related to edit warring and generally confrontational behavior issues. To this end I opened an AE related to Noteduck's behavior which resulted in a logged warning on 25 March (3 months ago)[[1]]. In the 3 months since Noteduck has engaged in a clear pattern of hounding and incivility with respect to my edits and myself.

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

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

• Aprox 40 sandbox entries to a grievances list in violation of POLEMIC [[2]]. After a repeated requests they blanked the list with an questionable edit summary [[3]]. Since deletion they have continued to add to the list [[4]].

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

• Followed me to a 3RRN where they were uninvolved to attack my credibility. [[5]].
• Cold contacting other editors to campaign against me [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]].

• Engaging in topic areas where they weren't previously involved after I was involved and in a way that opposed my edit/arguments:
  • Odal rune RfC [[11]]
  • Candace Ownes, restoring disputed material[[12]] by reverting my edit without participating in the on going talk page discussion [[13]].
  • I edited the Wall Street Journal page 31 March, Noteduck finds the page 1 April [[14]]
  • Tucker Carlson, reverting my removal of disputed content [[15]] despite not being involved in any related talk page discussions

• Article talk page comments/edit summaries that focus on me as an editor rather than on edits
  • Earlier today [[16]], "Frankly, I ask you to familiarize yourself with with Wikipedia:HOUND and WP:FILIBUSTER and ask yourself why you you continue to persist with challenging this exceedingly minor edit.", [[17]] where they accuse me of having a double standard, and [[18]] "respectfully, you've had considerable difficulty understanding WP:DUE and other policies in the past, including on this page,"

• Violated page's 1RR restriction when restoring the disputed edit above. 1st [[19]] 2nd [[20]]

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

I've repeatedly warned Noteduck that this is a HOUNDING issue that needs to stop (closing AE admin's page [[23]], Noteduck's page [[24]]) with no success. I was hopeful when they recently focused on editing on topics like architecture it would mean I would be left alone. From my earliest interactions with Noteduck last winter I have tried to make it clear the editorial disagreements aren't personal disagreements. Personalizing disputes was one of the problems discussed at Noteducks AE. Despite trying to keep things civil it is clear they did not understand the prior AE warning. I am requesting either an AP2 topic ban or a 1-way interaction ban (I will voluntarily avoid interacting with them as well). Springee (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

I've absolutely not only focused on Springee's edits: see my contributions page.[25] My recent new pages include Architecture of Belarus, Land Captain (Russian Empire), Wellerman etc plus extensive work on Texas Revolution, We Will Always Love You and more. Given a shared interest in politics we've indeed both edited Andy Ngo, Douglas Murray, and others. I maintain that Springee is a repeat civil-POV pusher on conservative politics (which almost all their edits relate to) invariably rejecting unflattering material. Springee was before arb com just a month ago for adding material from deprecated Daily Caller to the Andy Ngo page.[26] "Springee" gets 98 hits on the WP:AN archive. Many editors there share my concerns, and Springee's been sanctioned in the area of US politics before.[27] I indeed prepared a WP:AN complaint in sandbox, as Springee did against me[28] in Feb. My "double standard" comment came from Springee's persistence in wanting Fox's Ken LaCorte's "LaCorte News",[29] which dlthewave observed was "obviously terrible", added to Andy Ngo in April[30] {{{1}}} while rejecting material from Rolling Stone and Jacobin this month[31] (plus BuzzFeed News[32] and Bellingcat.[33] Springee is often litigious and made a WP:AN complaint based on an incorrect interpretation of 1RR on the Jared Kushner page in April.[34] I see this as a WP:BOOMERANG. Springee is quite fixated with challenging my edits and has 65 mentions on my talk page. I maintain that Springee's ongoing challenge to my short sentence on Andy Ngo is a WP:FILIBUSTER.[35] The 1RR Springee has raised with dlthewave[36] is trivial, as Dlthewave notes and I've reverted for now anyway.[37] Springee knows I'm sensitive and afflicted by bipolar-2 and prone to being angry and frustrated in manic phases. Full disclosure: yesterday I launched an unrelated WP:AN action after getting highly aggressive and personal insults elsewhere,[38] and can repeat details if necessary. I question Springee's decision to launch this complaint hours later and not wait for the other action to conclude Noteduck (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Noteduck, the recent AE against me was closed only with a comment to be more careful, not a logged warning.[[39]] Springee (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Edit: Noteduck removed the logged warning claim as part of a series of edits to their above statements[[40]]. The newly added claim I added "College Fix"[[41]] is an example of not getting the facts right. It was added by another editor [[42]] just before my edit. Springee (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck is trying to sidetrack with claims of bias etc but it's clear they personalize disputes (that was found at the AE and recent examples can be seen here. Rather than argue that edits were not supported they accused Conan The Librarian of acting on personal opinion/bias [[43]] and then proceed to put a warning on their user page [[44]]. In the month after the AE closed (24 March to 24 April), Noteduck made 39 edits. All but 5 were related to me. That included reverting my edits at pages they were otherwise uninvolved with, adding to the POLEMIC list, and trying to recruit other editors to join them against me. This fixation has toned down but they still treat all disputes as personal to the point that (see below) they accused me of knowing they are biopolar and trying to use that against them! It's clear that when editors disagree with them Noteduck is taking it personally. This is the core problem and one of the findings of the AE that resulted in a warning. I'm asking for this to stop. Springee (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Comment Some of these complaints really don't hold up to scrutiny, and the diffs don't all show what Springee says they do. I would urge folks to take a close look at the diffs in context before forming an opinion. Noteduck does good work in maintaining NPOV in controversial American Politics articles and I would hate to lose a productive editor from that topic. They do raise numerous valid concerns about Springee's editing (although perhaps they could find a better time and place to do so), and this complaint comes across as a fairly sad attempt to gain "first mover advantage" and silence an editor who they disagree with before they have the opportunity to present their evidence.
  • Regarding the sandbox concerns, it appears that Noteduck has been collecting evidence for an Arbcom case or similar, which is explicitly allowed per WP:POLEMIC: The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Sure, the definition of "timely manner" is debatable, but the second diff presented by Springee has been up for all of three days which surely is well within bounds. I would also note that Springee maintained a similar collection of diffs in their sandbox for three months during which time they repeatedly asked Noteduck to remove theirs [45][46]. Pot calling the kettle black? I'm also drawing a blank on how this edit summary (material addressing concerns of tendentious editing and civil-POV pushing put in a safe place. This does not mean the concern has gone away, and WP:ANI proceedings may eventually be required.) is in any way "questionable".
  • Tucker Carlson, The Wall Street Journal, Candace Owens and Odal (rune) have been in the news lately and are hot topics for editors involved in American politics; Noteduck and Springee are far from the only editors who showed up to these articles around the same time. I'm sorry but you'd have to be quite the conspiracy theorist or have particularly thin skin to think that someone who responds to the same RfC [47] as you is trying to create "irritation, annoyance or distress".
  • The 1RR concern is a nothingburger. Springee raised the concern on my talk page [48] (I thought they didn't like it when people did that?) and Noteduck promptly and politely self-reverted [49]. –dlthewave ☎ 21:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Dlthewave, several of your points are incorrect or misleading. I did in fact compile a sandbox list before filing an AE in February. I started the list on 29 Jan and filed the AE on 22 Feb, so just 1 month. I will grant that I didn't clean out my sandbox for two months but the AE was open for a month of that. You mention the 1RR violation. It was interesting how you handled what you thought was a 1RR on my part. You went fishing for sanctions.[[50]] Why weren't you as aggressive with Noteduck's clear violation? If Noteduck were editing a wide range of AP2 articles I would find your point about similar article interest to be more convincing. But articles like Odal (rune) are low traffic, Noteduck isn't making it to a lot of AP2 articles where I don't edit (and that's most). This also came at a time before they decided to edit about architecture and the vast majority of their edits were focused on me (at that time near 80% since the AE closure). Springee (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Springee, I can wipe my sandbox of references to you and any perceived breaches of policy now if you request. I can store it elsewhere if need be. However, you seem to be demanding that I never use my sandbox to build up any sort of allegation involving you again, which I think is pretty unreasonable (and indeed, a total WP:POTKETTLE situation). On the repeated HOUNDing allegations, please refer more to the specific parts of the policy you feel I am violating, and remember your many posts and 65 hits for "Springee" on my talk page[51] don't suggest you are exactly non-adversarial. Per WP:HOUND: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. I believe that this is what I've been doing. You've recently pinged me and reverted my edits on the Andy Ngo page,[52] dragging me away from other Wikipedia projects I enjoy much more: see Architecture of Belarus and Texas Revolution Noteduck (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

And again an inaccurate telling. I was consolidating citations per a talk page discussion [[53]]. As part of that I noted questionable claims that included OR [[54]][[55]]. Despite your last involvement with the article being in May, you quickly reverted my removal of the OR [[56]][[57]] just 1 hour later. I pinged you because I went to the talk page to discuss this [[58]]. I will note that you edit warred not with me but with Volteer1 who reverted your restorations. You claim I was targeting your edits, I agree you originally added the OR but that was on 22 Feb. I wasn't aware you were the original editor at the time I removed it. Mischaracterizing and personalizing these disputes is a big issue here. Springee (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

• The problem with long lists of diffs is the reason things were reverted is often lost. Noteduck's records aren't very accurate either. Consider above where they accuse me of adding "Collegefix" as a source even though that was added by a different editor. Sometimes the removal of a reliable source from an article is not related to it being a RS but DUE, WP:V, specific phrasing etc. Recently it was suggested that I removed Rolling Stones from the Andy Ngo article. It wasn't true. I removed a specific claim that failed Wp:V and the redundant citation associated with it. The fact that Noteduck has been creating such a long list over so many months supports my POLEMIC concern. The long list says I violated my self imposed 1RR rule twice yet fails to note once was to revert an IP editor, the other was 7 March, where I reverted myself because I didn't include an edit summary [59][60]. Springee (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• dc̄ I absolutely contend that there is enough evidence of such a long and egregious history of civil-POV pushing to launch a WP:ANI action against Springee, with the main difficulty being the staggering number of potentially relevant diffs. dlthewave I share your frustration that Springee's characterisation of the Odal rune page as "low-traffic" is typical of Springee's selective recall and application of policy. Similarly, my recent uptick in engagement on the Andy Ngo page was in response to Springee on 18 June making an unjustified wholesale revert (although I've repeatedly reminded them about WP:ROWN) of material I had added sometime earlier.[61] I don't find Ngo particularly edifying and recently have spent the vast majority of my time working on more interesting things like the Texas Revolution and a bunch of Russia-related topics in my sandbox.[62] As dlthewave notes I believe Springee's clear motive here is seeking "first mover advantage" they can leverage as a WP:BOOMERANG that distracts from their own actions. As course, as per WP:BOOMERANG: There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny. Noteduck (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

whoops, on the extremely trivial point about who added the "College Fix", it wasn't Springee. I still think it's inexplicable that you added a point about Andy Ngo being purportedly threatened by left-wing protestors on the basis of the sources "Katu" and "College Fix"[63] without questioning their reliability, while RS's more critical of Ngo have been repeatedly challenged and reverted. Yes, you did remove material from Rolling Stone from Ngo's page, just this month.[64] Noteduck (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

And this is why we have to look at the details because you are still getting things wrong left and right. First, these edits were done after starting a talk page discussion [[65]]. Second, I didn't add any of the sources. The edit you link to is one where I changed the language to match that from the parent article. Nothing more. If you want to complain about those sources why don't you talk to the editor who added them? As for Rolling Stone, you are conflating two arguments. I was talking about being accused of removing a source (in the past, not this instance) when I only removed a redundant example of the source. A diff that only looks at the one edit might miss that the removed source was redundant. As for the Rolling Stones material you reference, the issue was it didn't pass Wp:V. The source is still in the article but the specific claim was OR. Springee (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

About 20 KB, by Noteduck (talk · contribs)

In May 2021 Springee expressly named a belief that the Cato Institute was an RS, but the SPLC was not, again expressing their selective assessment of sources based on their ideological position. Partisan reverts: some of the sources Springee has removed from pages related to conservative politics because they are "biased", "subjective" or some other feeble reason: the Southern Poverty Law Center,[66][67][68][69][70][71] The New York Times and CNN,[72][73] National Review(!),[74] The Washington Post,[75] Newsweek,[76], The Washington Post and NBC,[77] The Washington Post and Bellingcat[78], Vox and The Daily Beast[79], the Los Angeles Times,[80] The Intercept,[81] the [[BBC],[82] Rolling Stone, Jacobin and Columbia Journalism Review[83], BuzzFeed News,[84] The Guardian(including restoring grammatical errors!)[85], Salon (website),[86] Forbes,[87] the Seattle Times,[88] Reports sans Frontieres,[89] New Republic and NBC News,[90] the Chicago Sun-Times[91] Politico and four other sources,[92] The Independent,[93] Daily Dot,[94][95][96] Reuters and Fox News(!)[97] Middle East Eye,[98] The Huffington Post,[99] Mother Jones,[100] and smaller-scale newspapers like the 8-time Pulitzer Prize winner Kansas City Star,[101][102]Des Moines Register[103] and The Arizona Republic(known for its conservatism!)[104][105] and academic articles[106]. These are almost all going back to November 2020 alone! There are simply too many of them to list, as Springee's pattern of deleting material unflattering to conservatives has become increasingly brazen. Springee also fought a protracted rearguard action to keep a Harvard University study about promotion of climate change denial out of the ExxonMobil page in favor of an article from a fossil fuel lobby group,[107] as well as contesting at length the inclusion of an article from the New York Times on the same article.[108] Concerningly, Springee seems to have a record of whitewashing the pager of powerful climate-change denying groups[109][110][111][112][113] - Wall Street Journal here[114][115] Springee is currently engaged in a rearguard action to minimise the use of material related to climate change denial on the PragerU page.[116] The consistent feature of absolutely every one of Springee's reversions is not evidentiary weight but ideological bent - the material challenged is always something reliably sourced, but arguably unflattering, to a conservative subject. I've provided around 50 diffs as evidence. Here are some accusations of "whitewashing" by other editors levelled towards Springee.[117][118][119][120][121][122] Springee will throw the book at the offending editor in terms of spurious complaints about Wiki policies, frequently launch RfCs in order to contest sources and drag out the process as long as possible. Look back through Springee's edits on Andy Ngo, Douglas Murray (author), and PragerU and you'll see this pattern play out time and time again. The results are horribly whitewashed pages representing powerful, moneyed conservative interests - consider that on the current PragerU page, a flattering paragraph given over to the company's unsuccessful lawsuit against Google has 3 paragraphs and 310 words, while just a single sentence is dedicated to PragerU's well-documented[123][124][125][126][127][128] record of misinformation on climate change. On 15 September 2020, Springee said that they would voluntarily follow a 1RR rule limit.[129] Nonetheless. They repeatedly violated this request - on 28 January 2021,[130][131], 7 March 2021,[132][133] For other contentions of Springee's partisan bias, see[134][135][136] for behavorial problems on pages related to conservative politics[137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146], including a formal sanction in the area of American politics[147] unwarranted deletion of material[148][149][150] especially misbehavior related to guns[151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172]. Multiple overt claims of firearms advocacy[173][174][175][176] and whitewashing pages of firearms[177][178] are particularly concerning. If you go through these diffs, you'll see that unexplained block reverts and stonewalling are particular problems for Springee. It's worth noting that Springee has been accused of abusing the noticeboards and being overly litigious towards other editors before.[179] Note that these diffs are (a) not exhaustive in terms of Springee's record of misconduct and (b) fragmentary, so may not individually be absolutely damning. While my focus here is Springee, it's worth noting that they often operate as a kind of tag-team with others, invariably backing each other up on topics related to conservative politics.[180][181], [182][183], [184],[185],[186] Needless to say, dealing with multiple editors making the same partisan arguments is frustrating. You have made made several comments about purported left-wing bias on Wikipedia.[187] Some of Shinealittlelight's claims about obviously reliable sources are frankly quite bizarre - see this extended (and baffling) complaint about a widely-cited report written by a University of North Carolina professor that was critical of PragerU[188] and this attempt to ensure that the term "white nationalist" would not be used in relation to the Kenosha unrest shooting suspect.[189] PragerU has met the criteria for a "repeat offender" of spreading misinformation on Facebook[190][191] and yet "misinformation" barely appears on the PragerU Wiki page. Remarkably, these editors have alleged poor sourcing on a proposed addition to the header that would mention misinformation that contains more than two dozen sources.[192] Absolutely every addition that it critical of Prager gets ruthlessly purged. UPDATE4: I've perused through the WP:AN noticeboard and Springee appears on a jaw dropping 97(!) different archive pages, usually many times over. Cedar777 and Shadydabs have summed up what the problem is with Springee's editing, over and over: Springee reverts whole blocks of new material on a page related to conservative politics (despite their long history on Wiki, WP:ROWN appears to be unfamiliar to Springee), claims the source is not DUE, claims the source is not an RS, misrepresents the source's contents, and if this all fails Springee then claims there's no consensus, essentially demanding a personal veto S, that's a mischaracterization - I did not "accuse" editors of anything. I reminded editors of policy, namely WP:ROWN - here is the source[193] Noteduck (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Record of Springee's spurious edits and reversions: 2021 [194][195] July 2020: reverts of good sources added to the Andy Ngo page.[196] Reverts of good sources on Tucker Carlson.[197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208] June-July 2020: reverts of good sources added to the page of conservative historian Victor Davis Hansen.[209][210] June 2020: Andy Ngo [211][212][213], Tucker Carlson[214], Burt Rutan[215]

Proposal 1: Two-Way Interaction Ban

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

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I have nothing personally against Noteduck. I do not seek to interact with them. If they agree to AGF I'm happy to do the same. I do not feel my ability to edit articles where I have long been involved should be restricted due to Notrduck's logged uncivil behavior. As North8000 said, I understand AP2 can be confrontational so I take the high road. Springee (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as not the solution to this problem. This isn't about two editors not liking each other. Or rather, it's about more than that. I mean every ANI report involves two or more editors not liking each other. If we handed out IBANs for that, we'd all be IBANed. The problem here is disruption, and disruptive editors should just be removed from the project altogether. Or at least the topic area. We've had enough noticeboard drama about this (by my count: an arbcom request, a DRN, at least one AN, at least one ANI, and that's probably not everything). Either there is a real problem here or someone is really crying wolf. Either way, an IBAN is not the solution. (Also, no one is going to use DRN if the neutral later proposes sanctions against the participants.) For my part, I don't see a case being made yet by anyone for sanctions against anyone else, mostly because there are so many false positive diffs being presented. So if anyone reading this thinks this thread should end with action, I'd suggest posting your best diffs and quotes, and really making a clear and brief argument about what is needed and why. Levivich 16:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - the problem is not Springee or two-way interaction, it is WP:HOUNDING by Noteduck which is a policy vio and it needs immediate attention by an admin. This is unacceptable behavior. Hounding violates the UCoC, Section 3.1 Harassment - it is a very serious behavioral issue, and no editor deserves to be hounded, on or off WP. Atsme 💬 📧 17:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This mis-characterizes the situation. Springee has consistently taken the careful, polite high road. And they came here for relief from hounding. Maybe just a warning to Noteduck regarding the topic at hand would be sufficient to resolve this. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I appreciate Robert McClenon's work on resolving this. However I think the problem is asymmetric here, despite this litigious WP:BOOMERANG by Springee. Again, if allegations of WP:HOUND are being made, specific references to the text of the policy should be made, rather than broad-brush claims. I recommend looking through both mine[216] and Springee's[217] contribution pages and see the contrast between an editor who has added constructively to a broad range of topics, and one with a dogged focus on contesting material on pages related to right-wing politics Noteduck (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Withdraw - I am willing to withdraw this proposal. Will someone else propose something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Re-open and support - Robert McClenon has withdrawn this proposal, but I'd like to repropose it. There is a problem that has to be solved here, and I think this proposal solves it better than any other, and specifically better than any one-sided sanction against Noteduck. Loki (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support The sandbox demonstrates tendentious behavior by Noteduck toward Springee, and an overview of User talk:Noteduck and its edit history shows Springee repeatedly complaining about Noteduck's edits and fighting between the users. Out of 145 edits to this user talk, Noteduck themselves made 46 and Springee made 44, or about 1/3 each of the entire edit history. A third opinion will be needed to determine if either user's edits about Andy Ngo are problematic, which would warrant a topic ban from this BLP or post-1992 American politics more broadly. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 18:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 I'd be happy for an uninvolved party to look at Springee's edits on Andy Ngo, though it needs to be said that these are just part of a much larger pattern of blocking unflattering material on pages related to right-wing politics, particularly through the relentless and protracted contestation of material on talk pages. Note that Springee has made 521 edits on Talk:Andy Ngo (16.64% of ALL edits made to the page)[218] Noteduck (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - the two don't want it, the proposer withdrew it, and the problem is Noteduck, not Springee - there should be no false equivalence here. I say more below. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal #2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

well yes, I can certainly aim to keep material in my sandbox for no more than a month in line with the "timely" language of the policy. The material I gathered was not intended to be part of some aimless, vague polemic but rather the concrete basis for a WP:AN complaint. The sandbox is a convenient place to gather such evidence, which I'm sure is why you've used it for the same reason Springee Noteduck (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee, just observing an example from the last couple of days - I'd work on this pattern of wholesale reverts,[219] especially since other editors have raised concerns about your editing related to right-wing politics. I've reminded you of WP:ROWN multiple times, and with more than a decade of experience I'm sure you know it well too. You correctly note that this material was about Kirk, not TPUSA, so doesn't belong on the latter's page. Why not move this material to the Charlie Kirk (activist) page, or if you think the material does not belong on Kirk's page either, take it the Kirk talk page or the editor in question's talk page? Noteduck (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

If timely is your intent why gave you been collecting grievances for 5 months with no action? I'm glad you are able to recognize that the content I removed from TPUSA does not belong on the page. I'm certainly not obligated to try to make a case for the content to be DUE on another page which is what you are asking me to do. Springee (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee I'm merely recommending that given your experience and your focus on pages related to TPUSA and proximate topics, you could assist less experienced editors. I see you have again reverted the eight word sentence I added to Andy Ngo,[220] though your rebuttals haven't been substantive. You initially referred to WP:OR, and now WP:V, without specifying what part of either policy you are grounding your argument in. I recommend basing any objections to new edits in the specific language of editorial policy rather than a broad-brush rejection Noteduck (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I and several other experienced editors did try to help you early on. Our efforts were met with hostility to the point that an AE was filled against you and you were formally warned. The Ngo material has been reverted by two editors and fails WP:V. The ONUS is on you to correct the problem. That you restored the same content you violated 1RR to add further shows that you didn't take your logged warning to heart. Springee (talk)`

Springee recently launched an action in Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard[221] in relation to my aforementioned short 14-word sentence.[222] They also are waging an ongoing fight on Talk:Andy Ngo to contest this same material.[223] Noteduck.

Mis-characterizations aside, those are good examples of the Wikipedian, polite, and content-focused way to deal with content questions/disputes. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

A gentle piece of advice to Springee btw: I recommend aiming to diversify your interest base beyond right-wing political pages like Andy Ngo ("Springee" gets 600+ hits in the page archives), whoops strike through Charlie Kirk etc. I had it on the brain because of the point about TPUSA above - please don't cherry-pick. As I noted in the earlier dispute in April, based on samples of around ~1000 of your recent edits, at times 95%+ have related to conservative politics-related pages. I've pivoted away and have found creating diverse and original content elsewhere much more satisfying (talk) Noteduck (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting... let's see, how many edits do I have to the Charlie Kirk page... [[224]]. It looks like zero. I'm glad to see you have found other areas to focus on. Hopefully that will mean you no longer need your POLEMIC violating list nor will need to hound me or attack me. That would be great. Springee (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

In response to your edit above[[225]], it is always a good idea to have your facts correct before lobbing criticisms. That is one of the issues with your POLEMIC grievance list. The fact that it violates POLEMIC is another. Springee (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Conditional support - a first time warning is customary for new editors, but in this case, it is overly gracious, especially considering Noteduck's comment just above Springee's which begins with "A gentle piece of advice to Springee", and their noting that 95% of Springee's edits are to conservative politics. Wow - that statement provides some pretty big evidence of HOUNDING. Why should any editor care, other than a POV pusher, if 100% of Springee's edits are to conservative politics? Those are the articles that need attention because of strong POV pushing, and left-leaning news media that dominates the echo chamber, not to mention an issue of noncompliance with RECENTISM and NOTNEWS; all of which means there is typically more work to do on those articles. We leave our biases at login. WP is a collaborative project - we don't "advise" other editors whose views oppose our own, especially veteran editors, where they should or shouldn't edit. Admins are the ones who make that decision when there's proven disruption, and right now the only disruption I'm seeing is coming from Noteduck. I commend Springee for exercising such patience. Atsme 💬 📧 10:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, how do you feel about Springee's similar assessment: Noteduck has made, at the time of this writing, ~185 edits since since receiving a warning on March 25th related to uncivil and problematic AP2 behavior. Of those over 50% have been about me in some capacity, followed by a detailed analysis of Noteduck's edits? Why is it OK for Springee to calculate percentages of where Noteduck has been editing, but when Noteduck does the same thing it's considered hounding? –dlthewave ☎ 05:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Dlthewave - for the sake of brevity, Noteduck's comments are political in nature, whereas Springee is being hounded and is expected to provide evidence of same. Atsme 💬 📧 11:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

As you note I think that a close review of this ANI thread itself says a lot about the situation. I'm not sure if you meant that my proposal #2 was too mild but for better or worse that's sort of how I roll. Perhaps a one way interaction ban would have been a better proposal to give decisive relief to Springee and be a stronger "we really mean it" regarding battleground mentality towards another editor. But the warning remains as the alternative that I support. And Springee themself supported it and so they likely feel that it is sufficient, at least at this "give it a try" stage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of WP:HOUND would proscribe "a gentle piece of advice" or how it displays a battleground mentality. I offered what I see as sound advice based on my experience that it's much more fulfilling to create pages and make extensive original contributions to Wiki rather than have to spend lengthy amounts of time on talk pages, which is where contentious political articles often end up. Springee has certainly aimed to correct perceived errors and issues reminders of policy when they've seen fit, sometimes in quite strident terms, on my talk page (see User talk:Noteduck). I've been distracted and busy working on unrelated projects, but I've wiped the perceived breaches I noted, which made up a small portion of my sandbox, in a good-faith compliance with Springee's request.[226] I hadn't been alerted to the “timely manner” requirement prior to this ANI notice but I'm fine with interpreting it as one month and not leave material for policy complaints in my sandbox for longer than this. This is by no means a repudiation of any of these points. I think that while I don't agree at all with the basis of this WP:ANI notice I've engaged in a constructive and good-faith manner Noteduck (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The first you heard about it? Why didn't you understand the problem when I warned you about POLEMIC on 10 April [[227]] and then again on 25 May [[228]]. It was only on 19 June that a 3rd warning finally resulted in you removing the content. Why did it take two months? Certainly you should have been aware of the timeliness requirement the first time I provided a POLEMIC link in the warning. Springee (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee none of your posts on my page referred to the timely manner requirement. Noteduck (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That makes your failure to remove even worse. The first time I just said it violated POLEMIC. You didn't bother to follow up and check so that's on you. Either way, you were informed. The second time I included this part, "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws.". So you just decided to ignore the whole thing since the only reason to keep such a list would have to fall under the timely exception. If you weren't aware of it, after being told where to look, what more do you want. It's clear you were keeping the list despite knowing it was against user talk page guidelines. Springee (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not the best representation of the facts. Having started to regularly edit Wiki in December 2020, I had of course seen other editors use their sandboxes to assemble ANI complaints and discuss the use of sandboxes for this purpose, and in fact on 10 February I made an enquiry on your talk page about material you were preparing in sandbox for a complaint against me (though it was quickly blanked).[229] You did indeed quote WP:POLEMIC in a post on my talk page on 25 May, specifically the passage warning against Example text For context, the very next sentence of WP:POLEMIC, in the same dot point, reads: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." Why omit this, especially given that your main objection here appears to be related to the timely manner requirement? On 25 June you referred to the specific phrase timely manner in this complaint.[230] It seems unduly to think I deserve sanctions based on not heeding specific points of editorial policy Noteduck (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose As someone who's often edited on American political topics where both Springee and Noteduck were participating I have never seen a dispute between them that I honestly felt was Noteduck's fault to begin with. This is not to say that Noteduck has been a perfect editor, but that I strongly oppose any one-sided sanction against Noteduck. For what it's worth, I would support the interaction ban above or even a one-way interaction ban against Springee: I think that there's a far better case to be made for Springee hounding Noteduck than vice-versa. Loki (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying this because you can think of any actual examples or just because you see this as a tactical move? Noteduck was warned about civility and edit warring at AE. Did other editors (myself included) start those problems? Springee (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing says "battleground mentality" like speculating about "tactical moves". Please, try to assume good faith. –dlthewave ☎ 11:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

struck Springee (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Loki, Springee has given pretty substantial examples of hounding. Perhaps you could give some to support your assertion of hounding by Springee?North8000 (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh certainly. Of the 37 sections on Noteduck's talk page, 11, or roughly a third, are sections started by Springee accusing Noteduck of bad behavior: [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241]. When these accusations have been actually reported to admins, none of them so far have resulted in sanctions for Noteduck more serious than one unenthusiastic warning once. Loki (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

There have only been two trips to the notice board, the AE that resulted in a warning and this one. If you look, many are good faith efforts to help a new editor learn the ropes. Others are for the exact behaviors that resulted in a logged warning. It's unfortunate that you and Dlthewave are condoning vs discouraging such behaviors. Even if you think Noteduck hasn't crossed a sanctionable line why encourage it? Springee (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, that's not hounding. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Loki and dlthewave for helping to set the record straight here. A search for edits made by Springee in my talk page history reveals 44 edits by Springee, or more than 30% of all edits in the page's history.[242] A search of Springee's talk page history shows 13 edits by Noteduck (though all have since been wiped).[243] This is hardly commensurate with the accusation of one-way, targeted WP:HOUNDING. Springee hasn't explained how they arrived at the point that "over 50% of Noteduck's edits since 25 March have been about me 'in some capacity'" [inverted commas mine], which they will need to clarify, and again I invite editors to look at the diversity of the contributions in my edit history[244] and sandbox.[245] Springee's stated desire to avoid interacting with me is hardly commensurate with their recent actions on the Andy Ngo talk page, where they:

• on 18 June Springee pinged me in a subheading I had no prior involvement in,[246] having reverted a not prominent, 14-word short sentence I had added to a body paragraph on Ngo's page[247]
• continued to contest this short sentence at length on Ngo's talk page for close to another two weeks, including repeatedly interacting with me without apparent distress[248]
• on 25 June took this same short sentence to the no original research noticeboard,[249] on the basis that it purportedly failed WP:V requirements, only for other uninvolved editors to quickly affirm my longstanding interpretation of the contested sentence.[250][251].

Given the outcome of the WP:NORN discussion they launched, I hope Springee will be restoring the material. As I've noted above,[252] I did not receive a specific reference to the point about assembling complaints in the sandbox being done in a timely manner from Springee, and would have applied the policy (though its wording doesn't lay out precise instructions for how to adhere to it) as best I could had I known. I'm happy to field any further questions Noteduck (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Why? There is not a consensus of support and there are concerns about weight for such a claim. Springee (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

do you not agree that the counter-arguments have been quite comprehensively refuted? Noteduck (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

A review of this ANI thread alone says much about the situation. Seeking to resolve a situation vs. seeking to deprecate an editor. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support per arguments of above support !votes, and how is this still open and unresolved? Closing with a warning and move on sounds reasonable. I also agree that the "evidence of hounding by Springee" above is not evidence of hounding. Levivich 18:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• Prefer topic ban for Noteduck, support warning if not. Their logged warning from March says they need to abide to policies while editing in the topic area of American politics, and they have not been doing so regarding WP:HOUND and WP:DISRUPTIVE. The time for warnings is past; it is time for more than a slap on the wrist. (Closer: Note that Serial supported a topic ban also right after Springee's opening.) It's not like bans can't be appealed in the future anyway. It is clear from the above, both the evidence and from their own words, that they persistently hound Springee and are WP:NOTHERE to encyclopedically and neutrally portray American politics, but rather, to right great wrongs and portray conservatives as negatively as possible. That is exemplified by their own statement above: A gentle piece of advice to Springee btw: I recommend aiming to diversify your interest base beyond right-wing political pages... Only a POV pusher and hounder would say that. If this is what they say openly at ANI, I can only imagine what these article talk pages (many of them being BLPs!) are like. This crusade is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for; it is the epitome of tendentious editing. A Wikipedia that is nothing but hit pieces on the right will do nothing but preach to the choir on the left, anyway. The topic area in no way benefits from these POV pushers that work their way in occasionally. Whether many editors agree with the POV being pushed is no grounds for leniency. Noteduck themselves states above, I've pivoted away and have found creating diverse and original content elsewhere much more satisfying, so let's help them stay away from this topic area. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose in part due to the vagueness of the proposal; what exactly does a warning to avoid behaviors described by essays we've all seen actually amount to, particularly when the dispute is over who is hounding whom? In my general experience, a significant fraction of what gets described as "hounding" ends up being clashing opinions on areas of shared interest, exacerbated by a kind of passive aggression for which Wikipedia is unluckily fertile ground. I'm not sure that isn't the case here. (For example, on the face of it, "try working in a different topic area for a little while" can actually be darn good advice. I've given it to myself plenty of times. What matters is the tone in which it is said, as it were.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

For better or worse, it was deliberately a soft proposal, including avoiding an explicit finding of hounding behavior while having a good chance of providing the relief that is owed to Springee. Ifr that doesn't work, more concrete explicit findings and direction could be provided at that point.North8000 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Suppose an ANI report had been opened on an editor who was adding labels to pages on figures like, say, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez based on right-wing opinion outlets, telling their opponent to edit pages other than "left-wing" pages and following that editor around, talking about them all the time, and keeping a polemic about them. Would we be seeing the same sort of replies here? I suspect not. They'd probably be indeffed. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support warning only - I think Noteduck is being too combative towards Springee. If this continues, we can move on to IBAN. Hopefully that will not be needed. starship.paint (exalt) 15:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Experienced editors have the capacity to teach others, at times deliberately and directly with intentional instruction . . . and at other times unwittingly and indirectly by leading through their own example. A sandbox grievance list was first initiated by user Springee against user Noteduck on January 25, 2021 Diff. One month later, Noteduck created their own sandbox grievance list Diff - a reasonable development given the circumstances. These editors clearly see things differently yet they share an interest in multiple topics. The observation made by XOReaster that "a significant fraction of what gets described as "hounding" ends up being clashing opinions on areas of shared interest" applies here. Cedar777 (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Overview of recent discussions at Talk:Andy Ngo

@Noteduck: Very well then. Looking at the most recent edits on Talk:Andy Ngo, I see that Springee keeps getting into content disputes.

• On 17 May, they disputed whether content added by Cedar777 (talk · contribs) about Don't Shoot Portland was WP:DUE for Andy Ngo. JzG (talk · contribs) stepped in and agreed with Cedar777's addition of the content. It's still in the article.
• On 10 June, you contested the removal of content by Thomas Meng (talk · contribs), which he alleged to be biased and poorly sourced. That's when Springee rebutted your claim, arguing that the BuzzFeed News piece in question is biased and that the statement might have been WP:UNDUE as well. You also contested some commentary by third parties about Thomas Meng (talk · contribs), again insisting that the repeatedly used term opinion is a misnomer in this discussion. The statement cited to the BFN piece is still in the article.
• On that same day, Springee argued with Cedar777 over an edit by Meng that condensed several citations to the same source, per WP:OVERCITE. Then, they mentioned out of the blue that they reverted one of your edits [253] that allegedly misrepresented the sources cited and was undue. Another argument ensues on the talk page, this time a bit longer and with more involved parties. Ultimately, Springee won the dispute.
• A discussion on 17 June about covering a recent attack against Ngo, where Springee was involed. They also challenged an alleged WP:SYNTH addition by SomerIsland (talk · contribs), but then flip-flopped.
• A discussion on 19 June where neither you nor Springee was involved, apart from an aside by the latter about naming references.
• A discussion on 21 June about an ambiguous sentence. Springee definitely had a good point to raise, and there was little or no dispute.
• A discussion began on 30 June about the weasel word widely as used in a statement about RS consensus. You dropped in and changed the word to frequently [254]. This word change was supported by other participants, apart from Springee, before TomReaan90 (talk · contribs) pivoted the discussion to a conversation about Al Jazeera and the Iraq War.
• That was the last discussion involving you, but it looks like subsequent discussions involving Springee are good-faith and they do not fight with anyone else.

In summary, Springee is editing Talk:Andy Ngo a lot because they are heavily involved in good-faith edits and discussions regarding the article. So it's clear that Springee's edits are unproblematic apart from their interactions with you, although I don't have enough evidence to evaluate your edits about Ngo. Maybe someone can evaluate the archives, but I need to go to bed now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to look at my Ngo edits LaundryPizza03. I'd refer to diffs like this one as proof of my commitment to rigorously evaluating evidence on the page.[255] It's necessary to see this all in the context of how Springee fights at length to get flattering sources added to Ngo's page, no matter how feeble.

• For example, take Springee's extended contestation in April in favour of restoring material from "Lacorte News" (apparently an obscure source tied to Fox alum Ken LaCorte).[256] Springee was very lucky to avoid a topic ban later in April after an action brought by User:Dlthewave,[257] brought about after Springee made a protracted attempt in March-April to get material from the deprecated Daily Caller[258] and Daily Signal included on Ngo's page.[259] Although Springee had reverted material from the Daily Signal from Ngo's page in February on the (correct) basis that it wasn't an RS,[260] in March[261] and April[262] they defended Daily Signal's reliability on Ngo while rejecting WP:GREL-listed The Intercept,[263] as well as turning to other weak sources like Daily Wire, The Western Journal, and a celebrity gossip site called "Meaww" to buttress their LaCorte News point.[264] On 25 May there were happy to treat a website called "Katu", and the very non-impartial The College Fix as a reliable account of a BLM protest reported on by Ngo.[265] With sources like these, Springee has been hyper-permissive and emphasized context, while warning against rejecting sources outright.
• Compare this to the scrutiny they have subjected a recent 14-word sentence sourced to Rolling Stone and Jacobin (magazine) to: reverting it on 18 June,[266] extensively challenging it on the Ngo talk page[267] on the frankly, clearly incorrect basis that the Rolling Stone source didn't support the claim in the sentence,[268] opening a WP:NORN discussion on the sentence on 25 June,[269] and after their argument was comprehensively rejected, now maintaining the material is undue.[270] See also these extended challenges (both from April alone) Springee made to The Intercept[271] and Bellingcat, which Springee took to WP:RSN to see their point be quickly rebuffed[272] having contested Bellingcat content since November 2020,[273] plus objecting to a thorough and methodical Buzzfeed News piece in June.[274] Look at the stringency of Springee's evidentiary standards for Bellingcat and Daily Dot[275] compared with some of the above-mentioned obscure (and weak) sources more flattering to Ngo.

Go further back and you see block reverts of the SPLC,[276][277] Daily Beast,[278] Columbia Journalism Review,[279] The Guardian,[280], Salon (magazine) and Rolling Stone,[281][282][283] Washington Post and Los Angeles Times,[284][285][286] Seattle Times,[287], BuzzFeed News[288] Daily Dot,[289], Willamette Week[290] The Oregonian[291], the Los Angeles Times[292] - by no means a complete list. I've repeatedly reminded Springee of WP:ROWN without success. Springee often rejects new edits by invoking BLP, or employs an "injunction": block reverting an edit, starting a talk page discussion, and proceeding to resist any change at length on the talk page, while claiming there's no consensus for change. The clear, repeated pattern is that Springee fights hard to include sources seen to be flattering to Ngo, no matter how feeble, while those perceived as unflattering, even if high quality, are subject to impossibly high standards. I've seen them follow this same edit pattern across a range of political topics, and am happy to provide more diffs on request Noteduck (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

And this is more of the same falsehoods. What you call an "extended fight" was a civil and not long talk page discussion where Springee was on the same side as numerous other editors. The Daily Caller and Daily Signal stuff was dismissed already at AE. Meaww was only mentioned as a left-leaning source and alongside The Oregonian. He's right about Rolling Stone and Jacobin. The former is an entertainment magazine, not a serious news outlet, and does not have any pretenses of objectivity; the latter is openly opinionated and ideological for socialism. He's well within his rights on the rest, since context, due weight, and other policies matter, and discussion and being careful are very important on a WP:BLP. Many of those outlets are also inappropriate for political topics as they are very ideological and/or are not serious mainstream news sources that aim for objectivity, namely the Daily Beast, Salon, Willamette Week, and the Daily Dot. The only problem here is when editors such as yourself push for such glorified group blogs as sources on a BLP and then harass editors who disagree. Time to put a stop to it. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: As shown below, Noteduck revised their comment after I replied; the version I replied to is here. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, I disagree that the Daily Caller/Daily Signal issue was "dismissed" at AE. It was in fact closed with a reminder to Springee to "Please be more careful with unreliable/deprecated sources" along with a RS/verifiability reminder to the only admin who supported his point of view. I share Noteduck's valid concern that Springee has been challenging clearly reliable sources as biased while at the same time promoting sources that are so unreliable that they've been deprecated. Frankly I don't see how a good-faith editor can challenge Jacobin as too biased to use, while pushing for inclusion of a Daily Caller cite. –dlthewave ☎ 19:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"Pushing for inclusion of a Daily Caller cite" is a grossly misleading picture of what happened; the clarification and pushback on your AE report is explained there and I'm not relitigating it. Also, deprecation "is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation", though one wouldn't be able to tell from the constant push to get every right-leaning opinion outlet as de facto banned while left-leaning opinion outlets are mostly marked as green at WP:RSP. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, I recognize your opinion on the matter, but I need to ask you to respect the final outcome of the AE report instead of trying to relitigate. Although several editors (including yourself and one admin, who was admonished for their comments) did disagree, consensus among admins was clear: It was inappropriate to use Daily Caller in that context and Springee was reminded to be more careful with such sources. Unless you can explain how you interpret the outcome differently, I'm going to ask you to strike "The Daily Caller and Daily Signal stuff was dismissed already at AE" and the accusation "Pushing for inclusion of a Daily Caller cite" is a grossly misleading picture of what happened". I also ask that you strike "one wouldn't be able to tell from the constant push to get every right-leaning opinion outlet as de facto banned while left-leaning opinion outlets are mostly marked as green at WP:RSP" as inappropriate off-topic commentary. –dlthewave ☎ 22:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, per WP:REDACT (talk page guideline) please do not edit your comments after other editors have replied. if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. This was mentioned to you early on in this discussion (without a specfic guideline) [[293]]. After being asked the first time you have continued to edit your comments after other editors have replied without proper edit markups (examples [[294]] [[295]][[296]][[297]]). Please follow talk page guidelines going forward. Springee (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee thank you for the useful heads up on WP:REDACT policy. I noticed that you weighed in on a discussion on talk:The Wall Street Journal today,[298] shortly after I entered the same discussion yesterday.[299] While you're of course welcome to do so, this isn't really commensurate with your stated wish to avoid me due to hounding or obstructionism. If my edits no long bother you perhaps make that clear Noteduck (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, in fairness, Springee has actually been involved in discussion on that talk page concerning the WSJ's editorial board from before you even joined the project (diff). El_C 07:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C they did indeed, but Springee's willingness to be involved in a new survey and discussion where I'm present and where we can respond to each others arguments doesn't suggest that they feel uncomfortable or crowded out by my edits. By the way Springee you said in your complaint that "over 50%" of my edits since March 25 have been about you "in some capacity". What do you mean by this exactly and how did you reach that figure? Noteduck (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Responding to the same RfC isn't WP:HOUNDING and wouldn't even be restricted by an WP:IBAN as long as you're not directly responding to each other. I too would be curious about the 50% statistic since some of the initial hounding accusations were also just Noteduck commenting in the same discussions as Springee. –dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

IMO this misleading construction further shows what the situation is and that Springee needs and deserves some relief. Some have in essence said that my "just an oblique warning" proposal #2 is too mild and that is probably true, but this needs to brought to some type of conclusion to provide that relief. If it doesn't work, something stronger can be tried later. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

That Noteduck should be topic-banned from post-1992 American politics, or at least the associated BLPs? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a topic ban would be appropriate unless there's an overall pattern of disruption in the topic area. The accusations we're discussing here seem to be limited to their interactions with Springee. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I was about to say much the same thing. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Responding what the "something" in the "Something stronger can be tried later." would be is a matter of conjecture at this point. But a topic ban is not what came to mind when I wrote that. Certainly even what is on this ANI page itself reinforces the situation. Besides hounding, no editor should have to endure a continuing aggressive onslaught of such things including mis-characterizations. North8000 (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

North8000, your comment would be taken more seriously if you could specific examples of these mischaracterizations and what exactly is problematic about Noteduck's conduct in this discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 21:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Well asserting/implying that nobody takes my careful summary seriously is not a good way to start.North8000 (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

My assessment didn't come from just any one item, it was deriving from an overview of the whole thread here. A part of that overview is that IMO I'd guess that at least 90% of Noteduck's posts here have been trying to deprecate Springee rather than addressing the topic at hand. Regarding specifics, nearly every use of diffs in that type of post had a negative characterization (IMO mis-characterization) of Springee that did not arise from the diff itself. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you point to one diff and explain why it's mischaracterized? I'm starting to suspect that you don't actually have any examples, since I've already asked before with no success. –dlthewave ☎ 12:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Based on limited encounters not going too well, I choose to not deeply engage with you. But one structural note....I identified "mis-characterization" as just IMO. My statement in that area without the "IMO" qualifier was "had a negative characterization....of Springee that did not arise from the diff itself." You (or anybody) should feel free to reject or accept my assessment, or to skim this thread to assess whether or not they think that assessment is correct or incorrect. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

IP Sock

(Please note that my post below was moved here and the heading created by Dlthewave. While I noted the sock/evade basis for removal by someone else of the post, I am not knowledgeable enough of that IP situation to have identified it with this title) North8000 (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

There have been posts entered by 69.156.107.94 which have been removed per evade/ sock of blocked. The is IP has a history less than1 1/2 weeks old and ~90% those posts have been on this thread attempting to deprecate Springee. Springee is a polite, policy-conscious editor who has been subjected to far too much of this stuff from a few individuals. This type of abuse of editors must be stopped! The have asked for relief from the most egregious portion of that. I proposed an action which is probably too mild but something must be done! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

For that IP address, a lifetime of 6 edits, the first fixing a typo in July 2021, and then 5 of the 6 were all on this page in the last 2 days attempting to deprecate Springee.North8000 (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I've moved this to its own subsection since the IP comments are a separate issue the won't be helped by warning/sanctioning Noteduck. It looks like Awilley is handling the situation and has been notified. –dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was too slow on the draw. The sock was blocked via SPI. ~Awilley (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Could somebody review and decide on this?

Could somebody review and decide on this? North8000 (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that the two way interaction ban should be considered. There are problems in both directions, and it doesn't matter which political position the parties support. Perhaps it would be enough to do such a ban for , say, 3 months, and hope that by then they're less likely to re-engage. I'm not doing it as a formal close because of the earlier opposition to this, but I think the discussion since then has clarified that both parties have some degree of responsibility--as is often the case. I think an attempt to find relative degree of responsibility is apt to encourage further antagonism. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I oppose a two-way interaction ban. Such is not only a false balance, but in what I've seen those always end up punishing the better editor more since they can't do anything to prevent POV additions or changes by the other. The one-way from Noteduck to Springee makes sense here, because it is Noteduck who is doing the hounding. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

DGG I think that's an eminently reasonable suggestion. Needless to say I strongly disagree with Crossroads ^-talk-'s contention Noteduck (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Springe is not hounding, Noteduck is. Taken a close/careful look at even the material within this thread give a pretty good idea of what is and isn't happening in both directions. Interaction bans would be complicated given that they overlap on articles. I think that a warning to noteduck is the best, most appropriate and most-supported-here solution. North8000 (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

North8000 There is no evidence that Noteduck's comments in this discussion constitute hounding. –dlthewave ☎ 14:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That not the statement that I made and something that explicit/categorical from just ANI posts would be an overreach that I didn't say and thus a straw man. What I did mean by what I did say is that IMO Springee's posts here show a focus on just getting relief from the hounding while Noteduck's are focused on deprecating Springee in general. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

But we are not here to judge people or to right wrongs. We are here to prevent further disputes. Sometimes this does mean focussing on sanctioning one particular individual whose behavior is outrageous and likely to lead to future disputes with other people also, but in most interpersonal conflicts, including this one, the simplest way is to separate the parties. We don't use it enough. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. We are not here to prevent further disputes. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Preventing disputes is neither possible nor desirable when one is building an encyclopedia. The problem here isn't "there's a dispute," it's much deeper than that. To simply say that there's a dispute, thus the two disputing editors cannot talk to each other, which will end the dispute... is not going to help us achieve our goal of building an encyclopedia. Levivich 01:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

IMHO letting one editor (Springee) be targeted is the type of thing which harms the overall mission, hence the hounding guidance. And IMHO having them subject to a "remedy" that could turn into a minefield of further such targeting (including by others) when they have taking the polite and high road is also the type of thing that hurts our mission. This vs. a mild warning for Noteduck which I think is likely to resolve the situation. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Red King 0905

Red King 0905 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Adding hundreds of misspelled or incorrectly capitalized short descriptions:

• [300] -"French General"...should be "French general".
• [301] - "French cavalry Commnder"...should be "French cavalry commander".
• [302] - "18th century Battle fought between French Army and Russo-Austro Army".
• [303] - "Anglo-Irish Soldier and Politician".
• [304] - "First defeat of Arthur Wellesley and A major Siege fought during the Peninsular War".

Numerous talk page warnings, but no response.

A previous ANI report about Red King 0905 was made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069#Rapid bot (or meat-bot)-like edits by relatively new user.

I recently reported User:Bachovan to ANI here for similar "short descriptions" edits. Both editors have also added a short description to the infrequently visited Jean-Étienne Championnet. See [305] and [306]. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The phrase Rapid bot (or meat-bot)-like edits is going to send our Dash Police completely round the bend. EEng 11:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Hands up everyone who thinks that WP:SHORTDESC is a really really useful idea which adds value to the encyclopaedia. Narky Blert (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Unlike the Latin alphabet, the script has no concept of letter case" Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this discussion but, having stumbled across the above and wondered "script???", I followed the piped wikilink above to Devanagari, I don't see what the lack of case differences in that writing system has to do with this and I'm not really consumed with curiosity about that (perhaps it ought to be obvious to me), but I thought I would mention it in case others were wondering. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yet another android app editor we can't communicate with. Levivich 15:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Why do we have an app that doesn't allow the user to fully use the site? Heck, considering I can edit on my phone using the desktop mode, why do we have the app at all? This strikes me as analogous to allowing a Big Wheel tricycle on the interstate highways. It's not fit for the task and just causes problems for everybody else. --Khajidha (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • At the risk of answering a rhetorical question, page watchers may be interested to know that there is, in fact, an answer to this: it's because the WMF did a study and found that mobile app editors, despite not (really) being able to communicate, aren't reverted at a higher rate than other editors. Therefore, the WMF concluded, communication is not really required, so, they allow the apps to exist even though the apps' communication features don't fully function. See Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 4#What we've got here is failure to communicate (some mobile editors you just can't reach) for more details (and all the phab tickets linked therein). This is an issue in the trustee elections, see Question #47 and candidates' responses here, and I've been asking WMF staff for some info about this and other budget considerations here. Levivich 16:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
      • That makes no sense. "We don't need to talk to them any more than we do other people, so let's make it harder to talk to them" is not a sensible response. If mobile app editors are reverted at the same rate as other editors, they would still seem to need the same level of communication as other editors. --Khajidha (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

        Out of curiosity who's responsible for developing the app? This really seems like something they should have addressed by now—blindlynx (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

        Excellent question, one I've been trying to figure out myself. It's the Product Department, but I'm not sure how much resources they're spending on it (in terms of people/money) or whether the people and $ are enough or not enough (I assume, based on the output, that it's not enough). I don't know how much resources we've put into the app in the past, or how much resources we're planning to put into the app this year. Ultimately, these decisions are made by WMF staff who report to the WMF CEO who is chosen by WMF trustees. So that's why I've been asking the questions in the above links at meta... and it'd be great if people who were similarly curious would join the conversation over there, so it's not just me and a few other editors who are pestering the WMF for more info :-) Levivich 16:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

SimsWikiaLover19

I'm almost certain that SimsWikiaLover19 is a sockpuppet of a long term abuser. I mean what are the odds of someone having "Sims", "Wikia", "Lover", and "19" in their name and randomly choose to leave a message on my talk page of all the user's talk pages they could have chosen? While I do need to assume good faith, I feel that the odds of this user being completely innocent are very small. Especially given that I've already had a couple of sockpuppets pester me on my talk page in the past few days. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 22:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

C.Syde65 I was going to suggest starting a case @WP:SPI, but there really isn't much evidence to link the account with any editor whom you suspect to be the master. SimsWikiaLover19 has only made one edit, and their filter log is empty. Jerm (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, though they still seem very suspicious. Since they clearly know that I'm active on The Sims Wiki and on Fandom. And they picked the number "19" which was the number that a longterm abuser from 2014-15 used. While that particular user hasn't been active to my knowledge since 2016, I am almost certain that this user drew inspiration from the user from 2014-15 when choosing their username. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bucktony? User C.Syde10 (talk · contribs) created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/C.Syde65, which was previously created by a known sock of Bucktony in 2017. And Bucktony also vandalized in the The Sims topic area. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding maintenance template; refusing to discuss the item tagged. User Andrzejbanas.

• Quique (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cambial Yellowing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On the article Quique (album), following several edits to repeatedly try to completely blank the "genre" parameter in the infobox 1 2 3, User:Andrzejbanas tagged the parameter for discussion on 28 June. They said they want to make changes to it. Since that time, on article talk they have simply avoided or outright refused to discuss the issue they tagged. I have reminded them of the purpose of cleanup templates multiple times. I have been trying to elicit from them some discussion of the changes they want to make to this small infobox list for 3 weeks. But despite repeatedly reinserting the template, they refuse any discussion of the item they tagged. I have pointed the editor to the relevant WP:CLEANUPTAG and WP:NODISCLAIMERS. We are now 3 weeks since they added the tag, and despite responding to messages, every attempt to engage in discussion of the issue they have tagged is met with refusal or evasion. Diffs:

Editor posted a wall of text 3 weeks ago which did not contain a proposed change to the infobox.

I proposed one from Andrzejbanas’ summary. They indicated no opposition, but reverted the change anyway.

I asked what the editor found problematic to the changes to the infobox. They ignore the question, talk about the article body.

I ask again what change they wish to see to the infobox - that they tagged. They say they do have a proposed change, but refuse to share it.

I ask again what genres they wish to change. They continue editing but ignore the discussion, so I ask for their proposal and point out the purpose of the tag. They claim they are discussing it (while also claiming they don't know what "it" is, despite their repeatedly tagging the infobox parameter).

I ask them again to discuss the issue that they tagged. They refuse. Every attempt to point out this reality denial (claiming "I am discussing it", but then refusing to engage in discussion) is met with uncivility templates on talk and little else. Andrzejbans also claims the problem arises because they haven't replied in about 3 days, despite me being very explicit in three preceding messages that the issue is their refusal to discuss the aspect that they tagged for discussion (not a slow response on talk).

To be clear, I think the infobox is fine as it is. But as I've made clear to the editor, I'm perfectly open to discussing and implementing a change (I've even suggested one for them from their summary of some sources they selected). This editor seems to want to keep the cleanup tag on the article indefinitely, and avoid discussing what they've tagged – despite finding time to respond to messages with evasion or outright refusal to discuss it. I will appreciate a reminder to the user that maintenance templates are not there as semi-permanent features of the page, nor as a "badge of shame", and that after tagging an aspect of the page At the very least, tagging editors must be willing to follow through with substantive discussion. Cambial foliage❧ 21:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Just as as a heads up, i've stated with this same editor to not remove the tag, as we have not reached a conclusion. They have forbid from editing their talk page and after posting an exhausting research on the topic, i was wiped out and needed a break before re-organizing the information. This was made clear on that talk page. They have continously removed the tag and when i asked what rule I was breaking, was never given a straight answer. To user is not following WP:CIVIL and has removed maintenance tags over 4 times in over a manner of days. I'm feeling reletiveily bullied and genre-warrior'd over here and it's not encouraging me to get to work faster with someone being as unco-operative as this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Further to the record, i've reached out to several wikiprojects to get more of a consensus with this article (WP:Alternative music, WP:Electronic music, and WP:Albums) to get more people. Prior to this user coming in, the genre was left blank and passed its GA status. I've attempted to take this article seriously and follow the rules. Outisde not running within this users patience, I don't know what I've really done wrong. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

As half-expected, this editor continues to simply make things up to fit their narrative. It's true that we have not reached a conclusion – because the editor refuses to discuss any change to the item they tagged. When on article talk they asked "what rule" this was contrary to, the answer was given with a link to the relevant content guideline. They didn't respond directly, but responded on their own talk with I'm specifically asking you to point out the wiki rule. Which one is it?. Contrary to Andrzejbanas' claim, the infobox was stable for 10 weeks prior to their moves to blank the parameter, and I hadn't edited the page in roughly a year. Cambial foliage❧ 23:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You say nobody is trying to rush me, but then you remove templates and say I haven't replied in various times (three days, etc.). You don't ask the status of things or what's happening, you just remove it. And also, before that the article was stable for years and passed its GA reiview with no genres in the lead. And you didn't say what part of WP:NODISCLAIMERS i'm breaking here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

More making things up. It was you who mentioned three days, not me. The lack of discussion from you that I am talking about is over a period of three weeks, as I've been very clear about several times over. I've explained to you multiple times (diffed above) the problem with misusing maintenance templates. You might also look at the relevant WP:TM/DISP. Cambial foliage❧ 23:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There may still time for both of you to promise to stop warring, to avoid enforcement of the edit warring policy. None of the recent reverts is exempt from consequences under WP:3RRNO. This is a classic long term edit war. A common response is to block both parties. Between the two of you we are up to about 14 reverts so far. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Cambial Yellowing I just don't understand why you haven't considered pinging the other editors who tried to add genres (and were reverted) on the article's talk page? Wouldn't that have established consensus more easily? JBchrch talk 00:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston – A fair comment. I commit to stop edit warring immediately over the inclusion of this template. When a dispute arises, with or without a dispute template, it is expected that editors discuss the issue. This dispute is occasioned by Andrzejbanas' stated desire to alter the infobox. Here are the occasions on which I have tried to carry out this discussion with them: [307][308][309][310][311][312][313][314]. They have not entered into any discussion, and several times simply refused to.

User:JBchrch I pinged the most recent editor, I think. I don't wish to be accused of (or in fact to be) canvassing. Cambial foliage❧ 00:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not canvasing if you are just asking people to weigh in. You don't have to ask them to side with you, you just ask for requested comments, like I did when I asked on the WikiProjects. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

No, Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions is considered an inappropriate form of canvassing. I'm also perfectly fine with the status quo. Happy to discuss changes (and very open to them, as demonstrated). Andrzejbanas is also free to use the methods available to them to gather input. Leaving dispute templates on the page long-term and refusing to discuss the issue tagged is not one of those. Cambial foliage❧ 00:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to be corrected if the following is not true: I don't think it would be votestacking/canvassing if you notified all the editors who had try to change the genres section, even if their contributions seem to only go in one way. What would not be acceptable, hypothetically, is to cherrypick the editors based on their perceived opinion. On the other issues, I think you are both to blame, Andrzejbanas for displaying a mild WP:OWN attitude and you for losing your temper somewhat. JBchrch talk 09:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas continues to edit war. No sign of discussion of the issue they tagged. Cambial foliage❧ 11:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas blocked from that page for a week. Easier to discuss. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why this happened as I had just responded right here to why I wanted to add discussion. Cambial Yellowing is false in stating I have not made discussion, and I'm actually reverting what they have removed several times and have yet to fully explain why removing a template for discussion was wrong. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yet once again your comment contained no mention of what your dispute is, what the problem you have with the infobox is, or what changes would resolve the problem. Instead you falsely state there is an ongoing discussion. Despite saying in the preceding sentence that It's not that I want to discuss anything per se. The claim that Cambial Yellowing is false in stating I have not made discussion is already discredited by the diffs above. Cambial foliage❧ 13:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to state that you and I going back forth is discussion. If not, what is it? Simple edit history shows we have been going back and forth each day. Thoughts @CambridgeBayWeather: ?Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the title of this section you'll note it says "refusing to discuss the item tagged". The problem is a lack of discussion of the supposed issue you have tagged, not your stream of messages refusing to discuss it. A continual refusal to on your part to discuss what you tagged is not a discussion. This has already been gone over in detail. Cambial foliage❧ 13:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I find that incredibly vague, i've created several points of discussion. I feel like your twisting the terms around. Regardless, removal of the template was wrong as there hasn't bene a solution to the problem. If the problem was with the tag, propose another one that suits the situation, if the problem was with my lack of discussion, you could easily ping or ask me whats up on my talk page (and you've asked me a dozen times that's the discussion, and i've replied and just because you are personally not satisified, i'm not sure what you are expecting. I've given my response. ) Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You well know that I gave you more than ample warning on your talk page,[315][316] and a detailed explanation of the problem with your lack of discussion of what you've tagged.[317] You also know I pinged you on two occasions before posting here, asking to know what your dispute or desired change is. Your response each time was to avoid any mention of what change you want, saying "I am discussing it" and then "I'll get to it". Cambial foliage❧ 14:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You are taking my statements out of context. I'm discussing with you, i have not provided my alternative solution. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, you seem to be stonewalling. Either provide your "alternative solution," or drop the matter entirely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have had trouble dealing with the editor which is not exactly encouraging me to move forward. They've even just told me after a month that if I did write up my proposal, they were not interested in it as a solution. It's easy to burn-out on this site, and this is a good example of it @HandThatFeeds: Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

A diff would make this more believable, but as I’ve written nothing close to this fabricated claim you'll not be able to provide one. It’s looking less and less like you’re here to build Wikipedia. Cambial foliage❧ 22:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this Andrz is just here to give anyone a hard time even if they provide sources. I'm surprise he hasn't been blocked on pretty much every article. If a source doesn't fit his narrative, he'll just keep giving normal users a hard time no matter how good a source is. 47.147.70.139 (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I've added a suggestion on the article talk page to get this discussion back on track, as it appears to be going nowhere, and consuming huge amounts of text in doing so.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Apparent CIR/vandalism issue with new user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:MrAfternoon has made a total of 32 edits, most of them reverted. Today I reverted an edit they made on Bob Kerrey's BLP falsely stating that he was Mayor of New York City. They've been warned about unconstructive edits several times on their talk-page. What convinced me to bring the issue here was when I saw that they'd copied Mitt Romney's BLP to their user-page. NightHeron (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The user page was an unattributed copy of Mitt Romney. Therefore I've deleted it as a copyright violation. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed by NinjaRobotPirate. We're done here. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I came across a user with a copy of Mitt Romney's article on their userpage recently, but it wasn't this guy. What's going on? Girth Summit _(blether) 18:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Found it - see the deleted versions of DragoWinsInRussianRockyIV. Some weird overlap in editing George W. Romney too. I've blocked, will raise an SPI to record and see if there are any other sleepers. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal Attacks by user:TheLionHasSeen

The editor has repeatedly made personal attacks, including statements to the effect that I should be banned. All the edits I have made have been in good faith but the user has assigned hostile motives to my edits. Talk:State_church_of_the_Roman_Empire DeusImperator (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, in my defense, I agreed to collaborate peacefully, with mediation from another more experienced Wikipedian, per the talk page listed. Nowhere did I state you deserve to be banned, but that it appeared to be WP:AGENDA pushing, which has been subject to prerequisites for being blocked. Banning, however, is the most extreme of measures Wikipedia takes, and that means something drastic. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocking agenda pushers and then calling me an agenda pusher??? What agenda is that supposed to be? You accused me of bias, but where is that bias even evident? Your immediate accuse me of bad faith edits when I stated in the edits that I merely brought the article in conformity with the cited work. Also, it is evident from the discussion that you have hostility to Catholics editing demonstrated by your statement I was greatly alarmed as they revoked the long-standing text stating "which recognized Nicene Christianity as the Roman Empire's state religion", for "which recognized Catholicism..."; those contributions were aggressively reverted, the same for Edict of Thessalonica, as upon investigation of the contributor, they appeared to be a Roman Catholic.. DeusImperator (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

At this rate, I have no further response toward you. I do not have the ability to block anyone; I merely assisted in doing so for others who pushed agendas on Horn of Africa-related articles, per example. I did not verbatim state you were pushing an agenda, rather implied (or have attempted to imply, judge however you will) your actions constitute a possibility of it. How can I have hostility, when I am Catholic by the way? I may not be a Traditionalist Catholic, but I am Catholic. Also, bear in mind there's a thing called conflict of interest. Good day. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

DeusImperator, I’m no sysop but if TheLionHasSeen, called you “biased” or an “agenda pusher” it generally would fall under casting aspersions than personal attacks, I do not see anything here so egregious that it would rise or be classified as a personal attack. Celestina007 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Where is anything in my edits which can be construed as pushing an agenda? Where? What is the evidence for making such a claim? What actions can be construed as evidence of this possibility? Anyone can claim to be anything on the internet. if you claim to be "catholic" is there not a conflict of internet on your own part? Given that you are editing pages that are related to Orthodoxy are you, yourself, not in a conflict of interest? What exactly is the evidence for your claim of agenda pushing? DeusImperator (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

This is quite hilarious now; you continue to have arguments pertaining to the defense of Roman Catholicism alone according to your contributions, regardless of the faith given; some, apparently, have also been through apparent insults and "ALL CAPS". Pertaining to pages relating to Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy, if there was a conflict of interest my contributions would have been reverted and cast aside ages ago. Several administrators and seasoned Wikipedians assist me in contributing to Wikipedia the proper way. I have stated in the talk page for that state church, a balanced approach must be presented without the jargon from the East (Constantinople) and West (Rome). Your argument is poor, and I refuse to continue going in a merry-go-round with you; consider yourself ignored until an administrator assists. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"This is quite hilarious now; you continue to have arguments pertaining to the defense of Roman Catholicism alone according to your contributions." Where is any evidence to make this claim? My most recent edit, which you attempted to overturn, was the inclusion of Oriental Orthodoxy and the Churches of the East. DeusImperator (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

To the Admins, this editor has repeatedly accused me of pushing an agenda, conflict of interest, and bias, without any demonstratable evidence of such and continues to do so as evidenced in this exchange. DeusImperator (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Any recently active administrators, please intervene. They will not stop here, nor on the talk page for State church of the Roman Empire. I gave them warning I am ignoring them, and I continue to be responded to and directed toward after verbatim telling them twice on that talk page. Nihonjoe, Liz, Paul Erik, any recently active administrator; I have grown irate at this moment. They do not persist to stop even when asked to be left alone. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

the only harassment here has been from that editor. The only time I edit is when I am researching for my own book research a subject and find a glaring error in an article. For my own book research, I try to find the cited source in the articles and read the cited material. It seems that I have stepped on the editor's toes editing pages that are of interest to the Orthodox and it appears the user is in fact Orthodox from the edit history of the user and appears to push an Orthodox perspective. Hence the reversions of my edits. Perhaps, it was the reason the edits of inclusion 'rivals' to the Orthodox such as the Oriental Orthodox and Churches of the East were reverted by him. DeusImperator (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Catchpoke

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Broken off from another section

I am unsure if this is relevant, but user:Firejuggler86 made a revert clearly in retaliation of my comment here. Catchpoke (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

These edits by Catchpoke were recently discussed at [318] There's a lot of IDHT involved in bringing it up here. Geogene (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

My intent is not to bring up my behavior; my intent is to note user:Firejuggler86's behavior. Catchpoke (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:BOOMERANG. EEng 00:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Since Catchpoke had the poor judgment to inject himself into ANI, I think it's time to find out whether they can show they understand the concerns expressed by other editors at the discussion linked by Geogene. If not, I think a very simply topic ban is in order: Catchpoke is not to make any edit in any way involving the word "etymology" (or its variants: "etymological", "etymologically", etc.), nor any edit related to word or phrase meanings, denotations, connotations, implications, intimations, or origins, broadly construed. EEng 00:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Pedantry against consensus is behavior that needs to be nipped in the bud. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support I very much support EEng's suggestion. Catchpoke is on some sort of campaign, based on the sort of "faux precision" typical of non-native speakers, to replace anything about the origin of a name, expression, or anything else; of course "etymology" is a good word, but it has specific connotations of the lexical origin of a word through different languages. Much worse, Catchpoke is edit-warring against the opposing consensus, and engaging in other non-cooperative behavious like user talk page blanking. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I had intended that we observe the ritual waiting period, during which Catchpoke could express some mea culpa, before the tar-and-feathering got underway. EEng 09:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  But the tar will be cold by then. Levivich 12:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  And let me guess: we're out of propane. EEng 21:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  Been working late, used lots of gas lighting. Levivich 22:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich, I mean it when I say that your wit is close on to Wildean. EEng 06:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  "Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation." Levivich 13:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Great quote! I'm going to add it to my user page! EEng 14:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  hypocritesCatchpoke (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I've stopped making section name changes. I've used MOS:SECTIONSTYLE and MOS:NOBACKREF as edit summaries at times which I felt were appropriate. I disagree with user:Imaginatorium's definition of etymology. I consider it to cover all nouns and feel it is the appropriate word to use instead of "Origin of the term" or "Origin of the name". If people disagree, I am willing to reengage at [319]. Catchpoke (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  A little late for that; at this point you'll need to reeengage right here. Let's start with I consider it to cover all nouns and feel it is the appropriate word to use instead of "Origin of the term" or "Origin of the name". Do you recognize that a half-dozen experienced editors have told you that your campaign is inappropriate and disruptive, that at this point it does not matter what you think, and that if you do it again you're going to be blocked? Yes or no? EEng 20:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong and this is also wrong. I will in engage right here. All of the support votes right now are involved editors. I posted a request for an outside opinion at [320]. User:Kwamikagami opines that my behavior is pedantic even when he, User:Veverve, and User:Bermicourt all agree that "etymology" is correct. If you look at WP:RM, article titles are debated for accuracy's sake. A section's title is a "subarticle". Are you saying people who volunteer there are being pedantic? Because if you are, that would be hypocritical. This isn't pedantic, it's a matter of accuracy. "A section headed ==Origin of the term==, in the article Silver Age of Comic Books, does not "redundantly refer back to the subject of the article", as SECTIONSTYLE warns against, because the subject of that article is the Silver Age of Comic Books, not the phrase Silver Age of Comic Books. Now cut it out.": understood.Catchpoke (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not agree that 'etymology' is correct. At best it would seem to be pushing it. Words mean what they're used to mean, and AFAICT 'etymology' is not used for this meaning. I might change my mind if you were to provide evidence that the word "etymology" is commonly used for the history of proper names that are transparent phrases. (As far as I can see, you haven't provided any evidence. Correct me if I missed something.) But your claim that "etymology" should be used because it's "correct" is specious even if it is correct: "the origin of the name" is *also* correct. So this wouldn't be a matter of correcting an error, but of a stylistic preference. Even if 'etymology' is used as you claim it is, I suspect that most readers will find "the origin of the name" to be a more legible way of presenting the article. — kwami (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You are being pedantic. Gaslighting linked above uses "etymology". Both uses are correct. "Etymology" is correct and is a style issue. This should be discussed on WP:MOS so that we can standardize section names. Sorry for the trouble I've caused.Catchpoke (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Despite my fundamentally vicious and unforgiving nature, I'm actually feeling a bit sorry for you because I can see that you're really trying to contribute and don't get at all why this is happening. I earnestly hope you can find other areas ways to contribute to the project, and a year from now you'll understand what we've failed to make you understand over these past few days. I mean it when I say: good luck. EEng 04:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Propose three month restriction to articles containing the word entomology if consensus be reached. Otherwise...

— Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 17:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's where I either wait three days then say <sound of crickets>, or I point out that the entomology article opens with an etymology – Entomology (from Ancient Greek ἔντομον (entomon) 'insect', and -λογία (-logia) 'study of') – so I fear we'd be right back in the same boat. EEng 20:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, then, my final suggestion is eschatology. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 05:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

When hell freezes over. EEng 21:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It did for Usenet fora, leaving a frozen lake of spam. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 04:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I make very similar edits for very similar reasons, and can use all the help I can get. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support The user gets questioned about their editing and pretty much says, "No, you're wrong!" [321] [322] [323] [324] Your competence is required here. – The Grid (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support (involved, as I was the first to object to these edits). Catchpoke's reactions throughouit, including here, show he still thinks he was entirely correct, despite a growing pile of editors disagreeing. A topic ban is in order. Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately, it seems obvious that being "correct" will prevent this editor from recognizing consensus. As such, I think a narrow sanction like the one proposed is necessary. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  The more entirely correct editors are disenfranchised from the consensus-building community, the less correctly consensus will turn out, you know. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

To paraphrase an aphorism, consensus is the worst possible way to build an encyclopedia, with the exception of all the other possibilities. Both approaches here seem reasonable to me, so I will go with consensus, and those who at least pay some sort of attention thereto. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Aye, for now, they may. But I don't need to tell you a universal united union of uniformity and unapartment is on the horizon. We all see it coming already, together. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Unapartment doesn't appear to be a word, which seems a shame, actually. EEng 18:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hence my edit summary. Literally, deal with it. You, the reader! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I remain unable to digest your Inedible post. EEng 04:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Support. Actually Catchpoke has misunderstood me in suggesting I unequivocally support his view. What I said (at Talk:Weser Renaissance was that "I'm inclined to agree given the definition of the etymology of a word (and surely by extension, a phrase) is 'its origin and development throughout history'". However, that was only an initial tentative conclusion prior to hearing the other side of the argument from the other editor involved (Johnbod as it happens). I'm more than happy to go with the consensus and I also agree that, unfortunately, the sanction proposed is needed in view of Catchpoke's apparent reluctance to engage constructively and accept the community consensus. Bermicourt (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support per a pretty stark showing of disruption and inability to accept consensus. With due respect to IndelibleHulk's observations here, having an established consensus-based process here that cannot be simply short-circuited by one party by mere virtue of unwavering obstinance is far more important to "getting it right" across more articles than is the outcome of any one narrow, heavily pedantic debate about the best editorial approach to one descriptive/empirical term. This is clearly a WP:CIR call: editors who cannot WP:DROPTHESTICK in these kinds of circumstances will (almost invariably) consume increasingly an ever-larger proportion of time from the community, relative to the value of work hours implicit in their direct contributions. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from anything related to the topic of etymology broadly construed. I feel this is their best chance to remain on the project. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Enough with the supporting. Can someone just do it now? EEng 04:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I suppose I could have closed this, but I have given my opinion and now cannot. I did not see how long this had been going. Perhaps another admin wants to close this. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Alright then. Next time y'all just ping me on WP:ANI 2.0, OK? Drmies (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Death

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I wanna announce the death of my friend AbhiMukh97 who passed away a week ago due to covid. I figured out he used to edit wikipedia and hence informing. 223.223.136.222 (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

223.223.136.222, I'm sorry to hear about this. If you have evidence of their deceased status, I suggest following the instructions here, and possibly contacting the oversight team. Please accept my condolences, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 07:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peacemaker67's semi-protection of Arthur Blackburn

LTA trollery, move along --Blablubbs (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Peacemaker67 has semi-protected TFA, Arthur Blackburn, after only a couple of instances of silly vandalism, despite being the major contributor and the person who nominated it for Featured status. This contravenes WP:INVOLVED and is a massive overuse of protection, going against the Wiki philosophy of anyone can edit. Please unprotect the page immediately, and I suggest an admonishment for this admin. 188.232.142.69 (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC) I cannot notify Peacemaker67 of this thread as they have also semi protected their talk page. Interesting. 188.232.142.69 (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC) Hyperbole much? It appears to be a reasonable measure, given the silly vandalism [325], is something any reasonable admin would have done, and doesn't contravene involvement.Acroterion (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC) I've blocked the OP for block evasion, given the use of proxies and the vandalism diff noted in my response above. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC) I don't see any issues with the protection of the article in these circumstances (TFA, no content dispute, only protected to end of day, etc etc.), but if it makes anyone who feels slighted feel better, I will take full responsibility for the protection as I 100% agree with it, considering the facts of the case. Daniel (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC) Thanks all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC) I find it very interesting that the IP was blocked for block evasion given that none of the other IPs in this case were blocked. How can it be "block evasion" if there's no block to evade? 180.248.121.10 (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC) Next proxy blocked. Acroterion (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC) Editing an article does not make one involved. The policy sets the bar at "disputes in which they have been involved". It also goes on to say "In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." While I personally would have resorted to RFPP in this case, I can't fault Peacemaker67 for this. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

IP 137.27.65.235

I got some concerns over the behaviour and attitude of the IP editor 137.27.65.235. They seem to be acting aggressive to people reverting or countering their arguments. For example, I commented with a warning in a discussion that their words "Undo revert or i will" was not civil and poor conduct for an editor, and they snapped back with "It wasn't a threatening attitude, yet your "warning" ironically is." I'm concerned they wish to be aggressive in responding to other editors comments, changes to their edits or reversions of their edits, and wish for an admin to check if my concerns are justified. GUtt01 (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

You must notify any users you are discussing about the existence of this discussion; please follow the instructions at the top of this page to do so. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. GUtt01 (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Other concern I have is some of the IP's edit summaries have included him claiming editors are harassing or badgering him. GUtt01 (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Per talk page comments, this is nonsense. Instead of addressing the issue i was accused of a "threatening attitude" with a 'warning' and i defended myself by simply letting GUtt01 know it was his perception but not accurate. For some reason this user is denying Nightbirde doesn't go by her legal name while performing. It was a calm reaction that i would undo the revert since the source clearly states she is Nightbirde. Not sure what the big deal is but it's irritating having to fight for what's right on here sometimes. Thank you for your time. P.s. Please see my discussion/input/comments here: Talk:America's Got Talent (season_16). I appreciate it. 137.27.65.235 (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, another editor started watching a page i edited on after i made legit contributions on Dion. This person can not stop posting messages on my talk page: [326] instead of discussing the sources i used on the article's talk page. That editor also keeps reverting edits [they] have been wrong about (see Dion & Dion DiMucci discography as well as Joe Bonamassa). It's frustrating to come on here and do good work yet be accused of bad attitude/behavior for being right. Please do not assume i'm like others because i'm defending myself. Nightbirde clearly states she goes by that name while performing which she did on the show and has done professionally before the audition. I'm not sure why this is even an issue but i've left the discussion as not to engage in problems just to prove a point. One day i'm sure it will be fixed/corrected. I regret you were offended. I hope you have a great day! 137.27.65.235 (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

P.s. My bad, i guess i should have used the word 'can' instead of 'will' (undo revert or i can) but interestingly i noticed remarks on edit summaries towards IPs that could be considered hostile/attacking in an effort to get them blocked. I apologized to the editors involved for seeming upset at them for reverting or ignoring my input. However, in my defense, it was well over 5 days before i even replied to your 'warning' that did not address the problem. That's hardly "snapped back" and i also took a long break before i was bombarded with talk page accusations immediately after i resumed editing regarding your concern about another editor. People shouldn't read emotions in text nor take it personal. I did not use caps or bad language. This seems to be over based on your last talk page comment about updating it later. Take care! 137.27.65.235 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

An IP cames along to the Dion article and demonstrated WP:SPA behaviour. I investigated to see how deep it went. It was easy to see that the editor was primarily focused on Joe Bonamassa and the subject's record labels at this time. I started with a bit of clean-up including expanding bare references: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Bonamassa&type=revision&diff=1033030296&oldid=1032397339 . The anon came back made two corrections, without edit summary, and I made another correction. More good edits from the anon, etc. The problems came starting with this series of edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Bonamassa&type=revision&diff=1034990881&oldid=1034813649 where we have a primary source supporting claims. I reverted, with explanation and placed a non-templated final warning on anon's page. We then get into the aggressive behaviour from the anon that @GUtt01: mentioned. The main issue is the poor sourcing and aggressive response. I am not sure that this outweighs the somewhat WP:FANCRUFTy but otherwise good addition the anon makes, but WP:CIVIL might need to be explained. Also, the recent focus on Bonamassa's record label may need to be explored. It's not clear if this is simply fandom or if it's paid editing. I have no proof either way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Word of advice - even though I can see that things between you and the IP were not great, you have nearly let that dispute on editing on Joe Bonamassa become an edit war. Considering your past history, you might what to discuss the issues you have with the IP on the talk page, and point out why you did what you did and see what they have to say. Editing disputes on an article aren't a welcome matter, especially if you let emotions get the better of you. Take a breather, cool off, and come back with a clearer head to discuss things peacefully with the party you have the dispute with. GUtt01 (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to address the anon's behaviour issues first and, as I was still on another computer trying to get some processes at work to complete, so I was making shortcuts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

So because i added a record label that produced Dion's notable record which wasn't added to the article yet, i'm a paid editor or fan? Does this only apply to IPs but not others who add to articles such as the AGT program which this issue was initially about? Your interpretation of my behavior is not fact. I resent you thinking i'm behaving uncivil. All you had to do was rework the sentence as you did several minutes ago then there wouldn't have been a problem. The point is, the two artists are on the KTBA label. Don't like all the sources? No problem, remove them. This could have been prevented if you didn't display such mad revert habits as evidenced by multiple blocks. It is what it is. I'll avoid the AGT and Bonamassa article now that you have decided to follow/watch it. It's not worth the stress/headache. At least i backed off. Please take GUtt01's advice and do the same in the future to avoid conflicts such as this. I'm not trying to get my way. I yielded to GUtt01. Sometimes pride should be avoided. Thanks for conceding by accepting my contribution even if it needed to be tweaked. Enjoy your weekend! 137.27.65.235 (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

P.s. I think this started because i updated Dion's page due to "poorly written content" which Walter may have taken personally without knowing who did it in the past. This is hardly uncivil/aggressive behavior: curprev 05:50, 7 July 2021‎ 137.27.65.235 talk‎ 41,388 bytes +1‎ →‎Recent work and blues success: 2000–present: thanks for ref fix undo 137.27.65.235 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Update: After trying to "bury the hatchet" hours ago, i come on to find that Walter has to continue to pester me and accuse me of being connected to Bonamassa because i edited a blues article unrelated to him but similar to his record label name. He has pushed me away. It's evident i have to use another IP or create an account to avoid this toxic behavior. I'm not sure why he gets so many chances and hasn't been blocked indefinitely. This has caused me to be agitated with other editors such as on the AGT article which this ANI was started about. I may or may not edit using this IP from time-to-time but i will avoid their articles. Here are the remarks: [327]. 137.27.65.235 (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Content dispute with DonFB amounting to personal attack

Talk with DonFB

I'm having extreme difficulty talking with DonFB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) justifying his rewrites/revert over my edits. We have unresolvable conflicts of interest, and just like policy states, the repeated undos is aggravating and stressful. I would like an administrator's opinion, whether his behavior constitutes to personal attack, particularly when he would slyly pick at old wounds, like mentioning the previous ANI incident, or smugly bragging that his edit would remain stable for the period of a page protection. I've reposted this from the administrator's noticeboard.

Recent:

[328]

Archive [Talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings/Archive 2] "brevity". I rest comfortably knowing that my improved version will be stable for the next four days.... :-) DonFB (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC) {ping|DonFB}} 133 KB (14,999 words) - 12:04, July 15, 2021

Shencypeter (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment - this seems to be a content dispute between the two of you. I've asked at WT:AV for others to join in and help find consensus. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Chronic violations of MOS:COLOUR by User:Kannweame7961

I recently encountered Kannweame7961 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) creating a series of articles titled Country Name at major beauty pageants (all of which are linked on {{Countries at major beauty pageants}}, the tables of which violated the colour section of MOS:ACCESS. I discussed these with Firefly and changed Angola at major beauty pageants to a MOS compliant format. I then dropped a note to them at their talkpage (User talk:Kannweame7961#Country Name at major beauty pageants formatting) about the issue in the hope this would solve it. Unfortunately enough they haven't responded and have continued creating these articles, as well as reverting the changes on several of them. While I hoped to avoid having to make this formal the rate at which they are creating these means I can't fix them quickly enough. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Why does this sound familiar? Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure, except that tables violating MOS:COLOUR are probably more common than tables which don't -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The colour choice is a bit yucky (to use a technical term) too ...i am placing a few {{Overcoloured}} guiding notices on top of some of the articles today, hope that is ok. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Canterbury Tail, anyone specific in mind? I'll tell you already that I could not find anything, though I thought I saw a possible candidate in one of the articles. Asartea, thank you for reporting this and bringing this very important issue to this board--it is a good thing if more people start thinking about this. I propose that this post, following previous warnings and concerns, serve as a final warning to User:Kannweame7961, who seems loath to engage in discussion. The next violation of our accessibility guidelines should be met with a block. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I just could have sworn we had a thread in the last year or so on country colours in beauty pageants. Canterbury Tail talk 16:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I don't remember that specific discussion, but I've come across any number of {{overcolored}} violations in things like reality shows, election results and genealogies (a non-exhaustive list) which hurt my eyes (and I have perfect colour vision). They need to be stamped on, very hard indeed, especially for the benefit of readers who don't have perfect colour vision. If I want to see what an explosion in a paint factory looks like, I'll try YouTube. Narky Blert (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Based on Belize at major beauty pageants it seems that Kannweame7961 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has headed the messages and is now creating MOS:COLOUR compliant versions of the tables. Therefore I'd like to propose closing this thread as no action taken, but making it clear to Kannweame7961 that this is a final warning and further violations may be met with a block. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: it would also be appreciated if they could clean up the pages using the old colour scheme. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Look, I know I'm getting to be a broken record on this, but why oh why do we host such pointless compilations as Belize at major beauty pageants, complete with small-type disclaimer reading

  The criteria for the Big Four inclusion is based on specific standards such as the pageants global prominence and prestige approved by worldwide media, the quality and quantity of crowned delegates recognized by international franchisees and pageant aficionados, the winner's post pageant activities; the pageants longevity, consistency, and history; the sincerity of the pageant's specific cause, platform, and advocacy; the overall pre-pageant activities, production quality and global telecast; the enormity of internet traffic; and the extent of popularity amongst pageant fans across the globe.

–? See Category:Nations_at_beauty_pageants. It's just absurd. There seems to be a knot of editors whose hobby is maintaining these endless lists no one looks at (complete with notes about who got "dethroned"), and the rest of us are roped into their battles over table colors and whatnot. I really feel that volunteer time is being wasted in the service of promoting the beauty-pageant industry, much the same way so much editor time has been hijacked for the refereeing of disputes over an elaborate walled garden of in-universe pro-wrestling storytelling. EEng 17:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean if you want to AFD these I won't stop you (I'm personally not convinced of their use either), but as long as we have them we should ensure they remain complaint with our accessibility guidelines. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 17:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

What I want is for pretty much all beauty pageant coverage sunk to the bottom of the sea. EEng 05:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, as usual Eeng, I'm not sure if you are being stylistically hyperbolic or sincere, but let's not try to shoot the moon here when I think your initial comments merit serious consideration: I think you are probably right that these particular 'Country X at Beauty Pageants' articles almost certainly violate WP:NOT along numerous parallel lines of the policy (WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE at the least as well as more basic arguments regarding a very WP:SYNTH-based approach to WP:NOTABILITY. WP:NOT makes it clear that these kinds of bare bones stat tracking pages (which do not features as a WP:NOTABLE topic of independent discussion in WP:RELIABLE, independent and WP:SECONDARY sources) are not appropriate for the encyclopedia, but we would have to come to that conclusion anyway, even if not for that short-hand rule, since the lack of non-superficial detail covered in sources raises problems with meeting the burdens of pillar policies.

So by all means, let's not discount the possibility of dumping these articles in their entirety. With respect to Asartea's observation, we might as well start with the more basic existential questions about the articles before we nit-pick details. If a community discussion holds that we should not have the articles in the first place, it will save a lot of time on protracted style disputes, such as whether the colours being used in these charts are garish--or more to the point of our purposes here, whether they problematically fail to align with standard community consensus (limited as it is) with regard to the pragmatics of colour design. Of course, the answer to both is surely an unqualified "yes--they are and do." It seems like there probably are some dedicated contributors with a lot invested in these articles who will make every effort to oppose this clean-up, earnestly believing these articles make all the sense in the world for Wikipedia, but we've pushed back against these kind of fan culture myopic article sprawl before in recent years, with topics like Dungeons and Dragons and professional wrestling. We can do it again here, if consensus among general non-involved editors suggests it is advisable. But you'll want to host the main discussion in the only appropriate space given the breadth of articles and need for a high level of community engagement: WP:VPP. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

While I'm moderately hostile to the numbing meaninglessness of beauty pageant coverage, what you see above was to a large extent spillover from my very real belief that most pro wrestling coverage should be eliminated, because most of what masquerages as sources is, in fact, in-universe kayfabe, and WP has been hijacked as an extension of that. EEng 22:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to add EEng that I have some sympathy. The creeping "Wikia/Fandom" side to certain corners of Wikipedia has been something I've passed comment on before, but it's not that easy to deal with I suspect without causing a very messy discussion page. I will say that the beauty pagent wikigophers are perhaps less useful to the wider community than, say, the airport destination gophers, so let's try to tackle one fringe editor faction at a time! doktorb _words^deeds 22:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Next time. For now let's just kill all the lawyers. EEng 01:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

EEng, when I grow up, I wanna be a LAWLyer just like you... El_C 00:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Belize at major beauty pageants tagged for deletion. JBchrch talk 01:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

User:PPP001 Will Not Listen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user talk page, User talk:PPP001, has an advance warning that I didn't hear that (because I have cotton in my ears). The talk page says:

You aren't allow to add any discussion without my permission,thank you. PPP001$$ 05:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If anyone want to add ,please inform me. PPP001$$ 14:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If anyone add any discussion without my permission, I will clear the discussion. Thank you PPP001$$ 04:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no indication of how one obtains permission. Although it is a rule that an editor may state that certain editors may not post to their talk page, that has never been meant to mean that an editor can forbid their talk page from being used. (I will notify them of this post, and they will probably erase the notice, which is permitted.)

I became aware of this after they created approximately twelve poorly sourced or unsourced stubs on Malaysian electoral districts in both draft space and article space. I was in the process of declining the drafts, tagging the articles for notability, and reviewing whether to nominate the stubs for deletion, and I noticed the strange talk page. This editor is not here to work on a team. (This is not a case of a mobile editor who does not know that they have a user talk page. This editor knows that they have it, because they have told us to go away.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this a linguistic barrier? Or is it really a case of someone who thinks they can prevent others from posting on their talk? I honestly cannot tell. There are plenty of users who blank their talk pages continuously. I will say, in my experience, that is usually correlated with disruptive or tendentious editing, but I don't think it's against any rule. I would say that this user's statement certainly may serve to suppress speech and warnings against them, which are inherently necessary. And, in that way, it may be a good claim for TE/battlegrounding. I'm honestly puzzled by this one.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been bold about it and just cleared the section. Nobody can reinforce those rules on their talk pages here. Obviously there are exceptions with IBANs, and some people do tell specific editors to stay off their talk pages when conflicts arise, but this is simply not acceptable. Pinging PPP001 so they can see this explanation, too. Patient Zero^talk 00:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:UOWN, users are permitted to remove notices from their talk page, which carry an implicit acknowledgement of receiving the message; the exception to that is the removal of declined block requests from active blocks. I've blocked the user 72 hours for repeatedly redirecting drafts into article space despite those warnings. If the behavior resumes when that block expires, I'd recommend an indef block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you’d be spot on there Ohnoitsjamie - would that apply to not letting anybody post to your user page without permission in the first place? That’s mainly what I took issue with, in all fairness. That, and the issue with drafts, which I wasn’t aware of before. Patient Zero^talk 01:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

No, you can't preemptively forbid other users from, nor require permission for, posting notices on your talk page, provided that the messaging doesn't cross over into harassment.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ohnoitsjamie, I'd like you to reconsider the block. While the user seems to lack some collaborative skills ... in two years and 250+ articles, as far as I can see, they have not produced anything which has been deleted [329]. Given the editor's history, and assuming good faith, I suspect the editor was expressing frustration at having a raft of pieces at AfC not approved (by me) and their talk page filled up with the rejections (and those pieces had been moved to draft space earlier). All their previous work has ultimately passed...and that the articles were then approved at NPP adds to the complexity (albeit they circumvented the AfC process...but I see that as a reflection of their frustration). Yes, there's behaviour there which is not collaborative, but they have not specifically targeted incivility at anyone, and the lack of verification is not an egregious breach ... seems to me further gentle engagement could be applied. Pinging two involved editors Onel5969 Mccapra. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. We’re here to work collaboratively. Refusal to have messages on your talk page, let alone work with other editors, pushing improperly sourced drafts into mainspace and expecting others to do the work of sourcing your creations isn’t working collaboratively. I have no view on what should best be done about it. Mccapra (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The first block is temporary, and they now have a little bit of time to develop some collaborative skills; they could get the time reduced if they acknowledged the reason for the block, etc. Additionally, unilaterally redirecting rejected drafts to article space is disruptive. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, Fair enough and thanks for the quick reply. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• I spent some time going through their article creations, both back in 2019 and this year. I've audited over 50, and not a single one of them has a valid source. 50. You click on the single link, do control F for the article subject, and nothing comes up. This editor appears to latch on to a single reference, which might be valid for one article, and then use it repeatedly. I'm not saying these entities don't exist. Mccapra did some digging and encountered sourcing to show that they do. The issue now is that you have a hundred or so articles without a single valid reference, if the trend my audit found continues throughout them. I'll give a few examples, such as his first article creation, Jalong (state constituency), Rim (state constituency), Lenggeng (state constituency) (2 refs, neither of which refer to it), although some now have permanently dead links, like Aulong (state constituency), Kota (state constituency), Kuala Sepetang (state constituency), Bercham (state constituency), Bukit Naning (state constituency). Take that last one as a perfect example, the ref is about the election in Johor, but the list of election results does not mention Bukit Naning. I don't want to list all the articles, but you just have to click on any in his article creation log. Not sure what to do, but I don't think a block from creating any new articles until they demonstrate that they understand notability and WP:VERIFY is out of line. And then something should be done about those they've already created. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  Onel5969, the editor's behaviour certainly strains one's commitment to assuming good faith... :) Nevertheless, my reading is a mixture of carelessness and stubborness, rather than outright malintent. Yes, it is disruptive and can understand the reason for the block, but as far as I can see they have not mass created hoax articles. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  Goldsztajn, my apologies if I gave the impression that I thought these were not valid article subjects. On the contrary, part of the issue is that they do appear to be valid article subjects, just with no sourcing to meet WP:VERIFY. I had thought my mentioning of Mccapra's research showed that. I'll try to be more specific in the future. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Onel5969: I'm still on wikibreak so won't investigation this further but just as a quick comment, I have not looked into the other referencing problems but you are mistaken about Bukit Naning. A quick check of this ref [330] confirms it is mentioned. Please note that Bukit Naning is a state constituency not a parliamentary one (as per the disambiguation) so you will need to click on state to show it in the ref as it defaults to parliamentary constituencies. An unfortunate but not uncommon problem with fancy sites. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a common problem with referencing since (federal) parliamentary constituencies are more important in Malaysia, so most will show them by default. Referencing could obviously do with improvement and I do not know the general notability requirements we impose for state constituencies in countries with federal election systems, so whether these should be considered automatically notable or what. But from what I've seen I strongly suspect these all did or do exist and you could find primary table/database sources and secondary table/database sources confirming their existence and actually most of the sources they used did or do mention these if you can work out how to navigate the site. I say "did" because some of them might have changed, and notably archive links especially on archive.org may not work properly and so be unable to show content that was there. If the site is in Malay look out for negeri (not negara!) or DUN. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  Nil Einne, thank you. I had not realized that different button at the top of the source. I'm glad that those earlier articles will not need to be looked at. I realized after posting the above, that back in 2019 I must have discovered the same thing, since I reviewed several of them, like Membakut (state constituency), and Klias (state constituency). However, the most recent ones still have the referencing issue, unless I'm misreading those as well. Regarding notability, they will pass WP:GEOLAND, being populated legally recognized places. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oklo Adiga Using Wikipedia For Promotional Purposes

Oklo Adiga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would have taken this to COIN but this doesn’t involve one article but a pattern of creating rather dubious articles. Their Talk page tells the whole story and the aforementioned pattern.

• On the article Da Great

• see this
• see this
• see this
• see this
• On the The article Bayo Ododo
• see this
• see this (second deletion)
• They were warned against paid editing by Spiderone See the warning but apparently didn’t get the message.
• Today they created this article which is both promotional and a possible COI editing. Celestina007 (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that they aren’t here to build an encyclopedia is pretty much overt. Celestina007 (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Coal Press Nation/Archive. This may be yet another WP:PAID sockpuppet specialising in promoting Nigerian musical artists. User:Olakunle Rufai also (example of promotional editing). Citobun (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Definitely worth flagging. Their determination to get Da Great and Bayo Ododo onto Wikipedia is quite remarkable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

User: IP 2a02:ed0:4290:8400:50c5:4f63:d2ef:8f84 (IP fluctuates)

The disruptive editing of this user can be seen in the edit history and talk page of Mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids.

They consistently edit the Vegan/Vegetarian section falsely implying that E471 is vegan. They never change any sources, resulting in the article contradicting its sources.

The user has neglected to discuss their edits after I requested they do so twice.

Their IP address is never constant, making it difficult for me to post on their talk page. I have, however, posted on two of these shifting IP talk pages.

I have reverted their edits six times now and don't know what to do. I'm not experienced on wikipedia and this isn't a particularly high traffic article.

Many thanks for anyone's help here! Hereditorygrass (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hereditorygrass: I semi-protected the article so the IPs will not be able to edit it for some time. Let me know if the problem resumes. It would be better next time to make your post on the article talk page a little more inviting: don't talk about the IP and how you've reverted them. Instead, say that you have reverted the changes because [brief reason here] and invite a response. I checked the VeganCateringForAll.pdf ref and indeed the IP's edits do contradict that. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Editing by IP 121.7.130.157

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP 121.7.130.157 recently began editing on 2 July 2021, a few days after a user called User talk:Garfield 3185 (contributions here) was blocked on 28 June 2021‎. The IP has an obsessive tendency to randomly edit pages of Singaporean politics like Garfield by blanking and removing contents without reason and refusing to use edit summaries despite requests. Similar pages edited include List of TVB dramas in 2020 and List of political parties in Singapore.

The IP is very clearly aware of their talkpage, having tried to revert my notification they should not be editing if they are Garfield, and completely failing to respond to concerns raised on their talkpage thus far.

I have done my best to assume good faith, but the current bout of editing where they broke nearly 10 pages at one go has convinced me that the IP is a net negative to the project, and barring a refusal to either communicate or outright disclaim they are Garfield, should not be allowed to edit any further. Seloloving (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrator Doug Weller has taken the necessary decisive action to block the IP for 3 months. Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict):@Seloloving:, thanks. Our editor interaction analyzer shows clearly that they are the same person.[331] Doug Weller talk 12:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:WikiBullying by User:Aman.kumar.goel and User:Capitals00

I am compelled to report the said users for persistent wikibullying. The policy says: "On Wikipedia, all editors have fair and equal rights to editing all articles, project pages, and all other parts of the system. While some may have more knowledge or familiarity with a topic than others, this does not mean those with less Wikipedia jargon are at a lower level, or not entitled to their point of view."

In my case:

1. User:Aman.kumar.goel has been undoing all my contributions to the pages List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism and List of converts to Islam from Hinduism without even bothering to check the references and sources I added. I was improving both the articles with references and fixed some unreliable sources but next day all my edits were undone. My request in this regard to User:Aman.kumar.goel on his talk page was also unanswered[332].

2. I had to contact the Helpdesk[333] where User:331dot and User:Maproom advised me to discuss this on the article's talk page so I opened a thread on the article's talk page here[334] for discussion.

3. Despite all these efforts User:Aman.kumar.goel kept undoing my contributions without even bothering to look at the references I added (though I used only reliable sources which are being used in other Wikipedia articles). Instead of any explanation, he continued undoing my works repeatedly and threatend me of disabling my editing rights. Didn't pay any heed to the administrator[335] who advised him to discuss rather deleted my own message from my own talk page[336].

4. In the middle of these, suddenly another User:Capitals00 came with a similar warning and false statesments against my edits. I have not interacted with him before and did not even know him. He said I was making own calculations but anyone can verify that I added reliable sources for my every contributions.

Since, my contributions with reliable sources have been undone by them yet they have no interest in discussion so I am forced to report them to get my contribution rights please. --Bringtar (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Bringtar Just FYI you are required to notify any other users you are discussing of the existence of this discussion(see the top of this page for instructions on how to do so). 331dot (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe I am not aware of all the issues here but the question from the Help Desk does remain in that is it insufficient for an individual's statement of their religious conversion as evidence of their religious conversion? 331dot (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

331dot sorry, I am doing that now. Thank you again for all your help. Bringtar (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see "bullying". As asked on your talk page, can you tell us about your earlier accounts? You made your first edit only 2 days ago where you merely cited wikipedia articles as sources along with bunch of unreliable sources, and edit warred pretending to know everything and now you are forum shopping to ANI as you have failed to make sense of your POV. Only socks do this. I am pretty sure that you are plainly following the template of a WP:NOTHERE editor. Ratnahastin(t.c) 09:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ratnahastin I have no earlier accounts. I edited wikipedia in the past without creating any accounts and I did not plan to make regular contributions here but that does not mean I cannot contribute. Also I did not make any edit-war rather tried to discuss it with the other editor who has been edit-warring. Can you please list my unreliable sources because I was the one who replaced the Wikipedia article links with reliable sources. Bringtar (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  You are accusing me of WP:ADMINSHOP but FYI, I contacted the helpdesk first as this was the first place to look for a help when my edits were removed and like I mentioned above, when the other user were reluctant to discuss and gave me block threats then I have to report them here according to WikiBullying policy. --Bringtar (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this is acually a problem - but not from Bringtar. A number of the entries added by Bringtar do appear to have reliable sources, though some I am less sure about. Also, many of the entries added do talk about the subject's conversion from Hinduism in their own article, often with reliable sources. Thus, the behaviour of Aman.kumar.goel and Capitals00 jumping in with a totally unjustified final vandalism warning suggests to me some problematic POV editing from those two editors. Yes, clearly multiple accounts are trying to add that information. However, removing it en masse when some of the entries are clearly correct per the subjects own articles is equally as disruptive. Why not remove any poorly sourced entries, and leave the rest? Advice to Bringtar. Ensure that the sources you use are definitely reliable, and be especially careful if the subjects are living people. Do not add the entries if you are unsure, and you can always ask for advice at WP:RSN. You can also use many of the sources in the subject's own articles to source the entries. Black Kite (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the advise. If you see my discussion threads, I repeatedly asked to point me to the unreliable sources so I can improve with better sources. Anyway, I will use WP:RSN to verify reliability. Thanks again. Bringtar (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I have also seen similar 'consistent unhealthy' pattern from User:Aman.kumar.goel and User:Capitals00 of abusing Wiki processes to bully, some examples below:

User:Aman.kumar.goel

1. Reported me as sock, and I proved for the admin the mistake in blocking that I am not a sock. Strangely, when I was blocked, of all the edits he undid my specific edits of a Hindutva far-right politician article ONLY. For example, this article before[337] and after[338] undoing edits.

2. He 'again' reports me as sock, not even bother doing a basic check. Can understand if he is a beginner like me or if reporting me for the first time. Please check the frivolous claims for 13 July 2021 report[339]. What is amazing is the consistent efforts being spent to bring some irrelevant 'similarity' with years apart pattern of edits as sock. Sock report (meant for catching actual frauds) is abused here by bunching irrelevant accounts frequently, as seen in this report[340]. Commendable if actual fraudulent socks are identified, but this consistent pattern of sock labelling by bunching accounts based on some strange 'similarity' is unhealthy and taking sock report and admins for granted.

3. For the article, [[341]] neither he points which specific entry is problematic nor stops from undoing contributions without talking in that page.

User:Capitals00

1. For the article, [[342]] similarly neither he points which specific entry is problematic nor stops from undoing contributions without talking in the page.

2. In my talk page[343] threatens in the first instance itself 'you should be indeed very careful'. Doesn't respond to my questions.

3. Doesn't clarify and doesn't respond to my second communication in my talk page on this change[344] despite proper sources.

User:Ratnahastin above who mentioned that 'I don't see "bullying"', has recently undone PLENTY of articles (pages of who embraced Islam) of my well researched edits which were inputs to the same List of converts to Islam from Hinduism article without any discussion tantamount to vandalism. For example, here[345] and here[346] as I was trying to tag Category:Converts to Islam from Hinduism for organizing. This is similar to User:Capitals00's undoing for this article[347].

Above are some example, please check the edit history pattern and their communication to mine and other talk pages for more such. In summary, articles like List of converts to Islam from Hinduism and List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism is not allowed to be evolved with User:Aman.kumar.goel, User:Capitals00 and User:Ratnahastin having similar disruptive activities without any beneficial discussion in the talk page of that article. Why they are disrupting together by bullying the contributors, especially when well researched factual entries are updated for these articles? Attempts with well researched sources get undone by ascribing 'sock' labels, threats, etc. with no response at times or no discussion in the respective article's talk page. Based on the nature of articles and edits that get disrupted, shows a far right wing POV by bullying others who want to contribute even well researched information. If they can't point out which specific row/entry is a mistake, and keeps on undoing all entries, what is to be done? Is this the manner, a healthy, open and conducive atmosphere to encourage contribution of topics with such suffocating 'abuse' of wiki admin terms/block threats? Many admins in the past have corrected my flaws as a beginner without ascribing false motives or in a threatening tone in my talk page (like @Toddy1:, @Callanecc:, @Kautilya3:, etc.). But User:Aman.kumar.goel and User:Capitals00 especially are abusing Wiki admin processes (meant for removing actual trolls) with threats, wasting both admin time and the user's time. Am not an expert/senior here on 'all' legal nuances and unaware yet on all rituals to give a sophisticated comment, not sure if any wiki policies/behaviors if the above statements have got touched for conveying the grievance in laymen terms above. Hope, experts get the crux of what I really meant. If anything rude, please let me know, will withdraw that specific statement. Thanks for understanding and co-operating for making a better world. Loveall.human (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing to add that has not been said above - I checked just two of the sources that Aman.kumar.goel claimed were inadequate, and found that both were reliable press articles reporting "<subject> said 'I converted to Christianity ...'". Maproom (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom: since you didn't say which examples you checked, it's impossible to see more. But to state the obvious, you can have The Hindu, BBC, NYT, Reuters, The Globe and Mail all reporting "<subject> said 'I converted to Christianity ...'". If this is all you have, you cannot use this to add anyone to either of those lists especially not living person. Those lists are lists of people who converted from Hinduism. Unless the person said "from Hinduism" or otherwise earlier talked about how they were a follower of Hinduism before conversion, then they are insufficient. Indeed if an editor repeatedly adds living persons to such lists and their sourcing mentions conversion to Christianity (or whatever) but not "from", they should be topic banned from such lists or maybe from BLPs generally. If we have lists which are converts to Christianity or Islam without the from, then yeah probably such sources are sufficient although I'm not sure we should have such lists. Nil Einne (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: For example, when Muhammad Ali or Jermaine Jackson or Cat Stevens embraced Islam, they did not declare in the template, I am going to convert from 'XYZ'. We infer from the upbringing, name, family, reputed sources, interviews etc. There are 'all kinds' of such lists here in Wikipedia, but here only the convert lists from Hinduism are being disrupted from growing. Again, if any 'specific' entry is not well sourced, that can be discussed but as you notice FOR MANY YEARS these two specific articles have been stifled from maturing. Especially within India's Hindu majority setup, as per constitution anyone who is NOT Muslim/Christian/Parsi/Jew is considered (yes, including Buddhists and Sikhs) as Hindu. Even if a Muslim in India gives up his religion and is yet to adopt a new faith can still be considered as Hindu as per constitution. BUT, this list does not have such (i.e. from Sikh or Buddhist family etc.). Loveall.human (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, if you mean a person has to declare himself that he "converted from x to y" then most of the entries in List of converts to Hinduism from Christianity and List of converts to Hinduism from Islam do not support that but still they were included? Bringtar (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bringtar and Loveall.human: ANI is not really the place for extensive discussions on policy issues but I wasn't trying to say you need the person to say "from XYZ". Personally I think we should require self-identification for previous religious identity (which doesn't have to be in the form of "I converted from", it could be "I was" etc), but this isn't the right place to discuss that and I tried to make it clear it wasn't what I was saying. However you do need a source to say what the person's previous religious was or better to specifically say what they converted from. If you have a source simply saying the person was raised as XYZ, I personally don't think that is sufficient but I won't dispute that here.

But you definitely cannot make inferences from where a person lives, their name or even their parent's or families religion. That's always a violation of WP:OR even when BLPs aren't involved. And sorry, a countries constitution or laws are completely irrelevant. Religion is a personal thing, it's not what someone else says. There are BLP reasons for this but even putting that aside, it's simple common sense.

To give an example, in some Muslim countries, it's legally not possible to convert from Islam and a child's religion follows their father. But in practice a small number of Muslims do convert despite the risk and of course some of these go on to raise children in their religion. Outwardly and in the eye's of the country's legal system the child may be Muslim. However if they always rejected Islam, it doesn't make sense to say they (unlike their parents) are a convert from Islam, and it's unlikely they considered themselves as such. The fact they were forced to publicly "follow" and profess Islam doesn't change this. (I would prefer not to single out a religion like this, but in truth while I know some countries e.g. Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia and Freedom of religion in Malaysia where conversion from Islam is not possible, I do not know of any where conversion from some other religion is not possible in the modern world.)

Per WP:Other stuff exists, existing problems are not an excuse to add more problems. Any entries which are a problem in any article need to be fixed with better sources added, or the entries remove if these sources do not exist. I had a look, and it seems to me that Muhammad Ali may be fine. But Yusuf Islam is indeed a problem at List of converts to Islam from Christianity and so I tagged it. I do not see Jermaine Jackson in any list of converts from article, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, appreciate your views and accordingly I have removed many unverified claims from here[348]. Just for your information, my thread here is not about these policies but about the unprofessional behaviors and intimidation by User:Aman.kumar.goel and User:Capitals00. I also see another administrator have reinstated some of my edits here[349] which proves my edits were not disruptive. Bringtar (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Bringtar is an editor whose first edit was 20 July 2021. I am amazed that such a new editor already knows about WP:ANI. Instead of trying to resolve the issues on the article talk page(s) as he/she was advised to, he/she brought a complaint to WP:ANI.

This post by Aman.kumar.goel ^{07:35, 22 July 2021} is a bit strong in that it includes {{uw-biog3}} instead of {{uw-biog1}}, but the message carefully and helpfully explains what Aman.kumar.goel perceived the problem to be: "Your continued violation of WP:BLPCAT, WP:OR and WP:RS on List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism and List of converts to Islam from Hinduism and use of highly unreliable sources. The source should be 100% clear that "x converted from x to x" and if the person is alive then they should admit it themselves." Aman.kumar.goel might not be perfect, but he/she was being helpful. I do not think it was helpful of Aman.kumar.goel to delete this post by Bringtar ^{13:55, 22 July 2021} when Aman.kumar.goel posted a reply on User talk:Bringtar. ^{18:54, 22 July 2021}

Aman.kumar.goel is giving good advice. Bringtar should assume good faith and take the advice that both Aman.kumar.goel and I have given him/her - see Talk:List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism#Which are the BLP violations according to you?. -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Toddy1, I am amazed that you said it because I was trying to resolve it through discussion not Aman.kumar.goel and he repeatedly ignored all my messages on his talk page and on article's talk page. I am a long time supporter of Wikipedia and I frequently use it for information. What is a problem in this? I do not know about ANI, but to get my editing rights, I created this thread as instructed on this page[350] where it clearly states with a link to this board: "If you feel that you are being bullied or another user has threatened you with bodily harm, it is important that you report them immediately to the Incidents page on the Administrator's Noticeboard so the matter can be properly dealt with"

I think you did not check properly because:

1. I contacted Aman.kumar.goel on his talk page to discuss first which is still unanswered[351] when he undid all my edits.

2. I sought help from Help desk and I created the thread for discussion[352] on article's talk page not Aman.kumar.goel and again he removed my edit without discussing it on that thread.

3. Aman.kumar.goel even tried to block me from editing the page but he was advised to discuss[353] but as usual he did not!

4. His only message came with a accusation of "disruptive editing" on my talk page and in that too he removed my own message from my talk page!

Now, would you still say he tried to give "good advice" and I did not try discussing it to resolve it? What would you do if a user continuously removing your all edits and then ignoring your messages? I do not consider a block threat as a good advise. Bringtar (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

He/she pasted the wrong number on the template message ("3" when "1" or "2" would have been better). He/she also carefully wrote out what he/she thought you needed to do, which was a kind and helpful thing to do.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it? He/she didn't discuss on article's talk page or on their own talk page even after advise from an administrator[354]. Their message only came after they reverted my whole edit repeatedly. From when does accusing someone's contributions as "disruptive" have become a "kind" and "helpful" thing? Weren't they obliged to participate in discussion at the very first place when they were removing my edits? Bringtar (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Now, I came to know that I am being reported here[355] so that I can be blocked from editing. I did not know Wikipedia can have these kind of editors who can file a report but cannot discuss to collaborate. Bringtar (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Now, even I am also accused now as 'sock' for interacting with you. Is 'sock' some infection? To consider, this is the 'third' time I am accused as 'sock', with carefully crafted some similar 'behaviors' as evidences. Even if accused 100 times as 'sock' not an issue when there are wise admins to investigate. But, how can this sock reporting be abused so many times like this (which is meant to catch actual fraudulent accounts)? Instead of learning Wiki policies and contributing, one has to spend time in academic wiki rituals back and forth proving that one is not a 'sock' because of this illuminate type frivolous 'sock' pattern (which is challenging to disprove at times, as there are co-incidental shared interests/pages every time when accused). Sock report is a blessing, but let there be an observation on the pattern of bullying/desperation to stifle accounts, like for my case. Effectively for example the List of converts to Islam from Hinduism page has been stuck from evolving for almost 5 years with this bullying.Loveall.human (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Loveall.human: Do not worry. I have had people accuse me of being sockpuppet at WP:SPI. Since I was not a sockpuppet, the accusations were rejected.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1:, Your quoted policy says "Before opening an investigation, you need good reason to suspect sockpuppetry" but in my case it is full of lies and deliberate attempts to block me from editing. If they are making policy based edits then why don't then answer my questions[356]? Bringtar (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course there is good reason. You created the account at 18:00, 13 May 2020.^{Special:Log/Bringtar} But your first edit was 19:46 20 July 2021.^{XTools Bringtar} Since then you have made 98 edits (none deleted).^{XTools Bringtar} That is a lot of edits per day! As a "new" editor, you know about forum shopping, WP:ANI and WP:SPI. This edit^{13:55, 22 July 2021} shows that you know about dredging up past criticism of editors you are in conflict with.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You are now accusing me of forum shopping. I already told you that I opened this thread as per instruction here[357]. You mentioned that WP:SPI policy, not me. I came to know about my report from User:Loveall.human who informed me on their talk page19:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC). My this edit[13:55, 22 July 2021] which was also reverted by Aman.kumar.goel exactly proves my point here. Anyone can go and check their talk page. I found that when I left them a message here[358]. I have been using Wikipedia for a long time and have made minor edits in the past without the need of creating any account but Wikipedia always suggested to create an account because my IP was exposed. You should read what User:Black Kite has mentioned above. Bringtar (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, this case more or less resembles a similar one a couple months ago (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066 § Aman.kumar.goel's conduct). Inappropriate templating check, accusations of apparent policy violations check, no further explanation and no response when their own activities are questioned check. In the previous case, AKG repeatedly removed material which was sourced to unambiguously reliable sources related to the extent of the COVID-19 pandemic in India, with no talk page participation and in the end used original research and unreliable sources themselves when they finally had to participate in one. ProcrastinatingReader pointed out there was inappropriate MEDRS stonewalling involved as well, in general I think their conduct looks like long term tendentious editing which drives away productive users and stonewalls development of articles in the process.

In addition, there's likely some sort of meatpuppetry going on here. I have not seen Capitals00 before but they are pretty much playing the same role AKG's counterpart in the previous report was, who barely had any activity for months before the stonewalling, Capitals00 similarly barely has any activity for months before the stonewalling here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Another ethnic warrior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Chezia dfg (talk · contribs) is not here to edit, but to defend the great truth. He started with deleting whole section in Egyptians 1, without explanation. He then came to Syrians, and this time called it a correction 2. Now, what he insert is the word Arab and Arabian instead of any reference to any other peoples. Hence, he can be characterized as an Arab ethnic warrior. Anyway, I gave him a warning 3, and ever since, he has enjoyed cursing me every now and then. So, this is the list:
1-You are just a fake liar
2-You are a liar, a forged typeface
3- and on my talk page he has: What you are doing is spreading lies and forgery
4- and the best, which he wrote in Arabic and translated by me: ارجع لبلدك وكفاك تزوير وكذب يا بقايا الصليبيين It means: go back to your country and enough forgery and lies you remnants of Crusaders. To give context, this "crusaders" thing is what Islamist Arab nationalists tell the Christians in the Middle East to deny them their historic connection with the land (p.s Im not a Christian).

This guy has already been blocked before, and his talk page is a wall of warnings from other users. No reason for him to stay here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Attar-Aram syria: - you are supposed to inform the editor complained of about this discussion, per the big yellow notice in the edit window. That said, he's clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribut constructively and his short editing career is now over. Mjroots (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 74.88.193.39

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Same editor, still making unconstructive edits after two blocks, most recently on Interstate 287, and not saying a word. Needforspeed888 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat from 45.115.89.36

45.115.89.36 is attempting to alter a direct quote that is referenced on Ramachandra Deva I and after being reverted and warned repeated the action with an edit summary saying "Don't chanr next time otherwise be ready for Legal Action". Notfrompedro (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Notfrompedro: The IP had not been warned about legal threats; I've advised them with a {{uw-legal}} warning. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I was unaware of that template. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Notfrompedro: No problem. And thank you for bringing this IP to the attention of the administrators. If their disruptive editing continues they will wind up blocked, legal threat or no. —C.Fred (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• A second IP made the same edit, so I have semi-protected the article. Leaving this thread open temporarily. —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

User:MfactDr, non engagement on the talk page, disruptive behaviour

Hello, can you look into the behaviour of user User:MfactDr?

• On july 16th i reverted him and mentioned WP:BRD [[359]], and asked him on the talk page to discuss the edits he made [360], since we reached consensus on the talk page and edit summaries not to include incidental claims of what happend in another region(Tigray Region) on Amhara Region article, this is the reference to the (cow incident) reinstated by user.
• The User then ignored the call to discuss on the talk page, and reinstated the incidental claim on july the 17th [361], [362], [363], [364] over 4 edits, so i couldn't revert user. I saw it on the 20th of July and out of good faith asked User:MfactDr again to engage on talk page [365],
• Another user saw it on July 21st what occured on the article and reverted User:MfactDr [366] and pointed him to the talk page to discuss. User:MfactDr then reverted the other user [367] and confirmed that he deliberatly ignored any calls for discussion on the talk page. User:MfactDr has ignored my calls for discussion twice, and the other user once, he ignored the calls for discussion 3 times total. User is also belligerent and accusatory in his edit summaries towards users.

Thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria, You have not engaged in the discuss. You removed war crime committed by Amhara militia. No one understand why you want to remove it. War crime included in the Amhara Region § During Tigray war section. if you are disputing reliability of the source, you are more than welcome to discuss. you deleted the the whole content and source here[368], However I am restored the contents and source here[369].MfactDr (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@MfactDr Everyone can look at the talk page history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amhara_Region and see that MfactDr has contributed zilnch. The same edit i reverted and now mentioned here 3 times [370] clearly shows i said WP: BRD and said come to talk page. I reverted MfactDr because there was a consensus on the talk page, not to include incidental claim(cow incident), and the wordpress source. On my part after discussion with other editors i dropped that, TPLF attacked federal soldiers and that a TPLF official admitted the attack. MfactDr did not contribute to any discussion, after being called 3 times to do so. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

And another article Oromo language just 2+ hours ago when i was posting this, MfactDr overturned all edits made on the article through consensus, not by reverting but through 5. The first 3 edits, [371], [372], [373], (look at the time of the edits), then came in the Notice on his talk page [374], then in an attempt to cover up MfactDr [375], [376]

• See consensus at talkpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oromo_language#Afaan_Oromo_the_use_of_incorrect_source and agreed on [377]
• Also notice how accusatory MfactDr was, and then dissapeared from the discussion, only to overturn all the edits made through consensus, as diffs above has shown. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

And while we are at it we can go further back, and see a history of ignoring talk page discussion on Oromo people article on the subject of Malik Ambar.

• On May 6th i reverted MfactDr [378] and asked him to join talk page discussion, i openend a section there to discuss the source, arguing there was a contemprary source versus the indian times source he used. [379]. The section is still open there, and he hasn't responded not even once https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oromo_people#Malik_Ambar_source.
• On July 16th after two full months, MfactDr reinstated Malik Ambar [380]. Now i want to make it clear, i don't care one bit whether Malik Ambar comes from Maya, Oromo or Outer space, i just wanted to discuss conflicting sources, and MfactDr just ignored the talk page for months and very recently quitely reinstated Malik Ambar. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria, I think you have problem of understanding how Wikipedia work. Still, I don’t understand your problem and accusation. If you believe the contents and sources I have added to article is wrong, let Admin judge!, wait for the response.MfactDr (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

To notify you that I filed a similar ANI report here. Sorry for doubling the effort, but it seems that I was approaching this from a slightly different angle, and didn't know of this report when I started out. LandLing 11:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist: I have moved your thread here, as a subsection. --JBL (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that will do! LandLing 15:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing POV editing by User:MfactDr

This was originally created as a separate complaint, I have moved it here as a subsection. --JBL (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

User:MfactDr created an account in early 2019. Since then he has performed almost 3000 edits on Wikipedia. I think it is fair to say that, judging from his lists of contributions so far, MfactDr only makes edits that either say good things about the Oromo people[381][382][383][384] or that say bad things about other ethnic groups of Ethiopia, particularly the Amhara people[385][386][387]. Of course that in itself is perfectly permissible on Wikipedia, as long as it happens in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. As a fresh editor, MfactDr of course didn't know these rules to begin with, but after being confronted by other editors, he made an effort to learn things like not marking substantial edits as minor, using edit summaries, citing sources, and, over time, only citing reliable sources. Initially, though, this could only be accomplished through a block at a time when the edits were becoming more and more disruptive.

At the same time it cannot be denied that some of the editor's edits are indeed useful,[388][389] as long as they are compatible with his two above-stated goals. I initially had hopes that the overall behavior would improve to a point where MfactDr would grow into a valuable contributor towards the Wikipedia project, once he learned all the rules and could bring himself to apply them, in spite of his strong ethnic nationalist motivation. But these hopes were several times disappointed when MfactDr would engage in edit wars (as on the pages Hachalu Hundessa and Hachalu Hundessa riots in July 2020) and going on editing sprees in which he apparently forgot or ignored all his newly learned skills; he would then spread questionable claims based on unsuitable sources across several pages (as in one case here, here and here). It was increasingly difficult to convince him desisting in these cases.

In January 2021 I was asked by Keith_D to see what could be done on pages that were damaged by an edit war between MfactDr and another user (now blocked), and I took it on me to bring things into what I believed was a reasonable state. At that time I still had hopes for MfactDr's development and defended him against a proposed block (also here. But since then I did more clean-up work after POV edits by MfactDr and therefore had more and more run-ins with MfactDr, where he also became increasingly hostile and belligerent in his language, accusing me of POV editing, being an enemy of his people, and being engaged in edit warring.

His talk-page history is full of warnings by other users (such as here, here, here, here, here, here and here), which he keeps deleting after some time, even being warned about doing this. In general, MfactDr pursues a WP:IDHT approach to receiving policy advice and warnings, as is evident in the recent discussion on sourced information being undue on the Oromia page.

In the last few weeks MfactDr's reverts and disruptive edits without edit summaries have increased, and his recent behavior indicates he is currently not inclined to take steps to improve his behavior. I therefore request that a temporary block is imposed against him, hoping that it will have a similar effect as his first block two years ago, calming him down and reminding him that he needs to follow the rules of Wikipedia in order to stay a long-term contributor.

During the writing of this I noticed that another editor today filed another ANI complaint against MfacDr. As this user has similar issues to those of MfactDr, I thought it worthwhile to continue with this filing, although I know that this is not ideal. LandLing 11:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Repeated Personal Attack by LandLing

Dear Admin,

Allow me to explain what happened between me and the user I have mentioned above. truly speaking user joined Wikipedia 15 years ago , had contributed 2449 edit to wkipedia while I joined Wikipedia 2 years ago I Have made 2949 edit. I Have created several pages and edited improved several page more than user above in useful way. recently LandLing keep personally attack me on several occasion to prevent me from editing

1. user rash to judge me as I edited article without even checked who exactly edited! calling me putting junk all over the pages of Wikipedia, repeatedly" User talk:Landroving Linguist § Regards Minilik Articles

2. user excessively biased toward others language of Ethiopia except Amharic speakers as he introduced 2007 census for other speakers and Amharic speakers data from ethnologue. I was asking him to use same data for all and user attack me personally threats me from editing by saying "Honestly, don't you realize that the stuff you do makes Oromos look ridiculous by its sheer pettiness? Probably not what you want to accomplish. Why can't you reign in your nationalist feelings if they drive you to this kind of actions?" I felt not safe to contribute to Wikipedia and I have Invited User:Eostrix to intervene on here User talk:MfactDr § Languages of Ethiopia and LandLing finally changed the data for all groups language of Ethiopia to ethnlogue after User:Eostrix step in. deny his biased and calling me nationalist, petty ridiculous.

3. user make fun of me by insulting indirectly calling me "ethnic nationalist", "Oromo firebrand" Again on here Talk:Oromia § History Section user biased toward other group except Amharic speakers even removed whole source and content from "war crime" of Amhara Militia here[390]

• user engaged edit war on here [391], [392], [393]

Dear admin, I believe Wikipedia is community website not personal website. I believe Wikipedia has strict rule on personal attack. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans.

I am genuinely don’t know why I am targeted by LandLing Over and over again while I am able to work with number of users not attack me at except LandLing.

LandLing damaged my integrity, values by his remarks comment by attacking me rather than the ideas.

Dear Admin, I am really getting sick because of this user. Please admin, Please stop LandLing from threatening and Verbal abuse again. Thank You MfactDr (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Coming at defense of LandLing, and highlighting MfactDr accusatory behaviour and bias(to the point of scary) against Amharas.

• I have had heated discussions with LandLing on Amhara related articles such as on Talk:Amhara people, to suggest/accuse he is biased towards Amharic speakers as MfactDr did is flat out wrong.
• MfactDr on the other hand no problem reinstating Original research on [394] just because it demonizes an Amhara figure
• MfactDr uncivil behaviour of ignoring talk page discussions and filling the Amhara Region article with events happening in another region, contrary to consensus reached with other editors on Talk:Amhara_Region page, lead me to open this ANI against this user.
• MfactDr hypocrasy about a 2007 census, has reinstated on the Amhara people article [395] while ofcourse having no issue with a updated source on the Oromo people article, updated by the same LandLing [396] & [397] he is accusing.

Summary: MfactDr appear to have a resentment against a specific ethnic group to a point that is unhealthy for any human being and frankly is terrifying, and MfactDr is willing to combat other editors and ignore any discussions to force content he sees fit to that end. Although some terms used by LandLing to describe MfactDr edits is unfortunate, take notice of MfactDr behaviour and sense of (ethnic) victimhood in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oromia#History_Section and the generalization of a ethnic group Amhara people as criminals. No sense of NPOV here. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Non administrative commentary, but I recall reporting them in sockpuppet investigations of Hoaeter for similar behavior? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No, he is definitely not. The two have very different perspectives. LandLing 17:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Requesting admin intervention

Almost three days have passed since DSG filed his complaint against MfactDr, and so far, beyond a helpful clerical intervention by JBL, this case has not received any attention by non-involved people, not to speak of admins. But have a look at the accusations flying around here: DSG accuses MfactDr of persistent disruptive editing,[398] MfactDr assumes that DSG has WP:CIR-issues,[399] I accuse MfactDr of intractable POV editing,[400] and MfactDr states that my ongoing unjustified personal attacks caused emotional distress to his sensitive self, if not outright physical harm.[401] Surely at least one of us, if not two or even all three must have committed serious misconduct and ought to be sanctioned here. I can understand that admins want to avoid a thorny issue that requires digging into deep and year-old mud with many diffs. But something needs to happen here.

In a more serious vein, the backdrop to these behavioral issues is the current conflict in much of the Horn of Arica, which is currently tearing the country of Ethiopia apart. Wikipedia created a discretionary sanctions notice that, as an example, admin Doug Weller recently placed in Mfactor's talk page[402] - a message he already received in January 2021 from Boud and deleted in April,[403] believing that it did not apply to the likes of him. The intention of the DSN is to keep the animosities that currently run between ethnic nationalists of the various groups, particularly the Amhara people, the Oromo people and the Tigrayans, off the pages of Wikipedia, and to ensure NPOV content on all related pages. This has been difficult enough over the last few years, but the increasing tensions attract more and more editors that want to tell the truth as they see it, and on as many pages as they can reach. MfactDr is one of them, giving us his version of the story from the Oromo nationalist perspective, with a currently strong anti-Amharic bias. If Wikipedia is really serious about the discretionary sanctions notice, it needs to act when people blatantly and repeatedly ignore it, in the face of several warnings. MfactDr, in spite of my earlier hopes, currently shows no signs of toning down his POV editing. If at the end of this process nothing happens, he will feel vindicated and even encouraged to continue as he did before. LandLing 21:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Borsoka and User:Fakirbakir

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

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

I'd like to talk about a user I've been paying attention for some time now. The user in question is Borsoka, at first glance, a well respected and active contributor. He spends most of the time writing articles related to Hungarian history. However he also seems to have a particular interest in Romanian history too, being extremely active on many of the most important Romanian history articles. What started ringing alarm bells is when I noticed that this interest is heavily focused on topics that are highly sensitive in the context of Hungarian irredentism and a clear WP:NAT style of editing.

Borsoka is engaged in large-scale revisionism of Romanian history articles on Wikipedia with the help of a support network, but has mostly managed to stay under the radar and evade punishment. I'm not the first to notice his shady behaviour, he's been reported many times before [404][405] [406] [407] [408] [409] [410] [411] [412] [413] [414] [415] [416], most of those times for POV pushing, but either nothing happens or he only receives a slap on the wrist. The thing is, Borsoka is actually a great writer and a profilic contributor, and adds a great deal of quality historical content to Wikipedia. That however, doesn't excuse manipulating historical articles to reflect a nationalist agenda.

The subtle stuff: WP:NPOV and WP:CHERRYPICKING

Usually, Borsoka finds an article about Romanian history, mass deletes content from it, including sourced content, by claiming WP:OR or WP:POV. He then starts removing any information that would suggest Romanians lived north of the Danube before the Hungarians arrived (the "continuity theory"). Afterwards, he starts rewriting the article and subtly adding in things that would suggest that Romanians originate from somewhere south of the Danube instead, and migrated north after the Hungarians (the "immigrationism theory"). Currently there's not enough evidence to prove either one of these theories.

Supporting either theory isn't by itself a bad thing. But systematically editing history articles to make them support your theory is not.

Some examples of him doing this by cherrypicking, inserting doubt, editorializing etc:

1. Suggesting Romanian was viewed as 'semi-Romance' ​[417]
2. Suggesting Romanian was viewed as a Slavic language [418] [419] [420]
3. Suggesting Romanian comes from Balkan or Slavic language instead of coming from Vulgar Latin [421]
4. Suggesting Latin words were not inherited directly but somehow "mediated" through Slavic [422] (and reverting back to a previous vandalism)
5. Changing what the source says - the substrate in the source is listed as Thracian-Dacian, first he removes it then changes it to unidentified [423][424]
6. Changing what the source says - "North-Danube Romanians" changed to "Balkan Vlachs on the left bank of the Danube" [425]
7. Sneaking in doubt disguised as copyediting:
   "Hungarian documents prove that the Romanians held lands in Transylvania" changed to
   "Hungarian documents prove that the Romanians were thought to have held lands in Transylvania" [426]
8. Removing newer work from a reliable author if it contradicts immigrationism, saying it's WP:OR [427] (despite him also citing older work from the same author elsewhere in the article)
9. Citing constantly a linguist with fringe theories (such as Yiddish comes from Slavic) [428]

There are countless edits like these, way too many to list here.

An example of how he completely rewrites articles to subtly support immigrationist theory: a relatively obscure article about a tribe called 'Bolohoveni' or 'Volohoveni' which some assume to be 'Vlachs'(Romanians) living somewhere around southern Ukraine, while others assume to be Slavs. Romanians living that far north is problematic for immigrationist theory so he decides to rewrite the whole article depicting the Volohoveni as Slavs while removing most (but not all) Romanian references to them: He starts by marking everything with WP:OR, removes historical references because they mention "Vlachs" who are according to him completely different from "Bolokhoveni", adds new information from sources which argue they were Slavs, gradually removes all the previous sourced content. He cherrypicks information carefully to hide a Vlach presence in the area: he correctly quotes the source which explains why it's doubtful the Bolohoveni were Vlachs, but completely ignores the parts right before and after where the author states there also were Romance-speaking enclaves and a numerous Romanian population in the area.

Another easy to spot example of cherrypicking to push WP:FRINGE: he cites an interpretation of a Franciscan diplomat who believed Vlachs are a nomadic migrant population coming from Eurasia, while completely ignoring all the context surrounding it, where the author describes how this interpretation is used as the basis of a new feeble and aberrant theory on the origin of Romanians.

The not-so-subtle stuff: WP:NAT and whitewashing Hungarian history

Other times it's much worse than just subtle edits. The article Decree of Turda is about a law that was passed that discriminated against Romanians and over time led to even worse ethnic laws being implemented. In 2014, the article was much longer before Borsoka started editing it.

He removes the part describing that it discriminates towards Romanians along with the sources: The decree takes an explicitly negative view of Romanians: propter presumptuosam astuciam diversorum malefactorum, specialiter Olachorum[1] in ipsa terra nostra existencium (…) ad exterminandum seu delendum in ipsa terra malefactores quarumlibet nacionum, signanter Olachorum [2] - because of the evil arts of many malefactors, especially Romanians, who live in that our country (…) to expel or to exterminate in this country malefactors belonging to any nation, especially Romanians.

And rewrites the whole paragraph to paint the Hungarian, Szekler and Saxon noblemen as the actual victims: The latter had informed the King that they "have been suffering, day by day, many troubles because of the evil arts of many malefactors, especially Romanians, because of their way of being and their disorderly behaviour". The royal decree granted special privileges to the Transylvanian noblemen "in order to remove, from this country, malefactors belonging to any nation, especially Romanians". For this purpose, the decree determines the rules of the legal procedure. He uses WP:OR again as an excuse and removes all the negative effects the decree had.

On the talk page he diverts accusations of WP:NPOV by saying things like "For instance, we should present the POV, that the decree of Torda/Turda proves that the sudden appearance of a migrating population (the Vlachs) among the sedentary Saxons and Hungarians made the adopiton of special laws necessary" . Literally excusing discrimination and pushing immigrationist theory in the same sentence [429].

Despite him trying to dismiss or downplay this decree, the author, a reliable source that he frequently cites, writes extensively about the discrimination of Romanians at that time: :"Gradually, after 1351-1366 and 1437, Romanians lost their status as an estate and were excluded from Transylvania’s assemblies. The main reason was religion [...] As seen above, even in the Middle Ages the Romanians were held inferior, being “schismatic”, subject to the new masters, excluded from offices and restricted to a local level. [...] The Romanians’ inferior status began to be more and more obvious in the Transylvanian Diets’ decisions (laws) [...] the Romanian could not appeal to justice against Hungarians and Saxons, but the latter could turn in the Romanian (1552)" [430]

Then for the next 7 years, from 2014 to 2021, he reverts every single person who attempts to add back the information he removed or any other new information.

He also mass deletes entire sections related to this decree in another article over and over again all the way from 2012 until a few days ago [431][432][433][434][435][436][437][438][439][440][441][442][443] always giving OR as a reason. He's extremely dedicated to this.

Another example is where he whitewashes the same subject by trying to blank the entire section about Hungary in the Anti-Romanian sentiment page not once, but twice. [444] [445]

WP:CANVASSING to get out of trouble

Borsoka has a support network that helps him push Hungarian nationalist POV and maintain control of pages. The primary users most involved in this are User:Fakirbakir, User:Norden1990, User:Koertefa and now banned User:KIENGIR, who was much more disruptive than the other four and engaged in more obvious vandalism. KIENGIR was the first I interacted with when I spotted him reverting users over and over to keep a nonsensical section up and removed it. He then used the same tactics as Borsoka: reverting and stonewalling. It turned me off Wikipedia for a while. I recently came back and noticed KIENGIR received a ban, and by looking at his contribution history to find vandalism is how I stumbled on Borsoka and the others.

They help each other get out of trouble:

When Borsoka is reported, Fakirbakir, Koertefa and Norden1990 show up to defend him. [446]. When Norden1990 is reported, Fakirbakir and Borsoka show up to defend him. [447].

There are plenty of instances of this: Borsoka defending Norden1990 [448], [449], Borsoka supporting KIENGIR [450], Koertefa defending Fakirbakir [451], Fakirbakir defending Borsoka [452], Fakirbakir defending KIENGIR. [453], Fakirbakir defending Norden1990 [454], [455], Koertefa supporting Norden1990 [456].

There have been previous instances where they've been reported together including for canvassing: Borsoka and Fakirbakir, Fakirbakir, Koertefa and Norden1990 Koertefa, Borsoka, Fakirbakir and Norden1990, Fakirbakir, Norden1990, Borsoka. While they aren't sockpuppets they work together regularly and other reports cover pretty well how they're involved in canvassing.

The support network that helps him WP:OWN articles

They maintain control of important articles by reverting the changes of others, and achieving consensus in Talk pages. Borsoka's most edited article is Origin of the Romanians with 1,278 edits. [457]. This is a highly controversial article because it's central to both theories and the talk page has many users complaining about NPOV. It's often the target of both Romanian and Hungarian nationalists, but somehow Borsoka seems to somehow maintain control with 85.6% of the content being authored by him, the next biggest contributor having only 1.8%. He does this by constantly reverting and rewriting the edits of others and resorting to stonewalling on the Talk page when challenged and achieving consensus with the help of his support network (on this page, Fakirbakir and until recently, KIENGIR).

A very clear example of canvassing: Borsoka mass deletes huge sections of a article he doesn't like by citing OR. [458][459]. After getting reverted twice, he mass deletes a third time [460], except this time Fakirbakir suddenly appears 3 hours later on an article he's never edited before and makes several positive edits, making it harder to revert Borsoka's deletions. It's hard to assume good faith when he purposefully enlists the help of others to mass delete content.

Civil POV pushing

The talk pages of his articles on Romanian language or history are always filled with the usual: citations not matching the sources, cherrypicking, fringe and POV. The way he responds to user criticism is a classic case of WP:SEALION. If they question the text, he points to the sources. If they question the sources he tells them to find sources which state otherwise. If they find any, they're unreliable or original research. He always makes sure to always appear civil: "thank you for your time", "thank you for your suggestions", "thank you for your remarks" ... then completely ignores what they said. If accused of an agenda, he doesn't have one, [461] but he has openly admitted before that "immigrationist theory is more compatible with facts" [462].

And that way, he maintains a stranglehold on many important articles in this category (for example: [463] [464] [465] [466] [467] and many more).

As a user who barely contributes, I'm aware that I don't have a lot of credibility making huge accusations against someone with countless awards and a prolific contribution history, and on top of it all, it's a touchy subject. But I felt that the amount of misinformation being spread is truly massive, and it required some serious attention so I tried to compile enough evidence to show the extent of the problem. It's pretty clear that he has a strong incentive to push a specific POV in important articles about Romanian history.

I think a temporary 6 month topic ban for Borsoka and Fakirbakir on any articles which primarily concern Romanian history would be warranted, which would give some other editors a chance to fix those articles a bit without getting hit with waves of repeated reverts and stonewalling. The other two haven't been involved in editing Romanian history lately, so I don't think there's any need to take action. ^OUT 20:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations, you may have set a new record.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23, I read every word of it, and I would like a neutral editor with knowledge of Eastern European history to make an informed comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not want to comment on this lengthy thread. Borsoka (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: as you read every word of the above report, you may want to check the edit history of the articles on which I allegedly maintain "a stranglehold". Actually, I have not edited most of them for years. Indeed, I extensively edited them 7-9 years ago and as a consequence two of them (Romania in the Early Middle Ages and Romania in the Middle Ages) were promoted to GA. A third article (Founding of Moldavia) was heavily edited by other editors after I stopped editing it (actually, it should be rewritten to provide a neutral picture). As to canvassing, I can state that all my interections with other editors are transparent. If you need further information, I can comment on other baseless accusations as well. However, are you sure we should discuss accusations made by an editor who has never edited the articles to which he refers, but is well aware of their edit history? Borsoka (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It's another boring stream of words from an unambiguous sockpuppet: three months ago, roughly the same baseless accusations were formulated in the same style by another relatively passive "editor" User:Cealicuca, regarding eight to ten years old contributions. Maybe a sockpuppet investigation would be useful, I suspect identification with long-time abuser User:Iaaasi. I would be very happy if these frustrated reports from "false" editors ceased, I do not have the time and desire to deal with such anti-Hungarian nonsense. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree, I also assume that the whole report was written by Iaaasi. He has regularly hired editors through emails to act on his behalf. @Tgeorgescu: what do you think? Borsoka (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Deflecting blame to me doesn't mean that all your actions suddenly go away. I've had this account for a very long time and never used another one, and I'm more than happy to welcome any sockpuppet investigation. ^OUT 10:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I am a Romanian, but not a nationalist. The gist of this dispute: the Romanian nationalists want 100% wiki-victory, while the Hungarian nationalists made peace with the idea that the wiki-match will end in a draw.

About Slavic language vs. Latin language: yes, most words are Slavic, but the basic vocabulary is Latin. So, both claims about the Romanian language are true to some extent. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a side remark: I have never stated that Romanian is a Slavic language. Borsoka (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup, and as you told once there is a difference between discriminating against Romanian peasants and (ethnic) requirements for becoming a noble. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot remember what you are referring to above. As far as I know there were no ethnic requirements for nobility in Hungary. Religion could be barrier, because Jews were not ennobled, and for a short period in a small region only Catholics could be awarded with nobility under Louis the Great. Borsoka (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: most words are Slavic? Do you mind explaining? As far as I'm aware and every linguist in the world is concerned, Slavic makes up 10-15%, not "most" of Romanian. As for the discrimination, Ioan-Aurel Pop writes about it being a serious thing multiple times in the source I linked. The decree's effects weren't limited just to nobility, contrary to what Borsoka is claiming.

Yup, not counting neologisms. Anyway, the gist is that Romanian nationalists are more fanatical and more misbehaving in their claim they have WP:THETRUTH than Hungarian nationalists. It's not their POV which is a problem, but their behavior.

I have to tell you that in many Western countries Romanian language is taught together with Slavic languages (at faculty level). tgeorgescu (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a side remark: I have never stated that the "decree" (I assume the Decree of Torda/Turda) was limited to the nobility. Borsoka (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I conflated you with someone else:

such like second class citizenship did not exist in the country, the rights of the nobles were different than the peasants, regardless, of ethnicity, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC))

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

About WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT: I have seen enough walls of text from Romanian nationalists and these walls promise nothing good. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I noticed a pattern of behaviour that's worrying and thought to bring it to the attention of admins. Not sure what the walls of text of past Romanian nationalists have to do with me or any future reports though. Like I said, I'm open to any investigation but for the time being I'd just like to focus on Borsoka instead of the constant deflecting. The regular subtle changes to promote immigrationism he does might not be damning, but mass removals of sourced text? I don't see how that's constructive, especially when it's done for whitewashing. Also, regarding language, even if not counting neologisms, Slavic words still don't make up "most" of the language. ^OUT 16:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, the POV of the Romanian nationalists is this: if they do not engage in full-blown nationalist propaganda, Romania will lose Transylvania any time soon. I'm not saying that either nationalist side is right; I am saying that Hungarian nationalists learned to behave and they integrated fine in the system of Wikipedia Community, while all Romanian nationalists who posted WP:WALLS in the past got either indeffed or topic-banned. Those walls are their modus operandi. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You may want to comment on the relevant article's Talk page about the "mass removal of sourced text". I do not remember any case of whitewashing. Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

So, what I am telling to Romanian nationalists isn't Hungarian nationalists are right, but: learn to behave and become integrated into our Borg hive mind. So, a side is well-behaved and integrated, while the other side shoots itself in the foot time after time. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

My last comment was to focus specifically on the examples I gave instead of deflection and instead I just get more talk about sides, nationalists and other users. ^OUT 18:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

My point: such approach failed time after time. What makes you think it will succeed this time? Also, the WP:MEAT evidence is pretty damning: not only writing WP:WALLS, but also writing style, e.g. use of bold letters and other sorts of headings, which are rather unusual at Wikipedia.

It's either too many bold letters or all caps (shouting): [468], [469]. Seems copy/pasted from a nationalist propaganda website.

Oh, yes, I forgot: WP:BOOMERANG, meaning the complainer is not exempted from criticism.

I think it is an well-established fact that extreme right publications abuse bold letters or all caps. Anyway, among intellectuals such abuse is not appreciated, see e.g. https://www.asice.se/index.php/tep/guidelines tgeorgescu (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You know what, you're right. I'm a full-blown extreme-right nationalist meatpuppet despite never having edited history pages or pushed views like these before. I noticed POV pushing and made sure I compile a detailed list because I don't believe throwing around accusations without evidence but that's much less believable than the absolute damning evidence of me using bold.

I retract this whole report. It was clearly a waste of time thinking I could come here to receive independent review of a consistent pattern of abuse. ^OUT 19:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

All I am saying: such reports have been made before, and your writing style has similarities with such past reports. See also https://people.ok.ubc.ca/rlawrenc/teaching/writingTips.html

Also, for an editor with 61 edits in article space and 8 edits in article talk space, you must have paid an incredible amount of research effort for edits that happened since many years ago, or else you have showed it off. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it must take a true detective to notice a pattern here. Anyway like I said, I'm retracting the report so you can stop beating a dead horse.

Please sign your messages. Please also read the article's talk page to understand the reasoning of the changes if you want to make others believe that you are a "true detective". I also suggest that before filing a report completed by a banned user you should check its factual accuracy. For instance, an editor who has not edited an article for years could hardly be accused of owning it. Borsoka (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

They have reverted a lot of additions actually says nothing (we all did). tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User:GeneralLeeStudiosOfficial

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

New disruption-only account. Contribs are self-explanatory. Could an admin please block and if needed revdel? Thanks, Levivich 03:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure anything needs revdel'ed, but the user has been blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! (I'm not sure anything needs revdel either, I never know exactly where that threshold is.) Levivich 03:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User: Maurice Mo Jordan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Maurice Mo Jordan (talk · contribs)

This user keeps trying to discuss a editing issue on my talk page. Despite me telling him/her what the issues are with their posts (and no matter how many times they get BLANKED) they keep coming back. At issue are edits made on the Three Tramps page:[470]. Forgetting the RS issues, this guy keeps trying to discuss this on my talk page (rather than the Tramps talk page), without signing their posts or even bothering to read about what things like RS are. If a admin could speak to them, I'd appreciate it. Regards.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

At least the editor is trying to discuss the issue. Rja13ww33 you should start a discussion at the articles talk page and ping the editor to discuss. Maybe that will get them off your talk page. Jerm (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

There is such a discussion on the Tramps page: [471]. This user is ignoring it. It's clear this person does not know how to edit. Here are some samples: [472] [473]. I mean come on....I am a tolerant guy but this is nuts. He/she isn't even trying to post properly.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

And by the way, I've told the user several times on my talk page [474] where to post these issues. It's like I am talking to a brick wall with him/her.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Damn, there goes my ideal. You've tried to guide the editor, but the editor doesn't want to continue discussing the issue on the article talk page. Instead, Maurice Mo Jordan has bombarded your talk page. An admin should either send a warning to the editor for a possible block if they don't stick with the articles talk page or go straight for the block. Other than that, I see no other way to resolve this matter. Jerm (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully a warning (from a admin) will be sufficient to wake him/her up.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Well as it stands I don't really know how to correctly post to Wiki, I posted something to the Zodiac channel and that one was fine but again, I honestly have no idea how to comment on these sites and I have zero idea how to add that little end tag I see on both your post. There is nothing I see that makes this easy or understand able. The issue I have is this which is clearly stated.

In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that forensic anthropologists had again analyzed and compared the photographs of the "tramps" with those of Hunt and Sturgis, as well as with photographs of Thomas Vallee, Daniel Carswell, and Fred Lee Crisman.[8] According to the Committee, only Crisman resembled any of the tramps; but the same Committee determined that he was not in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination.[8]

While I disagree with Hunt (cause I think it could be him) the committee states, "only Crisman resembled ANY of the tramps; but the same Committee determined that he was not in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination." So what does this mean? It means they didn't identify ANYONE, yet all those side by sides remain up, even though they were dismissed it would seem. So when I have an assumption that Roscoe White might be one of the 3 Tramps, it gets removed over and over and over again. Does this make sense or sound fair at all? Considering they clearly state they didn't identify anyone, yet those post remain up. I basically posted that Roscoe White might be one of the Tramps, it gets removed and I'm sorry but this doesn't seem right or fair at all. So yes, I got a little annoyed. Sorry about that.

Anyway, sorry I don't know how to put the end tag line on, it's kind of hard to understand. Not sure how to work Wiki. Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Maurice Mo Jordan Once you've finished typing your response, type the four tiles "~~~~" then "Publish changes". That will develop your signature. Jerm (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch Jerm, that helped a lot... So what do you think of all this? Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Maurice Mo Jordan Before I elaborate, I just want you to know that this notice board (WP:ANI) is meant to report disruptive/inappropriate behaviour of an editor, not resolving content disputes. The issue is, you have been constantly messaging Rja13ww33 on their user talk page about content pertaining to Three tramps. User talk pages are not meant for discussing content of an article which is why Rja13ww33 was constantly removing your messages on their talk page and trying to point to you the appropriate talk page which is the article talk page, and in this particular case, it's Talk:Three tramps. You did start a discussion on the article talk page: Talk:Three_tramps#Carswell but left it and started continuously messaging Rja13ww33 on their talk page. Please, you need to return to the article talk page for discussing content. Do not continue to message Rja13ww33 about content on their talk page. That is all Rja13ww33 is asking for and it would be the appropriate thing for you to do. Jerm (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Maurice Mo Jordan I also want to add that you need to fill out the edit summary every time you make a change to an article or any other page before you "Publish changes". Jerm (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Jerm, this helped. Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Is an admin going to act on this or what? This joker clearly doesn't have a clue what they are doing: [475]. Enough is enough.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Since this report was started, Maurice Mo Jordan has tried to delete it as well as blanked the conversation on Talk:Three tramps multiple times [476] [477] [478] and a section of my usertalk page as well.[479] They don't seem to accept the concept of consensus or not using original research. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued edit warring by User:David-dalus

This user has continued to edit war on the The Secret of NIMH dispute being warned, twice.

Their edits ([480], [481] and [482]) are identical to edits made by various IPs ([483], [484]. [485]) and are likely the same person. The article was protected in on June 28 due to vandalism by the IP and they clearly created a user ID so they could get passed the lock.

The edits concern the "....which ends with the dying Sullivan killing Jenner and saving Justin's life". The user has continued to remove the bolded line dispute being given this justification for its inclusion and has refused to explain themselves or discuss at the talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It might be worth reporting them to WP:AN3. MiasmaEternal^TALK 09:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

SiddhaAS

SiddhaAS (talk · contribs) has been warned multiple times (or just User_talk:SiddhaAS#June_2021), including final warnings this month [486], [487]. They have continued to add unsourced material [488], [489]. Desite 500+ edits, they have only edited a talk page when forced to because of ECP protection and never edited a user talk page. At this point, a block is needed. Two requests [490], [491] where left on AIV yesterday but both timed out. This editor is a time-sink for other editors, this needs to stop. Ravensfire (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support block Despite multiple warnings, the editor doesn’t communicate/respond to the warnings or stop adding unsourced content. Jerm (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Just want to add, the editor does mobile editing but doesn’t use the Android app, so it should be much easier to respond to messages. Any thoughts on this? Even now, I’m using my phone to add this message but the desktop version of Wikipedia. Jerm (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Partial block from mainspace until they start discussing? That would get them to a talk page, presumably. Levivich 15:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich, That might help. They clearly know how to use a talk page when forced there [492]. This may be a good first option, but if they continue to ignore concerns, the block would need to swiftly change to a full block. Ravensfire (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Continuing today - [493], [494] - based on the lack of admin replies, I'm assuming the answer is stop worrying and love unsourced editing? Ravensfire (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Partial block. I've blocked the user indefinitely from article space, with a link to this discussion. Bishonen | tålk 16:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC).

Uncommunicative editor replacing logos and wordmarks with photos in infoboxes with photos

Omolarabasirat‎ is replacing logos, wordmarks, and seals with photos in infoboxes (e.g., University of San Francisco‎, Phillips Academy, Citibank). Two editors, including myself, have left several messages in his or her User Talk page to ask for explanations about these edits (and the many, many other edits he or she is making to add images to articles) but he or she has not responded in any way. This editor is adding, and in some casing replacing, images to many articles quite rapidly. Some of the edits may be helpful but replacing appropriate and helpful images in infoboxes and ignoring all attempts at discussion is disruptive and needs to stop; please temporarily block this editor until he or she communicates with us. ElKevbo (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

This is related to a thread above ("Users adding images to articles at a high rate of speed") but this specific editor needs to be blocked now to prevent further obvious disruption. This is not a general concern about the use of these edit summaries and this contest but a specific problem with a specific editor. ElKevbo (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours per my explanation above. --Rschen7754 17:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Legal Threat by IP

The ip User:103.211.190.133 had made a legal threat on my talk page when raising issues regarding a content dispute. [495] and [496]. While one of the comments has since been removed [497], the ip still has left the comment that I have violated some law in India. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked Special:contributions/103.211.190.0/23 for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Problem edits to Nepenthes species articles by User:Nrajah587

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nrajah587 has made a recent series of edits to Nepenthes species articles (and a few others). Some of the edits are vandalism, for example: 1, 2, 3, 4. Another addition is likely a hoax with a made-up reference. Many Nepenthes are endangered, in one article the editor claims to be protecting their location. In another, which I won't post directly here, the location was withheld by the botanists concerned, but this editor added a location. A reference this editor has added to some edits is The Tropical Pitcher Plants (Vol. 2) by McPherson. However, according to the publisher's site, these books are currently available for pre-order and no page numbers are provided in such references.

In summary, the contributions by this editor appear to be mainly a combination of vandalism and misinformation. In edit summaries, the editor often asserts that they are "correcting" existing content based on sources and information available to themselves. I'm not sure that such assertions can be accepted at face value given the high proportion of misleading and vandalising edits. Thanks, Declangi (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly a very bizarre combination of subtle vandalism and outright trolling. They are doing a rather nuanced job of mimicking an editor who is simply pushing WP:OR in one edit, and then in the next, they are adding sophomoric "butt"/"gay" jokes to similar articles, and then in the next they are mixing the two types of disruption. It really is quite strange and technically involved vandalism, but ultimately I am inclined to agree with you: I think the whole body of the disruption is just one big convoluted effort at trolling. So, for what it's worth, I endorse a WP:NOTHERE block and suggest that even their non-disruptive-seeming edits should be reverted, where the assertions cannot be independently verified with sourcing by other editors. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Indefinite. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. @Snow Rise: I've now reviewed all of the editor's changes and almost all ended up needing to be reverted. I did this on an article-by-article basis with hopefully some useful details in the edit summaries. I notified WikiProject Plants and one editor there has already conducted their own, very useful review. Declangi (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful work: thanks to you and the other editor for taking that chore on, Declangi. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harrassment

Hi

A banned user from fr:wiki insulted me again here after 2019. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked one month for personal attacks. Daniel (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Kavkas dubious edits with a nationalist nature, same stance as sockpuppets which vandalised the page previously

User:Kavkas is vandalising and falsifying history on Ingush people and Ingushetia. He has reverted and spammed the previous correct version from the 6th July. The current version of those 2 pages look to me like blog-entries which usually would be encountered on nationalist forums. Examples of falsified history >under the pretext of defense of lowland Ingush people from vassal Chechen, Kabardin, Dagestan and Nogai attacks, which were orchestrated by Russia<, >After multiple losses of Imam Shamil at the end of Caucasian War, Russians and Chechens unify their forces< and >Strabo first mentions Geli, or Galgai in his reference to a nation in the center of the Caucasus< (the Geli are confirmed to be the Scythian tribe Gelae, which doesn't stop Kavkas from pushing the narrative that the Geli are the modern Ingush, see here). Now to some of his accusiations against me: here he claims I "threaten" him while trying to involve me into a political/ethnical conflict and claims my "hatred toward the Ingush people is obvious". He also mentions "both North Ossetia and Chechnya seek to further carve up Ingushetia between the two republics, with backing from the Russian federal government (...) along with other forms of propaganda", which (claiming my edits are state-sponsored) is something previous sockpuppets have done, see this sockpuppet. The full archived investigation and list of sockpuppets can be found here. Another example of his similar/same stance as the sockpuppets. I hope the issue can be fixed and the articles return to a neutral state. ~Reiner Gavriel (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2021

All my sources are referenced from American, English, Russian, German etc. neutral sites who have nothing to do with Ingush people or Ingushetia. "After multiple losses of Imam Shamil at the end of Caucasian War, Russians and Chechens unify their forces" these are Russian Evdokimov's words not mine. Geli as Ghalghai as Ingush mentioned by O.W. Wahl in 1875 in his book "The Land of the Czar" page 239 mentioned "These two opinions mentioned by Strabo come after all to the same point ; for the Legi are the modern Lesghi, and the Geli the Ingush tribe Galgai, and the Keraunian Mountains are the northern ranges of the Caucasus as far as the Beshtaú." The same statement about Gelia being Ingush was made by a German professor Karl Koch in 1843 in his book "Reise durch Russland nach dem kaukasischen Isthmus" page 489. Jacobus Van Wijk Roelandszoon, Jacobus van Wijk (Roelandszoon) in 1821 book "Algemeen aardrijkskundig woordenboek volgens de nieuwste staatkundige veranderingen, en de laatste, beste en zekerste berigten" page 1050 also mention that Gelli or Gelad are the Ingush people which is mentioned by Zonaras. Stop your personal anti-Ingush attacks. Kavkas (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

References

You have cherrypicked information from your sources, which are not the best sources to begin with. So you're telling me that the Chechens and Russians unify their forces after waging war against eachother for 100 years to fight against the Ingush, which voluntarily joined Russia in 1770 and signed a treaty to protect Russias interest by fighting against the enemies of Russia (Chechens and Karabulak) in 1810? Koch and Wahl are clearly in the wrong while trying to put pieces together. This should be quite obvious, especially when Koch claims that the Ingush live in the Western parts of Dagestan. Their information is purely hypothetical. There are hypothesis about the Ingush coming from India and Armenia, things like this don't belong on Wikipedia. The Geli Strabo mentions are universally agreed to be the Scythian Gelea. There is no strong connection nor proof that he was referring to the Ingush, whos selfname "Galga" only formed in the past 500 years. Your edits contain several texts without any sources found in the "Prehistory and early history of Ingush people" section, these include texts of Ingush fighting of Mongol hordes, some ambassador named "Loamaro-keristi", "Georgia completely integrated into Russia, the only “hostile nation” in the Caucasus are Ingush" and my personal favorite one where you outright claim Mongols named their subgroup "Khalkha" after the Ingush nation due to how "Impressed" they were. This is outright ridiculous and does not belong on Wikipedia. ~Reiner Gavriel (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2021

Devranzio

Devranzio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted results from Olympic badminton pages, even after I warned him. Flix11 (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: He is using 180.252.29.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) now. Flix11 (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat from new user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As per this. May also be delusional too (or trolling), based on Talk page response. Either way, this looks like a block is needed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

lblocked. El_C 05:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked for continuing with legal threats after the block. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I thought I did that. Thanks, HighInBC. El_C 12:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potato concerned about pumpkins

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Potato geography politics (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC) this is involving [[498]] they have discriminated repeatedly with warnings on the wiki page "pumpkin" - Potato geography politics

also im going to bed so i wont be able to respond for a while

The countries mentioned already had wikilinks elsewhere in the text. Wikilinking every single mention of the country is WP:OVERLINK so I think that Favonian was correct to revert and I don't believe that they need to be blocked. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok but what he was doing was discriminating because he was indirectly saying “hey your country doesn’t deserve a link” which is discrimination and against Wikipedia rules - potato geography politics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potato geography politics (talk • contribs) 11:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Not much I can add to Spiderone's assessment, but would someone with diplomatic skills more developed that mine please tell the OP about Wikipedia's policy regarding personal attacks? Favonian (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Potato geography politics, nonsense. Favonian was absolutely not saying that. Favonian was saying you need to abide by WP:OVERLINK. There's no reason to link every single instance of a country, you normally would just link the first instance. I very, very strongly suggest you apologise and drop your complaint. Your complaint is completely unfounded, Favonian was correct and was trying to be helpful to you, and you should take the time to read and understand WP:OVERLINK. --Yamla (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok first my name includes politics so if anyone knows about diplomacy, it’s me and it’s not overlink it’s not too many links and their policy regarding personal attacks the first thing it says is the DEFINITION of discrimination and I said he is INDIRECTLY saying country no deserve link and it’s very offensive to people that live in those countries also I added links to things that actually needed it like thanksgiving which In Many countries isn’t a thing so they need it - potato geography politics

Also I am fine to just accept an apology now. That is generous for this much discrimination -potato geography politics

I have blocked this user indefinitely. WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, whatever. --Yamla (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Good block, and I have the feeling we're being trolled here anyway. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Yamla: Is this a sockpuppet of user:Cheese editor by any chance? Adding wikilinks to countries in the Pumpkin article was something that cheese editor was doing before being blocked for socking as User:Dairy editor [499] and i find it odd that nother editor would show up to make the same kinds of edits to the same article [500] [501] [502]. The username, edit summaries, use of visual editor and article overlap all seem eerily familiar. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 Possible, based on technical evidence. I've tagged the account as a suspected sock. While the technical evidence isn't conclusive, I strongly think you are correct, on behavioural grounds. --Yamla (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(I protest. This thread grossly unfair toward those with pumpkins for heads. --The Headless Horseman --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC))

They seem to be continuing the disruptive editing with a couple of IP socks now - 49.182.35.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 117.20.70.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 192.76.8.91 (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on various economy pages

There seems to be multiple pages being vandalized I.E changes being made with no RS, these pages include Economy of Kolkata, Economy of Chittagong, Economy of West Bengal, Economy of Delhi, Economy of Mumbai. Some of these pages have been semi protected but it doesn't seem to be working as the editors are confirmed. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 13:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that; I blocked one who'd already been warned several times about changing content without a reliable source, and warned several others. The tricky part is restoring to the "good" versions; at least one of the government sources being used is not in English. In any case, I'd agree with you that extended confirmed protection is probably warranted, but it would be great if we could find a trusted editor with better knowledge of that subject area to help suss out a properly-sourced stable version of each beforehand.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: I'm not sure what is the good version myself either, I have tried to go through the sources, but as you say some are not in English and some (from what I can see, I may be wrong) do not seem to contain the information that the source is meant to support. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 14:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Legal threats at the talk page of the BLP article Prabhas

Hello. Administrator's attention needed at Talk:Prabhas. On 20 July, TanyaSri complained about the poorly written personal life section along with potential legal suits. I have removed the content entirely until further discussion takes place. Today, PROChach has requested to remove a few images and also added that "As per Indian Penal Code Section 464, criminal proceedings are filed against those , who falsely charges any person and who mishandle Prabhas Wikipedia with manipulative subject and images." Notifying here per WP:NLT. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• PROChach (talk · contribs) blocked for WP:NLT. Cabayi (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Repeated insults, WP:AGF violations, edit-warring by 213.172.123.242

213.172.123.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was blocked by @Ymblanter: for vandalism by earlier this month, frequently insults other editors when they disagree with them and edit-wars. Diffs and links:

• In a discussion with @Klõps: at User talk:Klõps ([503]): "Klops is a dilletant", "Calm down your autistic point of view & remain un-pathetic", "Narrow Baltic fanatism"
• In a discussion with Klõps at User talk:213.172.123.242 ([504]): "Ya are full-flown complete closeted specialist", "Ethnic fanatics like you should stay quiet & learn your manners, first"
• The interactions with Klõps are related to edit-warring at Vahur Afanasjev.
• Edit-warring at Karlheinz Förster with @Jaellee: and me; edit summaries: "What you bother, Block-Head.", "You have no idea - cause you are not German. Shut up. You.

I think that is enough material to warrant a block. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

[505] "You are a full flown complete special idiot". Note that I am not a fan of the behavior of Klõps either, who is not interested in looking for consensus, and would revert any mention that Estonia in 1940-90 was part of Soviet Union multiple times until their opponents get exhausted.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

More was added to my Talk page after my report, and then removed [506]: "O. k. Then block me, aßhole. Wikiepedia is fucked up, anyway. Idiot." "Du deutsches Asshol. Sheisz drauf" Robby.is.on (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Not a native German-speaker by the look of it (WP:BEANS applies). Narky Blert (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Since the IP tried to alter User:Robby.is.on's comments here, I think that some sort of escalating block is in order - after all they do appear to be literally asking to be blocked.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The IP just recently had a 1 week block for vandalism. I've given them 2 weeks for this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Celestina007

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't enjoy reading the ANI, let alone reporting an editor but it is antithetical to our goal of creating an online encyclopedia that anyone could freely edit in a collegial environment if we ignore conducts that are injurious on a large scale to our editors. User:Celestina007 is an experienced editor with interest in Nigeria-related topics and a "self-acclaimed UPE fighter". There is no doubt about her knowledge of Nigeria-related topics but her often unsubstantiated false accusation of UPE is concerning, worrisome and destructive to the project. I believe that something urgently needs to be done, as failure to act will give an impression that false accusations and similar behaviors are acceptable here. Today, Celestina007 tagged an article written by me in 2019 as UPE without evidence. When asked to substantiate their claim with evidences, they removed my comment without a response or any evidences whatsoever. However, I am not here because I was falsely accused of UPE but because this pattern of behavior from Celestina007 is disruptive on a large scale and should immediately stop. On closer review of this editor's contributions, I observed a large scale accusation of UPE without evidence and newbie bity.

Here are few examples of false accusation of UPE

• " @Yamla, you are spot on about the “violating WP:PAID part” I can categorically confirm as a Nigerian that 90% of any article pertaining to “businessmen” “entrepreneurs” “organizations” “musicians” and “actors” created by any Nigerian editor is undisclosed paid editing". This false accusation of Nigerian editors without strong evidences is not only insulting to the Nigerian editing community but also constitute an harassment.
• False tagging of a new user, User:Zvandofarira2 learning to create new article in good faith as UPE (here).
• False UPE tagging a good faith editor and another unsubstantiated allegation sockpupetry. The editor perceived this as bullying, and attempt to force them to quit editing Wikipedia. The user hasn't edited again since the accusation
• False accusation of UPE and aggressive demand for response
• Falsely accusing a brand new editor of sockpuppetry
• Irritating users with false claim of UPE
• Falsely accusing a legal intern who wrote about a well-known and notable lawyer of UPE and ignoring any sense of reason. Celestina who is expected to welcome new editors in fact took the article to AfD without a WP:BEFORE and the article was kept (see the AfD)
• Another unsubstantiated and accusation of new editor of sockpuppetry.

All of the above examples are from July 1 alone but randomly looking at their talk page archive, it looks like a long-term problem that has gone unnoticed for years . While we appreciate users who are enthusiastic about Wikipedia, users with this behavioral pattern should never be tolerated here. Beeblebrox advised this user to find something else to do, while they responded to Beeblebrox, they failed to learn from the advise and continue to falsely accusing users of UPE. I'd leave this here to allow the community to determine whether the conducts of this user with regards to UPE accusations is right. UPE is a criminal offense at least in the United States per WP:UPE. False accusation of crime is serious and should be treated as such. Regards. SuperSwift (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment — Just Another day, with more disgruntled staging a siege against me. Even after both onel5969 & I told you here that the UPE template wasn’t intended for you , you somehow still tried and made it about you. We literally both told you the UPE tag wasn’t intended for you oh well. Furthermore this isn’t accurate as there is literally no dispute here. Celestina007 (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I also found Celestina007 to be acting in a way which was far too aggressive, even if the recipient of their messaging was an UPE. At User_talk:Totalpoliticsuk#Sockpuppetry_warning they accused the editor of insulting their intelligence, stated they would get the editor indefinitely blocked, and them to both "quit Fucking with me". Even if this user was an UPE I'd consider this too far. Whether this combative approach is effective at deterring actual UPEs or not - and I doubt it is - it lends itself to substantial collateral damage and the furthering of a hostile atmosphere on the project, which we should not tolerate. Sam Walton (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Samwalton9, correct and indeed otp, but this was me before getting advice to tone it down which I have to the best of my ability upheld. Celestina007 (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad that recognize that, Celestina, because frankly I find the behaviour in that thread beyond the pall for a volunteer workspace on this project. Your comments literally read like you think that you are a hardboiled detective from a 70's crime drama interrogating a criminal suspect: "Don’t you dare insult my intelligence, you know how it is, either you comply with our rules or I see to it that you get indef blocked" -> "quit Fucking with me." -> "Don’t push your luck.". Sam is absolutely correct: no matter how certain you are that you have ferreted out a COI editor--and frankly, I also have concerns at the level of self-assuredness you adopt on the basis of your evidence, but even assuming you are correct, the following principle holds--it does not abrogate your from responsibility for scrupulously following the standards of WP:CIVILITY, a pillar policy of this project. You are not the en.Wikipedia Special Prosecutor for Undisclosed Paid Editing and you need to drop this unnecessarily aggressive mentality.

Now, you say you've reformed your approach, and it's true that the thread Sam links above is the worst of what has been presented here, but it still looks like you come at editors with an air like you are cleaning up shop from some position of authority persists. Based just on what we have seen here, I think even at this early stage in oversight of your behaviour, I would support a topic ban for you relating to accusations of UPE; I do not think you have the right temperament to be active in this area on this project. Even if you were right about every single one of your suppositions (and again, I'm far from convinced by your reasoning in each of these cases), your approach is still highly flawed and inconsistent with the measured, impersonal, dispassionate approach that is both expected and most effective in COI review.

In short, I would seriously suggest you consider voluntarily backing away from this area: your own talk page suggests that you see the problem with actively seeking out ("hunting" as you put it) COI, and I think you need to take your own advice there, even as regards UPE you think you have spotted in the wild, as it were. You don't have to ignore what you consider problematic editing either: just consider taking yourself out of the equation by bringing these matters to WP:COIN or an admin when you think you have sufficient evidence to warrant examination, and ignoring your gut impressions in all other circumstances. I don't think I like your chances for avoiding a sanction if you just continue of the present course of grilling everyone you suspect of COI like they are just daring you to pull out the proverbial rubber hose. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Snow Rise, Snow, that is exactly what I’m saying that since June when I received advice from a functionary on how to handle suspected there I have made deliberate attempts to do just that, I pursue things through the proper channels via COIN and ANI, I have filed at least one report at each venue this month. rather than confront the situation as I would have done prior the advice and even when I UPE template editors I tell them exactly why I left the tag, snow please look at analysis of the diffs I did below, I understand how this would come off as rather tough but in order to appreciate this you would have to understand that I am under a calculated siege. Not only is this report wrong it is rather baffling as the OP misunderstood an action I carried out, even when told it was a mistake by myself and another editor they still brought it here when it was clearly established that the action did not concern them. Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, Snow, this is me two days ago literally telling Rich_Smith the importance of explaining why a UPE template should be accompanied by a personal message. Celestina007 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment  – This sweeping generalisation is demeaning to the entire WP:NIGERIA community and the good work all the good faith editors there do. I raised similar concerns on this board about a month ago but only a few of the participants noted this unchecked behaviour. Something needs to be done about this kind of behaviour that makes the environment toxic for others and basically undoes the efforts of the good people that go to different parts of Nigeria to recruit new wikimedians who inadvertently get burnt. Kind regards. Princess of Ara_(talk) 22:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Note — The editor above Princess of Ara was topic banned because of me. Once again an attempt from another disgruntled editor to get back at me. I am taking my time to explain everything so you all can understand the siege i am facing now. Celestina007 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that comment is objectionable--though I presume it is substantially inaccurate. As you can see above, I have some significant misgivings about Celestina's approach here, but the comment you are presenting as inappropriate is that of an editor expressing an opinion (perhaps an exaggerated one, but good faith nonetheless) about what they perceive the extent of a problem to be in a given content area. Our editors must be free to share their perceptions about the nature and expanse of disruptive behaviours on this project, even where it incidentally reflects a negative impression of a large class of contributors. No behavioural policy or principle of community consensus limits the scope of good faith commentary in this regard, and it would have significant negative knock-on effects if we did adopt such a rule.

Now, you could argue that this comment (particularly the 90% figure) is evidence of Celestina's bias in this area, which in turn reinforces their propensity for jumping in with accusations on limited evidence: that I might buy. But we cannot afford to treat observations about problems in certain content areas as a PA, merely because they happen to incidentally involve a class of person that might take umbrage to said observation. Celestina is entitled to their opinion when it comes to the numbers here. What they are not entitled to do is act upon them without limitation. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 keeps making reference to my being topic banned in discussions like it means I'm not allowed to have an opinion. Same thing she tried at AfD. I clearly linked the ANI discussion with the closing statement so this is not a discovery. Princess of Ara_(talk) 07:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Celestina's comment, that 90% of articles from her country on ' “businessmen” “entrepreneurs” “organizations” “musicians” and “actors” " would hold true for many other countries also ( Allowing for some rhetorical exaggeration, ) At least as far as “businessmen” “entrepreneurs” & “organizations”are concerned ( I don't know enough to work on the other two categories), somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of the articles of these types from my own country are also paid editing, tho more of them are being disclosed than used too be the case. Anyone who doubts it should come work at AfC for a while. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Analysis of the diffs from OP

• Their first diff has nothing to do with any matter relating to UPE. Their second diff against has nothing to do with UPE it shows me moving an article back to Draftspace. Their third diff is me asking an editor how they got an image in the article as their “own work” Their 4th diff is me placing an AGF sock tag on an editor who knew our mark up and knew how to add scripts to their commons.js in their first 20 edits. Their 5th edit is me placing a placing a UPE tag and initiating a discussion(not against policy).
• I would analyze all the diffs but I have shown a pattern of mixing real diffs with deliberately misleading diffs that have nothing to do with UPE (or even me) to inundate the readers. They have stalked my page ever since and this is exactly why i wrote out on my page before now on how to address UPE on my userpage before this. There was literally no reason to bring this to ANI, it had long been established to the OP that by both myself and onel5969 that the UPE tag wasn’t intended for them several hours ago but it was still an opportunity to bring me to ANI.
• For transparency sake, even though their first diff perhaps was an error, what was quoted there was indeed a comment I made to Yamla in response to them declining a block, but again they are being being deliberately deceptive this if the diff here, they said i had no strong evidence but the comment in itself had two cogent facts, that happened here on Wikipedia. I find it disingenuous of them not to mention that I am equally a Nigerian.
• I however remain unfazed since as I have in no way violated policy, I’m conscious of this hence every and any UPE or AGF sock tag I leave on the tp of an editor I always try to leave a rationale so as to avoid situations as thus If SuperSwift says they dislike drama boards then one begs the question why they still deemed it fit to bring a problem which was established not to be related to them to ANI.
• I dislike coming here, but I hope the diff analysis of this goes to show you what I’m talking about when I say they intentionally(or mistakenly) include diffs that have no business with me negating UPE and mix it with accurate diffs in bid to inundate the community and force a mirage.
• Since I received advice(in June) from Beeblebrox on how to tackle UPE without less confrontation I have done do so by reporting appropriately to either ANI or SPI, whenever I UPE template an editor I always give a personal rationale. I would provide diffs shorty to portray this, using a mobile device give me a minute to do that.
• This is getting tiring the OP mentioned the diffs are from July 1 but haven analyzed them can you now see subtle deception at least three of those diffs were false, in their own words in diff 2 they claim I UPE tagged an editor but please can you all take a look at diff 2? Can you all see the deliberate deception?
• Is deliberately being deceptive and outrightly lying about someone else not in itself warrant a boomerang block? Celestina007 (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the analysis of the diffs:

• Their first diff has nothing to do with any matter relating to UPE. Except that it does; a blocked editor's appeal was denied, and Celestina007 chimed in to make that wide-ranging statement about Nigerian editors and UPE, even though the editor wasn't blocked for UPE. Her comments made it about UPE.
• Their second diff against <sic> has nothing to do with UPE it shows me moving an article back to Draftspace Celestina007 moved the article to draftspace (not back to draftspace) immediately after tagging it for UPE.
• Their third diff is me asking an editor how they got an image in the article as their “own work” Actually, the third diff is to a UPE Warning discussion Celestina007 started (followed by a sockpuppetry warning below that). And as SuperSwift mentioned, that editor has not edited since their conversations with Celestina007. That could be intepreted as evidence of guilt or evidence that a new editor was bullied away.
  The rest of the OP's diffs seem to be what they say they are. I do not see a pattern of mixing real diffs with deliberately misleading diffs by SuperSwift. Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd,

• @Schazjmd, In my third bulleted point, I expressly point out their error in diff one, and I provided the correct diff the editor was talking about. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see deception, subtle or overt, in the original report. That the 2d diff is to the move rather than the preceding edit in which the UPE tag was applied isn't "deceptive". I do see that this was how Celestina007 told SuperSwift that the UPE tag wasn't intended for them: Whilst I largely remain unimpressed with some articles you have created I don’t think anyone was accusing directly of UPE. I do however concerns about you holding the NPR perm as I do not deem you competent enough to hold that right. Schazjmd (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, like, I literally was not talking to them about UPE, agreed a tough manner to say “no it was intended for you” I accept and take responsibility for that but they went off like I had falling into their trap or something, I believe i can count on one hand how many times I have interacted with this user, then they began replying me as though I had specially offended them. Like we literally told him/her this wasn’t intended for you. That was like an hour two hours before this ANI, I assumed they understood rather than come back to my page and say “what are you implying” “what did you mean”? boom! I’m hit with this ANI. Celestina007 (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Schazjmd, I’m largely offended by this ANI, this is quite personal to me, look at my TP and see how I’m living with a life long health condition and I’m here helping out within my capacity and doing the best way I can, they claim I target Nigerian editors but this is me reaching out. Not once have I ever had a problem with any co Nigerian editor who is in good faith editing here, even when my self and good faith editors butt heads we reconcile immediately I edit via a mobile so I can’t do some things with ease but when you can under “Appreciation and Barnstars” and take a look at the very first Barnstar I received. The attempt to paint me a villain is not true please I beg go through my TP and see how I have extensively helped my co Nigerian editors and other editors regardless of race, sex, or country. I’m at WP:TEAHOUSE helping out also. Celestina007 (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If @SuperSwift claims they do not appreciate being here just as I hate being the center of any form attraction also this can be handled by a conversion between myself and them(should have handled in this manner from the start) Baring in mind that they opened this ANI because they believe I left a UPE tag for them which was established by both myself and onel5969 that the UPE wasn’t intended for them. Celestina007 (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, the OP was clear that they were not opening this conversation because of the UPE tag or an accusation against them, but because of a pattern of behavior. I don't think anyone thinks you're a villain. I know that you contribute a great deal to the project and that you spend countless hours reviewing AFC submissions. It's clear that you take pride in your efforts against UPE. I think what's a bit concerning is that you've taken on UPE as a personal crusade, and that in pursuit of that crusade, your approach might appear to be that of a vigilante.

I used to patrol recent changes. What I learned was that by spending a lot of time reverting obvious vandalism, I was beginning to view all edits as suspicious and all unknown editors as suspects. I wonder if by immersing yourself in UPE/COI, you might be experiencing a similar phenomenon. Maybe spending more time on other aspects of editing and a bit less trying to ferret out UPE rings and take down the "bad guys" might not be better for you? The world is not going to end if an undeclared-paid editor slips in an article that is dubiously notable, and it most likely will get caught eventually. Schazjmd (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Schazjmd, I promise you I am not actively looking out for bad guys, asides UPE, I’m happy at the WP:TEAHOUSE, infact on my Userpage I advise against actively hunting for UPE, but if I stumble upon one I report to the appropriate venue, I come here to enjoy myself, I really do love editing here. Honestly I’m tired mentally, I have explained over and again that I play by the book, but editors keep trying discredit me by bring up my past of incivility which I taken responsibility for. Celestina007 (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Siege mentality

There's numerous references above, by Celestina007, to a 'siege' mentality, to an 'us v them' situation, and some kind of vindictiveness in this report - plus taking things '"quite personal[ly]". My view is this is deeply unhelpful, and potentially speaks to a bigger problem around the attitude that this editor takes to UPE and similar actions. When handling all new editors, regardless of your suspicions, editors may be firm, but ultimately must be fair and kind. I question whether someone who displays such an abrasive, combative approach to handling new editor contributions can achieve this level of kindness, welcoming and fairness as consistently as is required. Daniel (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(examples:)

• "with more disgruntled staging a siege against me"
• "I understand how this would come off as rather tough but in order to appreciate this you would have to understand that I am under a calculated siege"
• "The editor above Princess of Ara was topic banned because of me. Once again an attempt from another disgruntled editor to get back at me. I am taking my time to explain everything so you all can understand the siege i am facing now."
• "They have stalked my page ever since"
• "I’m largely offended by this ANI, this is quite personal to me"
• " look at my TP and see how I’m living with a life long health condition and I’m here helping out within my capacity and doing the best way I can"

Daniel (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel, Daniel please look at my contributions at the TEAHOUSE and I believe that answers that. Daniel this is still me look at the latest message. The siege I reference is more of revenge from editors I have reported to the ANI which resulted in them being topic banned or their sensitive user rights removed an example is this. I have diffs, which shows me begging editors join WP:NIGERIA. Celestina007 (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The third sentence of your response is yet another example of what I am saying. This is not an 'us v them' situation, and seemingly being gleeful or discrediting editors because you've had them "topic banned" or "their sensitive user rights removed" is exactly what I'm talking about. I am not going to engage further on this, I am happy for others to assess what I have written above and either agree or disagree with it. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment — It would be disingenuous of me not to mention that SuperSwift(OP) answered a very very imperative question I have been asking in the last two years, I have in the past always asked certain editors, the question of if they ever received coaching because they were too new too be too that proficient with either templates or our markup, the editors never replied, but today Super Swift mentioned in our of their replies that I had “frustrated” some of his students. This answered a question I had been asking for a while now, I don’t go to any social gatherings so that this happens is something I’m hearing for the first time today. I believe it would largely explain editors with less than ten edits creating a somewhat decent article, why they didn’t say this all this while I really do not know. It would have been so much easier. AFAIK UPE or COI isn’t the problem but failure to disclose this is the problem. Celestina007 (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• I should also add that with this new awareness of editors teaching people how to edit Wikipedia (in a formal event or non formal/Personal manner) I see no reason why I can’t work with Super Swift moving forward, for record sake I’d state prior June 2021(before new techniques of handling suspected UPE was advised to me by a functionary) I agree that some comments I made were harsh and in retrospect whilst reading some of them I too cannot believe I made such harsh comments. I know I have been quite harsh to what seems like UPE) but as God is my witness, I honestly cannot remember a situation whereby I have crossed WP:CIVILITY or made unfounded accusations anyone(after functionaries told me a better way to deal with UPE, yes sometimes I do forget to insert the personal message to editors I UPE template as to why I believe their article to be UPE or why I believe they are actively engaging in UPE, but for every article I affix the UPE tag on, I largely have evidence, some of which I just send straight to WP:ARBCOM, if they contain material that is sensitive. I honestly do not know what else to say. I’m mentally drained at this point. Celestina007 (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• I've interacted with Celestina007 over the past year and while we have been friendly, she reminds me quite a deal of Jytdog in that she does a lot (quite a lot!) of good work and receives a great deal of support from fellow editors, but she is often in danger of crossing the line regarding privacy & civility, especially towards new editors.

I respect much of the work that she does but have told her that a) she can not tell editors that she can get them blocked (if you believe this, have a RFA) and b) she can't demand that other editors answer her probing questions as if she is in a position of authority and could prevent them from editing if they don't comply. I've seen her acting tougher on new editors than most admins would be and complain elsewhere that most admins aren't, in her opinion, doing anything about paid editing. Like the siege comments, this seems like shades of a savior complex to me.

I don't come here to ask for sanctions because she does contribute so much but my comments on her talk page haven't had any effect and I hope this discussion will lead to her moderating her approach and tone and to not see herself as the paid editing police. As others have said here, even if some of her accusations are true, it's something Wikipedia can and does deal with every day. It won't lead to the demise of the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments Liz, moving forward I propose not to (a) see myself as boarder patrol for paid editing as I have largely described on my UP even before this ANI, (b) to provide a rationale for UPE templating an editor, (c) adjust my tone even further to be more accommodating. Celestina007 (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

UPE tagging of articles and templating editors without evidence is an integral part of the problems we are discussing here. When you tag an article written by a good faith editor as UPE, you are directly accusing the editor of UPE and that’s unacceptable. I respect your contributions as an editor but when it comes to false UPE accusation, it is unhealthy and has sent lot of good faith Nigerian editors away from the project. Also, you haven't shown in this comment that you understand the problem. So, I think a formal restrictions such as the one I proposed below will be in order, atleast for now. Kaizenify (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have to agree with the idea that Celestina should step back from the language used in some of their UPE accusations. They have done some excellent work in that area, but the attitude is very much that of a gunslinger sometimes. There was a recent case at COIN where I ran into this. After defending what looked to be a good-faith editor (one who Celestina accused very strongly but presented almost no evidence beyond the idea that it was a gut feeling), Celestina commented to another editor that " I literally laughed when I saw an editor defending this account." Well, I was the editor defending the account. I've chased down what must be hundreds of UPE and COI editors by now; I have a pretty good radar on who is and isn't UPE and COI. The thing is, I am on the same side as Celestina, I'm not some COI or UPE editor trying to game the system. The further statements by Celestina are at a level of mistrust and aggressiveness that is just not necessary: "That I’d tell those supporting this COI promotional gibberish “I told you so” is an eventuality. I have unwatched the AFD, Wikipedia indeed does get the editors they deserve. My accuracy when nabbing UPE is near perfect, that a non anti spam editor is arguing with me in my field of expertise is just funny." Some kind of commitment on the part of Celestina is needed that the attitude is going to change. I feel quite badly for the portion of innocent editors who are on the receiving end of that attitude. If there is no willingness to change, I'd support the UPE topic ban. --- Possibly ☎ 07:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me also add Celestina's afd comments to me for the same COIN issue, which are basically just a personal attack: "@Possibly, I’m not looking to sway you, I have brought this to AFD, if you can’t comprehend sources and tell a reliable source from a reliable piece or tell when a piece is a sponsored or an extended announcements not fulfilling SIGCOV, that’s really no concern of mine, it’s many people who can’t tell the difference so I’m unfazed by your rationale." The thing is, I have a ton of experience in this area. There's no need to insult people who disagree with you. And the AfD closed Keep. There was no proven juice behind any of these Notability/UPE/COI accusations and the ensuing personal attacks. There was a point where it was time to AGF, which was soundly rejected. That has to change. --- Possibly ☎ 07:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Considering that this is a pattern of behaviour that needs to be nipped in the bud to protect our editors and the project, I am proposing a ban from WP:UPE for Celestina007 as a mildest solution that has a good chance at resolving the problems highlighted above. User:Celestina007 is also warned that further hostility towards new editors may result in a block.

• Support as proposer. Kaizenify (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – I agree with much of the commentary above (particularly by Liz and Daniel), and I hope Celestina takes it to heart. But such a broad topic ban seems distinctly premature, especially when she's committed to do better in the future. At this point, AGF mandates that we take her at her word. For what it's worth, I'm fairly confident that Celestina doesn't mean to appear hostile: more likely, she just sometimes gets carried away in her zeal to keep spam out of the encyclopedia. That's certainly a problem, but it shouldn't require the blunt instrument of formal sanctions right now, particularly when she's already agreed to address the issue. Again, I hope and trust that she'll think more carefully in the future about her words are perceived, but at this point a topic ban appears unnecessary and disproportionate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with EW above. I expressed my concerns, above, because I had concerns (something I had witnessed over a number of months, not just today, although I didn't have bank of diffs to demonstrate it so I focused on what I read today). I don't think the best remedy in this situation is a blanket ban for Celestina from this area of editing. What I do think is required is a) an undertaking from Celestina to improve moving forward (which has been given); b) demonstrated improvement of this occurring; and c) increased scrutiny from uninvolved editors & administrators as to ensuring b) occurs in the coming weeks and months, with a good-faith discussion one-on-one with Celestina occurring should someone believe the standards aren't being met. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest closure with no action at this time. In Celestina's defense, she has made many valuable contributions to the project and even the words/actions being criticized in this thread are obviously intended to improve Wikipedia. I've seen how Celestina has learned and grown as an editor since she began editing. I've seen her take on board past criticism and change how she approaches different tasks, and so I believe that she will consider the concerns expressed in this thread and moderate her approach to other editors in response. Schazjmd (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the first time this user is promising to change their behaviour . As early as June 2021, the user made the same promise in this ANI thread, here, here. Here we are again with another promise. SuperSwift (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Noting that the four diffs are all promises to do better, and all about a month old. --- Possibly ☎ 07:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Extend some WP:ROPE. This is a close call and the irony is not lost on me that I said I could imagine myself supporting just such a measure above. There's a lot to be concerned about in diffs presented here, including in recent interactions and to some extent into the present discussion. But Celestina seems to be genuine in their assertions that they are working on assimilating to community standards. I'm also concerned that the ban here would be an atypical one, as I think about it. A usual narrowly tailored topic ban can be easily followed without chance of putting an editor in a position where they have to choose between reporting bad faith behaviour and risking sanction or just letting obvious examples go to preserve their own editing priveleges. While I'm not saying that this is something we absolutely should not consider if the behaviour persists and Celestina shows they cannot keep perspective in these areas, I'm also thinking a higher threshold is needed before we hobble and contributor in this fashion. By the same token though, I personally think Celestina has gone right up to the edge on this, even considering their well-advised decision to listen to community feedback and continue working on reforming their approach. Afterall, there was a bit of WP:IDHT up until that point, and only the fact that I believe them when they say they are frustrated but still willing to listen that tips the balance for me. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to flip my !vote to supporting the TBAN if Celestina ends up back here for behaviour even remotely resembling the pattern discussed here in this thread. But this community is in the habit of extending some rope in these situations and I'm willing to lean into that here. Hopefully I won't regret the !vote later. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The "siege" commeent is unfortunate, but this user has genuinely caught more legitimate UPEs than not. Furtherore, per EW and Daniel, this user does appear to have taken to heart the comments about unnecessarily un-AGFAGF comments, and quite honestly considering their previous behaviour I have no doubt that they will rectify the problems listed. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 07:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think if we're going to avoid a sanction here and hope for the right attitude from Celestina moving forward, we need to frame this as a question outside of their batting average for catching UPE's. First off, we need to be stressing that a certain tone is required regardless of how certain they are that their concerns are legitimate. Second off, I genuinely think that Celestina needs to reassess the baseline level of evidence they have before they leap into action on some of these cases. There are examples in this thread where their presumptions far outstripe the evidence they are working from. If Celestina doesn't learn to temper their approach in both regards, I have little doubt they will end up the subject of another thread here eventually. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Clearly keen as mustard, does some good work, and seems to have the right ideas if somewhat overzealous methods. A number of people have provided sage advice, both in this thread and previously, and I would strongly suggest that (regardless of outcome) Celestina takes a step back for a while and carefully considers all the feedback they have been provided and what they will be doing differently in the future (not just in terms of behaviour and interactions with others, but where they see themselves fitting into the somewhat strange world that is Wikipedia). My sense of optimism and what I have seen thus far gives me some hope that, if given this opportunity to do so, they will seize it and move forward as an ongoing positive contributor. However I would also suggest that if this does not pose a wake up call, nothing will; if we have to come back here again, I doubt many people would consider that we haven't reached the end of this particular length of rope. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Celestina007 promised to change and stop casting aspersions and accusing editors of UPE without evidence on 23 June and 24 June 2021, in the ANI report initiated by Princess of Ara, as can be seen here, here and here, in her words, yes I accept that I have been ferocious and I have taken responsibility for that.... But yes, like I said I take responsibility for my less than civil approach, moving forward it wouldn’t be confrontational.... Some comments have been raised, yes I do take responsibility for some of my harsh methods of dealing with UPE.... I have seen the “cracks in the wall” and I’m going to correct them, moving forward i shall continue to tackle UPE but in a less confrontational manner, they continued However, I do agree that more often than not I tend to tackle what I believe to UPE ferociously, and moving forward I’m going to be a less confrontational but still as effective and further added I have learnt that moving forward I should do things like you have suggested. This has been a learning curve for me & I do appreciate your input. Rather then changing, this user even increased in their battleground behavior, accusing more good faith editors of UPE without evidence. As can be seen here on 9 July 2021 and in this AfD. Their comments in another AfD from 4 to 8 July 2021 and this COI thread as pointed out by Possibly shows they've refused to learn. Accusing a whole country (Nigeria) editors as UPE without evidence as can be seen here on 21 July 2021 is the worst personal attack I've ever seen here on Wikipedia. I'll also add that if this continues, I'll not hesitate to support an indef block. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 08:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  To misquote Shakespeare; The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - for the simple reason that Celestina is a net positive and giving them such a topic ban would cause more harm to the project than good. I have no doubt that they will reflect on what has been said here and adapt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose. Celestina is an extremely competent and valuable editor, but they have a hot temper and sometimes go overboard. But I am pretty sure that this can be worked on and that they can improve. My account is less than 1 year old and I barely have 5k edits, so nobody has to listen to what I say, but I would advise 1) always starting at a level 1 when it comes to UPE/sockpuppetry user warnings, regardless of the previous user warnings that the editor has received, 2) not adding personal comments to the templates and 3) exercising extreme care when discussing with the users accused of UPE/sockpuppetry. I would just like to note that the OP is also exaggerating quite a bit. As an editor who cleaned up the article written by the "Legal Intern" (which saved it from deletion), I am not personally convinced that this was the work of a volunteer editor, so I'm not sure on what basis the OP calls Celestina's user warning "false". Regarding another article that she "falsely" tagged as UPE, it's worth noting 1) that Celestina also proceeded to clean it up very thoroughly from its promotional content [507] and 2) that anybody who would have taken a look at the article in its original state, before Celestina's work, would also have suspected that it was the work of a UPE editor. JBchrch talk 09:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – yeah, I'm not seeing this. While I concur that Celestina should raise their bar for what constitutes indisputable evidence, we're yet far away from a point where I would call their behaviour "chronic and intractable". And certainly, there are worse things to be overly passionate about than UPE. AngryHarpy‍^talk 10:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support  – With all this kind of counsel [508] [509] [510] [511] [512] [513] and more from experienced editors over time, I think a long enough rope has been given. So many overzealous fans and newbies have gotten burnt needlessly. Kind regards, Princess of Ara_(talk) 16:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose While I have spoken to Celestina about toning down her approach, I did not suggest (as seems to be implied way up above) that she should stop working to detect and prevent UPE, and do not see a need for tban. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - deciding UPE issues is one of the trickiest issues done by reviewers. There are certain tells which are dead give-aways that a person either has a UPE or COI issue. Their contributions are incredibly valuable, particularly in the area of articles regarding Africa. They have said they will tone down their rhetoric, and we should AGF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Non-admin Comment: I'd go further, and say that UPE isn't just tricky, it's downright impossible. The two key rules of WP are "Don't say anything unless you've got good evidence" and "Assume good faith", and with UPE, neither is realistic. You can never prove UPE because no one here has access to another editor's personal finances. And it's impossible to defend yourself against a claim of UPE. It ultimately risks descending to the conversation: "You're being paid!", "No I'm not", "I don't believe you", and that's flat contrary to assuming good faith. I wonder whether UPE is really a problem that anyone should be working on. Focus on the edit, not the editor: if the text is referenced, balanced, and reasonably well-written, what more do we want? The point about WP is that it is so strongly peer-reviewed that there is no advantage to paying. Frankly if a person is daft enough to pay an agency/writer to fill "their" article with self-aggrandisement the most likely outcome is someone else will nominate it for deletion, so they might as well just stick their cash in the shredder (and that's the message we should be making loud and clear). But where I think we very much need people like Celestina is in assessing articles about African situations and people; Celestina seems to me to have local knowledge and expertise at knowing when the sources are good or unreliable, which I for one don't. Elemimele (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's make no mistake, we are under siege from paid editing, whether disclosed or not; if we don't do something soon, that siege will become a tsunami. Editors who are prepared to stand there with a finger in the dyke are few and far between, Celestina is one of them and deserves our thanks for that. However, intemperate or hostile comments or remarks are not acceptable here, and can weaken the effect of otherwise worthy actions. Celestina007, could you see your way to a rather more laid-back – or perhaps even courteous? – attitude to other editors, while keeping up the good work you do? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers, I am thankful each time for an opportunity such as this as they are a learning curve for me. The answer is a solid “yes” infact, from the last ANI that resulted in a boomerang on the OP what I got out from it is that rather than be confrontational I should just use the WP:COIN board to report issues or go off wiki and report directly to Arbcom. I have tried and have done so, even when I UPE template an article and not the creator per se or even when I leave UPE template on the page of an editor I actively try and initiate a dialogue with the user as to why I have done so. I am always grateful for an opportunity to learn, what I have taken out of this is, to be conservative about my POV as noted above (making an assertion that 90% of Nigerian editors, (I’m Nigerian also) engage in UPE was out of line, I could have said “a good percentage” and that would be statistically correct, one only needs to go to up work and anyone can see for themselves, in fact when I made that comment I referenced two cases where experienced Nigerian editors who had gained the communities trust have been nabbed in less than ethical practices on Wikipedia. Let me also add that i apologize to SuperSwift for the error I made, although I did erroneously make that edit, corrected myself, and told SuperSwift that the UPE tag wasn’t intended for them, I told them in a snarky manner unbecoming of a senior editor. So it’s like I said, I would definitely continue my good work, still be as effective and definitely would tone down on my tone. Celestina007 (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I also want to apologize to the community at large, and Princess of Ara, in particular, because I indeed put them under scrutiny from there first edits. Celestina007 (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Oppose per Justlettersandnumbers above. Celestina007 may sometimes be overzealous, but UPE is WP's elephant in the room and I trust them to take on board the issues raised here. Definitely a net positive. Miniapolis 23:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Moving forward and from advice from both ARBCOM and a sysop here actively engaging in anti UPE I know exactly what to do when tackling UPE in the most appropriate and civil manner, I do not envisage ever being reported here ever again as I know just exactly what to do in tackling UPE, it would less confrontations and more civil action by using the appropriate channels, which I have largely tried to follow since the advice from ARBCOM in June. Celestina007 (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I've been working with Celestina for some time, and I think they now understand the best way to stop UPE is not to waste time and energy into blaming them, but just to remove their articles in an objective manner. Expressing negative feelings here to people who are knowingly ignoring our rules evokes is almost never necessary, and runs the risk of inappropriately expressing negative feelings towards people who may not realize that they are breaking the rules, or who may be good faith editors who are unwitting copying the promotionalism that is so rampant here or even deliberately copying it because it is so pervasive they think it's what they want. Like most active people working with UPE, I have made occasional incorrect accusations and identifications--and so have the most experienced admins and arbs working in this area. I apologize for them--but I always remember and regret them. But as Celestina said above, we are under siege in this area, and we need to keep working--but doing it as dispassionately as we can, though it is difficult to feel dispassionate towards people who are trying in bad faith for money to destroy the value of Wikipedia.

I understand the concern of the OP here ; I gather from their usertalk they are an organizer of a Wikipedia club at a university. From my own long experience with such activities, it takes experience to prevent such activities from being manipulated by those who would do promotional editing, and even greater skill to prevent naïve new users from submitting work which is so unsatisfactory that it will be taken as deliberate promotionalism . Most new groups go through a considerable period where they gradually learn to avoid the submission of grossly improper contributions due to inadequately supervised training. Most new groups improve as the trainers get experience. Because of the disruption of conventional in-person training session by the pandemic, the last two years have been especially difficult--it is very much more difficult to supervise training when its done remotely, and the performance of even my own chapter is nowhere near as good as it used to be. (This has been of course a problem for teachers generally, not just WP.) The solution is not to reduce standards, but also not to express anger at people who are learning under difficult circumstances. It's hard for anyone to get this right-it's difficult for me as well as for Celestina--I know I am not as patient with poor contributions as I was 2 years ago. I recognize the frustration of someone leading training when their trainee's work is declined, but they should realize this is the opportunity to learn how to improve their own role.

But Celestina is learning, just as the rest of us are learning. My main activity these days is reviewing declined AfCs looking for those I can rescue. Celestina's declines are as accurate as anyone's, There will sometimes be disagreement between reviewers, but there are very few instances where I or another reviewer will accept something she's declined. Working in this area can be demoralizing, and it requires effort to focus on the minority of articles that can be accepted, not the many that can't be. She's done very well at keeping up her morale, and is doing the work more calmly than at first. What she really needs, just as all of us workers at AfC need, is for more people to join in this. It would be utterly unproductive to try to remove one of the hardest working and most accurate people in this area. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support I don't believe that allowing the user to continue engaging in frivolous UPE accusations, newbie biting, and general obnoxiousness is a good idea. With all the diffs that have been presented (and apparently ignored), if we're planning to allow Celestina to walk out of this discussion without any editing restrictions, it should be done strictly on a last-chance basis. This doesn't leave me with a whole lot of hope for their future though: they just don't seem to get what's being said to them. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC) This comment has shattered what little hope I still had. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Opppose Celestina is a great editor and a fundamentally decent women. But we must deal in realpolitik here. Poeple get angry for natural reasons, but mostly for UPE editing now. scope_creep^Talk 09:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose (Non-administrator comment) - I think the good Celestina does to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia far outweighs the mistakes she has made in the past. She is a productive, good faith editor who has proven that she has keen perceptive abilities to identify UPE and COI editing. She has stated that she will temper the tone of her interactions and is actively listening to the advice given to her here. I believe that she is trustworthy and will keep her word. It would be a net-loss to the project to ban her from an area of her strength. Netherzone (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose As I believe I stated above, I didn't comment here to support sanctions but just urge a change in tone & approach and the a promise not to make threats which can serve to intimidate editors, especially newbies. I agree with DGG that many editors who write promotional content aren't paid editors but just think that this style of writing is what is acceptable online. They require education, not accusations.

What I don't want is for Celestina to become the next Jytdog who also did tremendous work here regarding COI until he crossed the line. I'm glad that some of the comments above mine are pointing out that there IS a line. And, also, I'm not sure how "a ban from WP:UPE" would even be carried out. It seems like Celestina is taking comments to heart which, ideally, is the best outcome a stressful experience like coming to ANI can deliver. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commons - a petty deletion for a photo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Link: commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bradford_Montage_2021.jpg

I mean I don't know how this works but a user on Wikicommons seems to dislike a new montage for Bradford because in their own words "Because its nonsense". The user doesn't appear to be on Wikipedia but I mean I don't see how it hurts to update a lead photo every so often...I made collages for Blackburn, Dewsbury, Halifax and there have been no complaints...but for this one there is...I have commented on it and think because its nonsense as a reason to delete is quite petty and silly...would anyone on here who uses commons comment...it has been changed much still got the city hall, cathedral and skyline present just added the mosque and a well known hall...I can happily readd the other montage but I think my one is not so bad and the authors have been credited...RailwayJG (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC) RailwayJG (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do about it, but I've added my 2 cents to the discussion. It won't be deleted, it's not a valid deletion rationale there and it's clearly not a good faith nomination. Canterbury Tail talk 16:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Canterbury Tail: I found it to be silly and I thought at the end of the day its just a montage...it is not an offensive photo and the user there looks to have only joined...

RailwayJG (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I kept the file, clearly a nonsense nomination by a user who has registered today.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuing block evasion from Ninenine99

• Ninenine99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ninenine99 was blocked indefinitely earlier this year and has become increasingly persistent with block evasion - 2603:8000:B01:8AD4:DD28:CA5C:B909:FE36 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the most recent, active today.

There has been a succession of /64 ranges blocked but it appears that Ninenine99 has learned how to get around them.

• 2603:8000:B03:5D32:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) was blocked last week after disrupting since late May.

Past IP ranges have included:

• 2603:8000:B00:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 2603:8000:B02:E142:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 2603:8000:B00:CB5E:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Is a wider rangeblock possible? --Sable232 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yes — 2603:8000:b01:8ad4:dd28:ca5c:b909:fe36/46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) incluses all of these ranges, and almost no one else. All IP's geolocate to the Gateway Cities area. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Can an administrator block this IP range? --Sable232 (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of user:allknowingroger spotted

The user who was the subject of this is back under the name User:Adorvisa. Given that they're focusing on the same thing and reverting my edits, it's pretty obviously the same person. Can I revert their edits? (And can we do a community ban of them?) Best, -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 18:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Rockstone35, subject to what? The allknowingroger account is not blocked (nor have they ever been blocked). Their last edit was over a month ago. It's possible they lost their details and registered the Adorvisa username as a new account. If so, they should disclose that, but maybe they simply don't know they have to. El_C 21:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C, are both of them socks of blocked User:RogerNiceEyes? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C -- like Cullen328 said, they are sockpuppets of RogerNiceEyes. People just didn't bother blocking allknowingroger because they disappeared. This is part of their Modus Operandi. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 22:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked and tagged both accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Bbb23 -- thank you! --Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 16:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Rockstone35 Drmies has just CU blocked user:Niterurea as another sockpuppet, do we need another mass revert? 192.76.8.91 (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

"White-supremacist" term: a request for clarification

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

 Courtesy link: Talk:Germanic peoples § Let my people go

Now that some of the problems with the Germanic peoples article are being worked on, I feel it necessary to raise a separate issue. Recently on the Germanic peoples talk page Berig used the term "white supremacist" in the Let my people go thread (which I started). Here's some of the context, beginning with a statement by Carlstak:

Yes, and putting the words of Moses at the top of the apologist diatribe is beyond the pale. The very first sentence saying "This comment is made pointedly toward improving the general tone and direction of the article" is beyond satirization. My father's mother was German, I fit the stereotypical blonde-haired, blue-eyed Nordic type in appearance, as do some of my Jewish friends, and I am outraged by the comment. Carlstak (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

And my wife is Jewish, as are technically my children. I just don't understand why this discussion has to be so polarized. Correct me if I am wrong, because I might not be smart enough to grasp this, but it is like either the article will cater to the delusions of white supremacists, or it has to be a deconstructionist essay. Can it be possible to write an article where we are just honest with how little we know and present opinions as opinions, and theory as theory?--Berig (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I responded and further objected to other derogatory remarks in the thread:

Whether the concept of the Germanic people is being treated by scholars under a general cloud of prejudice is, of course, up for debate. The fact that I believe it strongly likely does not make me a "white supremacist", a term I consider to be offensive and racist. It is interesting that my title and comments aroused such vehement reactions and quickly provoked the bigoted stereotypes which in fact are frequently and offensively applied to Germans. Trump is German-American, so I can be compared to a Trumpista?. Auschwitz must be interjected for no known reason. Berig wonders why this discussion "has to be so polarized" and so do I. But I am not the one calling names. Dynasteria (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Now, I don't believe Berig was overtly calling me a white supremacist. However, I was the only person to whom it could logically apply. Piling that on top of other borderline slurs was objectionable. I decided to forget about it until Srnec on this page remarked that I found the term racist. Then EEng repeated his accusation that I am somehow pro-Nazi:

This ANI thread has certainly brought out the worst in Andrew, but a different user recently posted to the article talk page a Germans-as-victims screed under the heading "Let my people go" and complained that "white supremacist" was an offensive label. Srnec (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Srnec:: I am that "different user". You are welcome to your own opinion but I do not have to accept your slurs as examples of the "worst" in someone. My thread was not some superfluous "Germans-as-victims screed" and it is un-Wikipedian behavior to be dismissive toward me. Primarily, though, the fact that I consider "white supremacist" to be a racist term, because it is, is outside your province of review. If you are defending the use, then you are guilty of a racist (or is it political) attack on me. You know nothing about me, do you? Dynasteria (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Other than that you advocate for voluntary amnesia about the catastrophe that was 20th-century German history, no, nothing. EEng 14:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

So not only do I object to the racist/political slurs against me, I object to the characterizations of my posts as a "screed" or a "diatribe". Then, additionally on this page, Landroving Linguist characterized my contributions (among others') as "rhetoric". This last is mainly problematic in that it is one of those buffering words that conceal the attack and insult. I put a lot of effort into my posts and don't appreciate having them denigrated.

My question here is whether this is acceptable behavior and language on the part of Wikipedians. Should I just roll with the punches like any grownup? Hey, we've all had derogatory terms used against us from time to time and none of us felt the least bit slighted. Right? Or is this, as I suspect, a sign of latent bigotry and a double standard? I shouldn't have to say this, no one here really knows anything about me.

@Berig, Srnec, Obenritter, Alcaios, Ealdgyth, Srnec, Avilich, Dynasteria, Yngvadottir, Austronesier, SMcCandlish, North8000, Krakkos, Bloodofox, Carlstak, Ermenrich, Landroving Linguist, Andrew Lancaster, EEng, Ealdgyth, and Doug Weller: And anyone else who feels like contributing. Dynasteria (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

As to your claim about me, I did not relate the word "rhetoric" to your contribution on white supremacists on that talk page, but to your and other's complaints against another user in a different ANI thread. So I don't see myself involved in this. LandLing 22:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dynasteria, I'm sure I must be misunderstanding, but just to be very, very clear: you seem to be arguing that the term "White supremacist" -- the term itself, like the n-word -- is racist and offensive and doesn't belong in discussions here on WP? —valereee (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: Basically, yes. Throwing the term at someone because he is white (suspected) and because he is arguing in favor of some aspect of Germanic peoples is by definition racist. Naziism lasted about 15 years and ended 75 years ago. Conflating Germans with Nazis and other white supremacists is in itself racist.Dynasteria (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I suppose if someone actually is a white supremacist then the term would apply without objection. Dynasteria (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dynasteria, so you're saying the term itself is not racist and offensive? —valereee (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: Right. The context makes the difference. In the American high schools where I've spent a lot of time, you can hear the N-word about a thousand times a day and nobody is offended. Conversely if something is used as an insult then it is one. Here, if it was used in the innocent belief that I was in fact a white supremacist Nazi, then I feel I'm owed an explanation. Thank you for being reasonable. Dynasteria (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, if you're hearing the n-word 1000 times a day and not objecting, I'd start objecting. If you ever get famous someday, someone is going to bring that shit up. —valereee (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Without comment on anything else, a link to the actual discussion would be helpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, see the courtesy link. TSventon (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: It's from the kids. Part of their culture at large (applicable to all races and generations) and they'd be really offended if you tried to change them. Dynasteria (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic, taking to user talk. —valereee (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dynasteria: I think Berig meant that it is better to write an article where we are just honest than to cater to the delusions of white supremacists or to write a deconstructionist essay and they hoped and expected all participants in the discussion to agree with them. Hopefully they will speak for themself in due course. TSventon (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I am really sorry that you feel offended @Dynasteria:. I honestly did not think about you when I wrote it, and what TSventon wrote above is exactly what I meant.--Berig (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Berig: Thanks for your apology. I didn't really think you were the type to resort to name calling. What is important, to me, is to address a general atmosphere of guilt by association between present day Germans, historical Nazis, and a kind of free-floating, all-purpose racism (just any old racism that happens to arise). Perhaps that atmosphere is exemplified by the automaticity with which one or two others piled on after my response to you. I feel that most people are unaware of any such bigotry and certainly don't accept that it exists. Regarding the issue of deconstructing the concept of a Germanic peoples in the article, some users point to various scholars who write and publish in German (i.e. Austrians and Germans) who refute the idea that a pan-Teutonic culture or ethnic group ever existed. Certainly those scholars can't be prejudiced. (?) To that I would say that the worst form of bigotry is practiced by the members of the very group toward which it is directed. If you feel tainted by being part of a group, then surely you want to disassociate yourself from it. This is what I find wrong with the Germanic peoples article.

All that is a long-winded explanation of what I object to about using the term "white supremacist" except where it actually belongs. Dynasteria (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is starting to feel like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS at this point. If you’re going to make such broad speculations about a group of scholars you at the very least need a source which says the same... You can’t just call them practitioners of bigotry and expect that argument to fly unsupported. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back: Thanks for your response. It's a perspective I hadn't considered. In fact I'm not speculating about a group of scholars as actually being "practitioners of bigotry". Rather, I'm pointing out that their ethnicity is no guarantee of their objectivity or lack of bigotry, bias, etc. I should provide a link to that area of the talk page on Germanic peoples where the relevant discussion occurred, and I'm working on figuring out how to do that. Dynasteria (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Take careful note, Dynasteria:
  • With respect to: EEng repeated his accusation that I am somehow pro-Nazi –

    (a) I said nothing like that;

    (b) How fucking dare you say make such an accusation without notifying me as required in the huge box at the top of this page, and in the editnotice that pops up each time you edit it? The reason for that requirement is that inexperienced editors such as yourself, as they flail about, often don't know basic stuff like how to trigger a ping properly, and then people get super pissed off that you're talking about them behind their backs, even if inadvertently;

    (c) I strongly suggest that within the next 12 hours you either add diffs to all your junk above (showing the context of material you're quoting) and notifying, on their talk pages, everyone you're bitching about; or (way better for your) close this misbegotten thread. If you do neither of these things I'll take the initiative to close it for you.

  • With respect to: Naziism lasted about 15 years and ended 75 years ago – Seriously, just how ignorant are you?

You're way out of line and making yourself look like a complete ass. EEng 01:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Also, long-winded takes a hyphen. I've got half a mind to sic the hyphen police on you. Then you'll really rue the day.

@EEng: Thanks for the heads-up. I'll take care of the notifications soon. Unfortunately I don't know how to add diffs. Perhaps an administrator could step in and provide instruction. I'm not aware of flailing about, as you put it. Dynasteria (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:DIFF is a good start. Or try Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

You have 6 hours left to supply the diffs before I hat this. Still waiting for you to address your frightful ignorance of history and lying about me. Probably best if you defer editing in grownup topic area until you've obtained an education. EEng 11:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Dynasteria: Please refrain from filing ANI reports if you don't know how to provide evidence of the claims you are going to make about other editors' behaviour. If the problem is that you do not have access to such evidence because it does not exist, then please apologize and retract the offending remarks.

EEng: If you look at the talk page section linked at the top of this thread, it seems the OP is quite confused about the difference between "Germanic peoples" and "German people" ("German diaspora"?) despite the former term being pretty well defined in the opening sentences of the article in question. Compared to this, a confusion of "Naziism" with "the Third Reich" seems pretty... well, it's not "tame", but it's more believable that an editor acting in good faith could be ignorant of that history as long as they are not actually editing articles specifically about Naziism or the Third Reich. (Read: I would expect a member of "the general populace" to be more familiar with Naziism than with the ancient Germanic tribes, but the same would not apply to someone engaged in lengthy back-and-forth on the talk page of our article on the Germanic tribes.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

You have a more kind and forgiving heart, Hijiji, than do I, but dissecting the precise metes and bounds of Dynasteria's ignorance seems to me an unprofitable investment of time. EEng 11:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hijiri: Lack of knowledge about procedure is not a bar to filing complaints. (Go to federal court and scrawl your complaint in crayon and they'll accept it.) I shouldn't have to hire the equivalent of a lawyer to be here. Please be advised that the Germanic peoples article has been altered radically since I started participating on the talk page. I'm not aware of confusing Naziism with the Third Reich. I associated a sly "Arbeit Macht Frei" jab with being called a Nazi. What would you like to say about EEng's leveling threats at me on this page? Is that OK? Dynasteria (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah well, see, Gideon, this isn't federal court and we don't have to waste our time with people scrawling in crayon, so if it's your plan to continue the cluelessness act you'd better find another one. You don't have to to hire the equivalent of a lawyer to be here (though maybe this guy [514] can help you) but you do have to be able to read directions; you've already been pointed to the box at the top of this page, and someone has helpfully linked the tutorial on diffing. I renew my exhortation that you close this thread voluntarily and go edit in less fraught topic areas while you educate yourself (on things including, but not limited to, how Wikipedia works) before you talk yourself into a WP:CIR block. EEng 13:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, Hijiri How am I "quite confused" about the difference between Germanic peoples and German people? The beauty of being quite confused, as with being ignorant, is that often one has no idea about one's state of mind. I would genuinely like to clear up some issues but I need you to address me directly. Also, I don't like working under a general threat so please address EEng directly about that. Dynasteria (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dynasteria: this isn't federal court. NZ is not a federation, there's no such thing as a federal court anyway. The vast majority of us are not lawyers. Many people here are also not that technically competent. Still most experienced editors learn how to supply diffs. If you are unable to learn the unfortunately it is correct you probably should not file complaints at ANI. If someone else is aware of the problem, talk to them about it and ask them if they can help you bring a complaint. If no one else is aware, then unfortunately you may just have to leave it be until someone else notices the problem. I'm fairly confused though. People have provided you two guides above. Have you read them and made an effort to learn? Because if you haven't, I'm not sure why your convinced you cannot learn. I suggest you just try. It will be far better for you and for everyone, if you take the time and find out how to and then supply diffs rather than continuing this conversation. Whatever you may feel about what EEng said in this thread, they have a point that you've made a very serious allegation and so far failed to back that up with evidence. Failing to do so will likely be seen as a personal attack leading to a block so you either need to do so or withdraw the allegation and apologise. So if you're unable or unwilling to do so, please just withdraw the allegation and apologise. If you are or might be able to, I suggest you spend your time learning and doing so rather than wasting time on this diversion. If you really want, you can get back to it once you've supplied diffs for you serious allegation. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I don't know much about US federal courts assuming that's what you meant but I strongly suspect you're mistaken. Sure you may be able to file a complaint with crayon, but if you fail to provide any evidence, it's going to be thrown out. If it actually comes before a judge and the judge asks you for your evidence and you just say 'I don't know how to provide evidence your honour, hopefully a judge can do it for me', you won't get very far. (Not that admins are judges.) At best they may offer you guidance and suggestions (and frankly the main one will probably be to hire a lawyer) and cut you a lot of slack from the normal rules, but ultimately you are the one who needs to learn from them and be able to provide the evidence. If you can't or don't and your complaint gets thrown out, you'll likely find if you keep doing it you'll get in trouble even if you use pen. We could cut you a little slack here, instead of a diff ask for a link to the discussion and a quote of the statement where EEng repeated the accusation, and for that matter where they first made the accusation; but you're going to need to do something other than arguing about what you're confused about. Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: You're right, I did leave out some of the more objectionable wording. But in fact I have already provided some evidence. This is from the Let my people go thread linked at the top of this thread:

You’re missing the point, Dynasteria, that in my experience numerous German and Austrian scholars (Walter Pohl, Helmut Reimitz, Sebastian Brather…) including the current editors of Germanische Altertumskunde Online, deny the existence of “Germanic peoples”. This has nothing to do with anti German sentiment in the anglophone world, it has to do with dismantling 19th and 20th Century nationalist and essentialist ideas about language and ethnicity. We can’t ignore the consensus of scholars, that goes against Wp policy.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

What are you thinking, Dynasteria? "Let my people go" is a completely inappropriate heading for your statement in this context of what you say about the racism of the Nazis. Of course you know that "Let My People Go" is a phrase from the Book of Exodus 5:1: "And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness." I am astonished and amazed that you transpose the pleas of the Israelite leaders before the Egyptian ruler onto your screed made on behalf of people of German descent concerning modern-day prejudice against them. You should strike it. Carlstak (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

At least it wasn't Arbeit macht frei. EEng 15:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to think that the heading was chosen in haste, without thinking through the implications, because it's the sort of oblivious remark that one expects from Trumpista fascists rather than an intelligent WP editor like Dynasteria. Carlstak (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Given Dynasteria's plea that It is time to release the Germanic people from the chains and shackles of being enslaved, I'd say that's wishful thinking. But ya know, as Tom Lehrer put it, Once all the Germans were warlike and mean, / But that couldn't happen again. / We taught them a lesson in 1918 / And they've hardly bothered us since then. EEng 17:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne You can hardly expect me to become fully proficient overnight. EEng's bringing up a famous slogan associated with Auschwitz, along with other remarks, in my view is tantamount to calling me a Nazi. Now, I didn't know until today the gravity of that accusation so I'm willing to withdraw it. However, as I said before, I refuse to work under threat. Tell EEng to lay off and I'll get right on it, fixing my earlier oversights. I've placed in bold some of the comments and issues I find troubling, but even that will prove insufficient explication. I was trying to simplify things but have only made them more complicated. If anyone really wants to get involved it will require some catching up, as it did me at the beginning. And I'll probably have to repeat myself as I've already done, well, repeatedly. Dynasteria (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, see, you're still leaving out the things you said, which is what everyone was responding to. When you imply that Germans are the real victims of 20th-century history, and use the heading "Let my people go" to do it, you deserve whatever you get. Still don't get that, do you? EEng 13:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Skimming that discussion, the original comment in the section reads like a WP:RGW issue, and the user's complaint here is difficult to make sense of. The "white supremacist" comment that the user has zoned into seems like the proverbial mountain out of a molehill, since I don't think it was even directed at the user. And the user's complaints about EEng seem like a case of When you imply that Germans are the real victims of 20th-century history, and use the heading "Let my people go" to do it, you deserve whatever you get. The user seems oblivious of the impression created by their tone/argument. Further, the unfocused comments by the user above make me unsure whether there's a specific problem here that concerns them. Overall, this all just comes across as drama solely for the sake of drama. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I've got a name and it isn't "user". You've stated your opinion well enough but have misstated mine. I've elucidated everything I think, feel, and believe regarding these topics multiple times so if anyone is confused about it that person can take a couple of hours and comb through all the remarks. If they still can't make sense of it, that isn't my deficiency. However, ProcrastinatingReader, it seems well established that the severity of a bigoted remark is judged by the recipient, not by the person making it nor by a third party bystander. The trouble, I find, with challenging entrenched, prejudiced, "mainstream" viewpoints is precisely that that's what they are. There is a huge, shared, vested interest in maintaining the status quo. And no one is going to stand by your side and volunteer to take flak. If you think EEng's and others' language and behavior have been exemplary, then be in peace and go on your way. I suggest the only recourse is to do what EEng wants and shut down this thread. Then the whole thing will just blow away (in your mind). Dynasteria (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

TBH I still can't make sense of your complaint, or your reply. As I say, it's unfocused and this ANI section switches between a vague complaint about article content, concerns about users' interactions with you, off-topic philosophical tangents about the Germanic peoples and use of language, technical difficulties possibly as a result of not reading WP:DIFF, and allegations of some kind of conspiracy/"vested interest" of which the perpetrators are unclear (Wikipedians? Scholars?). There also seems to be some confusion about the purpose of Wikipedia. All in all, the lack of focus makes it very difficult to address your concerns or address which parts you're mistaken on. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Dynasteria, with all due respect, when you titled the thread "Let my people go," you were either being deliberately provocative or astoundingly oblivious. Either way people are entitled to render opinions based on your actions. You are certainly entitled to defend yourself, but I am with ProcrastinatingReader--this all seems like drama for drama's sake at this point. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Deliberately provocative. No one who can write English this well and is familiar with German history and scholarship would not be aware of the effect on others of quoting the Torah in an argument that Germans are unfairly being linked to Nazis. And then to jump into an existing ANI thread, and open a separate ANI thread about it? As a non-EC editor? This is trolling, pure and simple, meaning it's intentionally done for the purpose of provoking others, or as Proc said above, drama for the sake of drama. My !vote is close this per WP:DFTT. Levivich 15:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dynasteria: no one said anything about you becoming proficient overnight. However when you were asked to provide evidence, instead of making some attempt to do so, you initially just said hopefully someone else would do so, although it seemed clearly no one knew what on earth you were talking about so there was no way for anyone else to do so. When someone provided you guides, again instead of making some effort to learn from them and/or asking for help on the parts which confused you, you seemed to continue to complain about other stuff and added some frankly silly story about some Federal court. You've now finally provided evidence. It may not demonstrate what you claim, however if you'd done so when first challenged frankly I wouldn't have commented since this discussion bores me. I only commented since I found it silly you were doing everything other than providing evidence for your claim and yet complaining about a deadline. I often disagree with EEng and frankly I don't think the way they dealt with this was great (since it would be better to let someone else handle any actions on your accusations), but I can completely understand their frustration when you made allegations and kept refusing to provide any evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I opened the thread with evidence. I simply asked for time to figure out what a "diff" is and what to do with it. Don't ever use the word "silly" toward me or about me especially if you don't know what a metaphor is. The evidence is now available so what do you have to say about it? You REALLY need to do your homework before commenting. Dynasteria (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. I think it is abundantly clear that this needs to simply be shut down. Happy Monday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Dynasteria, as your attorney, I advise you to stop talking and withdraw this complaint. Jorm (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose boomerang

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given that Dynasteria has been trying to counter Wikipedia’s "hidden agenda" [515] for at least a decade I am formally requesting community input on a WP:NOTHERE site ban. Their contributions to Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and Talk:Bible would suggest that this isn’t limited to any one topic area so I’m not sure a topic ban would actually address the issue at hand. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Having skimmed through about 100 of their 300 talkspace contribs, I see what you see. There seems to be a great focus on racial issues and adjacent things... like the genetic history of blue eyes, who is "Nordic," "Caucasian race" shouldn't be in scare quotes, whether Dinesh D'Souza is "far right," arguing that the Bible article should just be about the Christian Bible... I recognize these talking points. Their earliest talk page edits question whether Oliver Stone (whose father was Jewish) is really a veteran (he is), and pushing Obama birthirism. I still think the purpose of this is provocation and not actually wanting to change articles (that is, it's trolling not genuine POV pushing) because the overwhelming majority of their contribs are to discussion pages and they've been hitting a number of hot-button racial issues over a period of years and not done much else (real POV pushers work harder to change mainspace articles, not just antagonizing editors on talk page). So I'd support a site ban. Really I'd encourage others to look at that list of 300 contribs, pick out a few threads at random, and see if they get the same impression I do. Maybe I'm ABFing too much for obvious reasons. Levivich 18:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Once the monks of the Western and Eastern Halls were arguing about a cat. Nansen, holding up the cat, said, “You monks! If you can say a word of Zen, I will spare the cat. Otherwise I will kill it.” No one could answer, so Nansen cut the cat in two. That evening, when Joshu returned, Nansen told him of the incident. Joshu thereupon took off his sandal, put it on his head, and walked off. Nansen said, “If you had been there, the cat would have been saved!” And where were all the Wikipedians? And who is killing the cat? (Puts sandal on his head and walks out) Dynasteria (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  The Wikipedia community was discussing what to do with a problematic editor. The discussion had hardly begun before this very same editor interjected some goofy koan that made no sense but allowed the editor in question to imagine he'd said something really deeeeep, man! Like, far out! The community got out the banhammer and beat him over the head with it (metaphorically speaking, of course). Everyone else went back to improving articles but still the editor was not enlightened. EEng 19:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Master Joshu himself had some sage advice on the matter: "A monk asked, 'A man who is absolutely devoid of shame--where should one put him?' Joshu said, 'Not here.' The monk said, 'If such a man should show up, what would you do?' Joshu said, 'Kick him out.'" Dumuzid (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  You must have a bowdlerized edition. Mine says 'Kick him out on his ass.' EEng 19:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  The monk trudged up the mountain to consult with the Ancient One. "Oh Master! The offending man has been told his place is 'Not Here'. We beg of you in your wisdom and enlightenment to pass judgment on our actions." The Ancient One, unmoving, caused the wind to whisper and the leaves to rustle like a thousand empty voices. "Not Here ... No There ... there is No There there. All is one." The monk stared at the Ancient One uncomprehendingly and slowly the figure transmogrified into a rotting stump of a camphor tree. He turned and descended the mountain path having achieved enlightenment. (Apologies to Gertrude Stein.) Dynasteria (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Whatever helps you sleep at night, Dysenteria Dynasteria. It's just about your speed to imagine that associating WP:NOTHERE with Gertrude Stein is a novel insight. EEng 23:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  This discussion made me laugh harder and longer than anything I've read on WP in a long, long time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support WP:NOTHERE block. This user is clearly trolling us, and has been for quite some time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  What is the sound of one hand that feeds you clapping? EEng 19:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Whatever it is that Dynasteria is doing, whether it's trolling or something else, it's clear that the user is WP:NOTHERE to contribute constructively. - Aoidh (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• I too had already been skimming through their previous edits yesterday but didn't have the time yet to report here. I came to the same conclusion as Horse Eye's Back and Levivich above, that they are not here to build an encyclopedia, more specifically that they are here instead to right great wrongs. For example, they are concerned that common representations of the Cheddar Man as having a black skin might be wrong (since the Cheddar Man is thought to have had blue/green eye color and "in modern populations light eye color and light skin color are demonstrably linked") and asks for Wikipedia to "weigh in here" [516]. Just by itself this may appear as mere cluelessness about how WP:NPOV works, but one is bound to read it in a wholly different light when combined with stuff like that they are "offended by the automaticity with which anything to do with Nordic people becomes linked to racism" [517], or that they believe they have to fight the idea "that a single individual who lived 8,000 years ago is the sole ancestor of all blue eyed people, which seems patently ludicrous" [518] (unduly questioning [519] the legitimacy of the scholar (Hans Eiberg) who published this theory and who is still cited in the article for this). The nordic race and blue eyes stuff is some time ago, but more recently their edits at a book about population genetics were identified as POV-pushing [520] (they found scholarly criticisms of the way the author used the word "race" to be overly politically correct and questioned whether these scholars had the necessary background [521]), and as has been advertised above, they believe that because "after two world wars and the attendant racism of the Nazis, it became de rigueur in the anglophone academic universe to distance, disparage, and minimize the concept of a Germanic people", "it becomes irrelevant what a consensus of scholars believes about the Germanic people, either as a concept or a reality. Such a consensus has highly dubious antecedents. It is time to release the Germanic people from the chains and shackles of being enslaved to a century of two world wars in which Germany, a separate nation, lost twice." [522] I think there's a clear pattern here of seeking to right great wrongs by questioning the relevant scholarship, and support a community ban on this basis. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  release the Germanic people from the chains and shackles of being enslaved – I ... I just can't get enough of that. It's just so perfect, it belongs in some hall of fame somewhere. Poor Germanic people in their chains and shackles! EEng 20:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC) P.S. I like to point out at every opportunity – and, sadly, the opportunities are few and far between – that Cheddar_Man was lactose intolerant. Really! It's true!

  Wow this is a great analysis. You do the $deity's work here. Jorm (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Not sure whether Nazi or troll but it doesn't make much difference to the outcome either way. The obvious attempts to minimize or downplay any criticism of racism (examples: this thread, Talk:Who We Are and How We Got Here) are too problematic to continue. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I didn't have an opinion about this until I suddenly did, and it's the same as everyone else's in this lil' sub-thread.--Jorm (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Their editing history contains talk comments not only about the Germanic peoples, but also enslaved African Americans, whether Steve Bannon is far-right, apparent racial injustices against the Nordic peoples, genetic inheritance of eye colour of people with blue eyes, "Lifelong hatred of Germany?", the efficacy of vaccinations, the birthplace of Obama and frequent tirades about "abuses of power by some WP administrator". Nothing awfully egregious at a skim but it's such a dubious editing history that I'm genuinely surprised some admin hadn't indeffed for WP:NONAZIS. Not necessarily saying they should or shouldn't be in my opinion, but I've seen editors indeffed per that essay for far less. In fairness to them, in some cases they were right. But the user obviously doesn't really want to edit and the account behaves like it's an irregular complaints account for whenever the editor gets bored, with a touch of trolling when they're extra bored. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: <tongueincheek>The above editor has made a stealth-reference to you on ANI. I figured I should ping you that you might respond as appropriate.</tongueincheek> Seriously, though, is there anyone on the project who would still have a problem with moving that essay to the Wikipedia namespace? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

On a loosely related note, I did appreciate this diff. It brought me back to a much funnier time in my life when a large number of Americans believed in a hoax whose leader's first name was literally Internet slang for "Oh, really?".[523] (Well, she was the "leader" except during Drumpf's failed 2011 presidential campaign.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support I noticed this a while ago, but didn't want to say it myself because the last time I "called someone a Nazi" (not actually what happened, but still) the immediate consequence was someone in Georgia trying nine times to get Wikipedia to tell them my password. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  You too with the password thing? We have a support group. Jorm (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support It's clear from their responses here [524] that they are just trolling now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support They can barely maintain a dialogue with other editors, I don't know how they're going to help contribute to the encyclopedia. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 02:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support enough is really enough at this point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support, since Dynasteria inexplicably tried to pull me into this travesty. And if she is not banned, her melodramatic Wikiexit will most likely be cut short under the pretext that she came back to look for her other sandal. LandLing 08:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Seems unlikely since she doesn't have a leg to stand on. EEng 08:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support Jesus fucking Christ. When an editor starts complaining that "white supremacist" is a derogatory term, while in the context of complaining that WP isn't taking the Nazis' theories on race seriously enough, a context which includes blatantly WP:NOTHERE statements like "Pursuant to this, it becomes irrelevant what a consensus of scholars believes....", it's time to get that ole banhammer flying. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Christ! Ban them! this is not the place for WP:NAZIS—blindlynx (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW this is the same editor that was pushing wp:fringe theories at Talk:Scythians#Iranian_origin last month—blindlynx (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support Per this and others. This user is definitely WP:NOTHERE. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 14:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support, per above. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I think we need more editors like this. Dynasteria has really united the Wikipedia community in a common purpose! EEng 15:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. Paul August ☎ 16:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support of course, as one cited here by the boomerangee for my "derogatory" comments. I always try to speak out whenever anti-Semites, Nazi sympathizers, or similar cranks troll a talk page I post to, rather than treating them as just another commenter. Carlstak (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support The Cheddar chin discussion already was an incredible display of WP:CIR, but all this völkisch babble including the talk about academia having a sinister agenda which should prevent us from citing scholarly sources is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. –Austronesier (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. While I like to assume good faith, the sheer weight of comments by this user seems to warrant this block. Particularly creepy things like "When the time comes, let each of us choose the right side", which is very "we are the storm!"-ish...--Ermenrich (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Correction. The exact quote is "When the call to action comes, may each of us find his or her own right path." In other words, sitting in the background or on your butt in the sidelines ain't gonna make it during crunch time. Proactive, personal responsibility. I don't think your good faith has let you down here. Dynasteria (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: It applies to whatever side you're on. You might say it is the same call to action which Arjuna felt in the Bhagavad Gita and which caused him so much agony. This text concerning war, of course, is what Ghandi called one of the greatest doctrines of peace. Dynasteria (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

... Are you... Are you threatening or suggesting that people go to war? That your path about this wiki issue is... to kill folk? Jorm (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I cannot help but add to the growing pile of faux wisdom by noting Chapter 56 of the Tao Te Ching: those who speak do not know and those who know do not speak. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor is Ghandi [sic] in this suggestion. May well be that Dynasteria is a devout practitioner of satyagraha. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Levivich and Apaugasma. --JBL (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Failure to close an RfC despite consensus has been achieved

An RfC was opened in 2021 Cuban protests' talk page on the inclusion of a cause in the infobox: [525]. In light of a consensus being achieved (a rough count shows that votes for Yes account for more than a double than those for No):

• I closed the RfC and posted a formal closure summary [526], and edited the article accordingly to include the discussed element.
• Davide King , reverted my closure of the RfC and my edit on the article. The editor that originally started this RfC added this note: "Note to Closer: There is quite a bit of discussion on this topic both above and below this RfC, which may be useful for any closure." Despite consensus has been achieved and despite the discussion ongoing at this point is by the same single user that reverted my closure: [527], [528], [529], [530], [531], [532], [533], [534], [535], [536], [537].

Please, this requires arbitration. Ajñavidya (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Notes to admins and my version (Davide King)

As far as I am aware, the closure must be done by an uninvolved admin, certainly not by an emotionally involved user who took part to the RfC, i.e. the same user who took me here. For context, they also previously did not respect removal of the contentious (see this discussion and revision history, such as this, while I respected embargo's removal due to an RfC being opened about it). As noted by the user themselves, the RfC opener BSMRD noted "Note to Closer: There is quite a bit of discussion on this topic both above and below this RfC, which may be useful for any closure." Rather than asking an immediate closure, the RfC opener actually asked the closer (an admin, not an user who took part to the RfC itself) to consider the whole discussion, which in my view actually means to take all the necessary time to review the RfC before the closure. The user who took me also seem to ignore that Wikipedia is not a democracy based on voting or the numbers of 'yay'–'nay' but whether the arguments are based on our policies and guidelines; it is not up to them to "declare consensus", that is the job of the admins. If there is anyone to be sanctioned, it is not me. Davide King (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

When did I ask for an early closure of the RfC? Do you any evidence of that? Also, the contentious piece that you removed wasn't being discussed in a RfC at the moment I re-added it (I don't recall doing it while on RfC, but if did, I wasn't aware). You say: "[...] while I respected embargo's removal due to an RfC being opened about it." Are you sure? Consider [538] and [539]. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

By prematurely closing the Rfc, when that is the job of an admin or uninvolved and experienced user. Did you ignore the part of the edit summary where I literally stated "try possible, bold compromise for the infobox" and tried to appease with you by adding 'authoritarian', 'lack of civil liberties (freedom of association and political freedom)', which you wanted? See also Wikipedia:Be bold, this, and this. The RfC was whether to add or not the embargo, not whether to add it with a caveat among pharentesis, which would be a compromise, and I made the edit to see what other users thought and if they supported this possible solution and compromise. Clarified this, if you want to reply me back, write me to my talk page; this is neither the moment nor the place to discuss this. Davide King (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Just wanna clarify that these two conversation that you had ([540] and [541]) were not with me, but with other editors; so I don't know what you mean by bringing them up here. Ajñavidya (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Ajñavidya, it appears that you attempted to close the RfC the same day that it was opened, with a result that favours a position you have advocated for on the talk page in question, and as such, David King's reversion was entirely appropriate. RfCs generally run for at least a month before there is a procedural close and can in fact run for much longer if contributions remain steady. One of the major advantages of an RfC is that they pull in opinions from editors disinterested in the content of the article who can give an unbiased policy read on an editorial dispute. They absolutely should not be closed by someone who has already been party to the underlying dispute, and certainly not mere hours after the RfC is opened. The 4:2 strict !vote ratio (which you described technically accurate and yet at the same time rather misleading terms of a 2:1 ratio) is not much of a consensus when you consider there have been a half dozen !votes total and you really haven't waited for input from the broader community. Furthermore, note that despite the sometimes confusing nomenclature, "!vote" consensus discussions are not decided purely on a straightforward numerical support basis: rather the closer will need to consider the result in light of broader community consensus as codified in project policies, which is another reason why said closer should ideally have no previous involvement in the dispute.

Please let the RfC run its course (there is WP:NORUSH here) and then let an uninvolved party close the discussion--it needn't be an admin, but ideally would at least be someone with experience sorting consensus conclusions from community discussions on contentious issues, and (again) should definitely be someone without "skin in the game" as the idiom goes. If push comes to shove, and you find yourself waiting after the 30 days, you can always ping me and I'll make an effort at figuring out where consensus has landed. You can also make such a request at WP:AN, WP:VPP, and other central community discussion spaces. Regardless, there is no behavioural issue here with regard to David which require community intervention. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll definitely consider it. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Ajñavidya, consider reading WP:NACINV, which states: "editors should never close any discussion where they have !voted", which appears to be the case here. As noted by Snow Rise as well, this seems like a premature close, having been done only four days after it started. Isabelle ^🔔 00:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The outcome for "yes" is pretty clear, but the lack of awareness that would lead one to think they can close a discussion that they also voted in is pretty staggering. Zaathras (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Overturn and promptly reclose. Ironically I was multi-task preparing an WP:AN/RFC request for close when I saw this. The RFC should be closed, the general result was clearly correct, however Ajñavidya never should have preformed an involved close. Especially not given the vociferous minority opposition and entirely predictable challenge. Ajñavidya I don't know how much (if any) experience you have in closing, but I'd be happy to answer questions or offer advice in this area. I have experience and I find it a very interesting specialty. Of course the first advice is to to avoid any closure where anyone might credibly claim an actual or perceived conflict of interest. The cost of a potential challenge outweighs any hoped-for benefit of getting it done quicker or "easier".

• Informational note: Davide King please be aware that RFC closures do not require an Admin. A closure may not be reversed solely because the closer was not an Admin.[542] Alsee (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Alsee, I was not aware that the closure may not necessarily be an admin but by any uninvolved (key word) and experienced user (which is not the case here, as Ajñavidya voted), as clarified by Snow Rise ("it needn't be an admin, but ideally would at least be someone with experience sorting consensus conclusions from community discussions on contentious issues"). This does not justify the fact an involved user (who voted) closed the RfC and claimed consensus. To all other involved users, please keep in mind that Mathglot also opposed early closure. See this and Mathglot's "Very strongly opposed to any snow close ... I am firmly against any premature closure until the normal Rfc period has run its course, which if I'm not mistaken, is 18 August. I'm sure I appeared too late in the process for anything I say now to have any effect, but I feel it's important to get the data out there and on the record." There is no need to rush. Davide King (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alsee. Can you be more specific at to why you think an early closure is appropriate here? Looking at the RfC in question, it seems appropriately approached, has only been open a few days, and currently has a 6:6 support/opposition !vote ratio, including responses from regular editors of the article and fresh perspectives, with continuing engagement from new FRS contributions. So in pretty much every observable respect, this is the polar opposite of the narrow circumstances in which community standards authorize a WP:SNOW close.

Mind you, I'm open to the possibility that I missed something here (in part because I believe I recognize your name as an old hand in project spaces), but as a veteran editor you surely know that you need a better argument than "I think the premature close by an involved editor was flawed, but still would have resulted in the right conclusion." That's not sufficient cause to abrogate the usual WP:RfC/WP:Consensus standards and close the discussion when feedback is ongoing and has, thus far, not resulted in a concrete consensus. There's WP:NORUSH here, so why would we take the extraordinary action of shutting down an RfC, just a few days in, with an evenly split !vote, with feedback ongoing? We need a strong procedural argument for that beyond that you think it would result in the better outcome for the article, because that would very much beg the question and subvert our consensus building process. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Snow Rise I appreciate you recognizing me and, given how unreasonable my post must have seemed to you, phrasing your comment as respectfully as you did. There was a misunderstanding - we're both sorta right chuckle. There are TWO RFC's on that page. You appear to have looked at the bottom one, which is indeed closely split. The RFC at issue here is the top one. This one has been open a few days longer, but still admittedly short. My close analysis, if I were an uninvolved closer, goes like this: The initial low-information votes on the RFC were 2-Yes vs 3-No. I would give little weight to the first 5 votes. The next person posted a pile of sources. From that point on the RFC went 14-Yes vs 3-No, with a majority explicitly citing the posted evidence as conclusive. Basically the RFC ended the moment the evidence was posted. Regarding early closure, aside from the outcome already being clear, this is a high traffic active-event page. Readers are not being well served. The page is sitting on The wrong version because (in my opinion) the majority side are following polite Wikiquette while the minority side have (in my opinion) used dubious tactics to push whatever they want while the RFC is in progress. I'm tempted to edit the page to the majority version, but I am generally averse to editing any issue under active RFC. In this case I actively anticipate any majority-edit is likely to be warred as long as the RFC is open. Waiting a month basically allows the minority to stonewall the page until it (mostly) doesn't matter anymore. I normally take the long view of getting it right eventually, but there are a LOT of people currently reading this active event. Alsee (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, see I thought there must be some rational explanation for that incongruity! Please forgive my confusion on the matter: there was a lot of topical and procedural overlap on those two RfCs (including involved parties), so I was not able to discern from the forgoing discussion that it was the former rather than the latter RfC at issue--though in truth I should have looked for the reverted closure in the edit history anyway, as a matter of prudence. Anyway, thank you in kind for the courtesy and understanding of your own response, as well as for the clarification. I will have to review my comments above to make sure that the feedback provided remains germane with regard to all the specific, but thankfully at first blush I think my previous commentary (up until my immediately previous post to you) mostly applies equally as well to the former RfC as much as the latter, being rather generalized to some features they share in common. That said, and turning a more particularized eye to the correct RfC in question, with a current !vote of ~15:6, and only six days in, I'm still not sure that I would personally feel this is a case of SNOW: it's a borderline case, I feel, and I tend to err on the side of further discussion in those circumstances. But with appropriate context, your argument and perspective that it does in fact meet the burden certainly looks much, much more reasonable! Snow ^{let's rap} 01:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Textbook case of assuming bad faith:

The page is sitting on The wrong version because (in my opinion) the majority side are following polite Wikiquette while the minority side have (in my opinion) used dubious tactics to push whatever they want while the RFC is in progress.

Alsee, Did you really just say that? How about, the "minority side" has published actual data from a neutral query (including changing their vote afterward, based on the result), while the "majority side" has published nine highly non-representative sources supporting their viewpoint, not one of which appears in the top twenty results of a neutral, unbiased query. I have no illusions about how this Rfc will go, but your assertion about the motivations of anyone not agreeing with you is to be condemned. WP:DUE WEIGHT is policy; the "dubious tactics" at that Rfc are subverting due weight by concocting a set of WP:CHERRYPICKED sources that turns reality on its head. And cool your jets; this Rfc will be closed like any Rfc, when the time is right. And hopefully, only by an Admin. Mathglot (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot (1) I stand by my statement (2) "dubious tactics" does not assume, assert, nor require bad faith (3) As far as I am aware you are entirely uninvolved in which version is currently displayed.
I welcome an admin closing this RFC, but as an experienced closer I see no reason it would require an Admin. Alsee (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Alsee. The truth is that I don't have experience closing RfC's. I was basing myself on WP:RFCCLOSE, which states in point 2: "The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time, and one of them can remove the {{rfc}} template." I wasn't aware that there were additional rules to the process further than those four listed there, and since the consensus became pretty obvious 3 days after the RfC was started, I thought I could proceed. This was not the case, and that's my bad. Ajñavidya (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP- persistent hoaxes, draft/page protection removal requests, etc.

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

I've tried on multiple occasions, but at this point, it seems like the IP simply is not understanding some of the stuff on Wikipedia:

• IP has persistently made hoax articles/drafts in the past, some of which can be seen here
  • Per edits such as this and this it seems they realize that hoax/fake articles/draft is not something they should be doing anymore, but...
• IP is continuously creating new draft after new draft, including Draft:Goofy Scoopers, Draft:Family Bonding, and Draft:The Boss Maybe (among others), of which these are non-notable episodes of cartoon that will likely never get articles due to their non-notability
  • IP is also just going around to different drafts after previous declines, saying just that they believe it looks good and should be a 'non-draft' (such as this, this, and this
• IP is also constantly going around with edit requests to ask for page protection removal, just because they are a fan and think they should be allowed to edit the pages (with the same page protection process explanation response each time), including at Talk:Yo Gabba Gabba!, Talk:Nickelodeon, Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters, Talk:The Loud House, Talk:Will Ferrell, and Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants.

While it's seemingly not intentional on their part, the IP is becoming quite disruptive with all of these ongoing issues. Will also note I've opened a previous ANI discussion here dealing with the same IP, that one mainly in regards to the hoax/fake drafts and articles, which can be viewed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068#107.146.244.150 - disruptive editing, hoax articles/drafts, etc.. I also suggest a viewing of their filter log, most of which just proves the issues explained above.

Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I accidentally removed your comment because I was trying to remove all of mines and not yours. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I am tired of all of this and this needs to stop. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• I support a block as IP is either WP:NOTHERE or if they really are editing in good faith, WP:CIR applies. Their conduct in the face of every possible warning has just been that bad. I would normally AGF about this, but this IP has been brought to ANI before, which did nothing. The IP has been warned nearly a dozen times on their talk page, again, with no effect. They do not appear interested in editing constructively or collaboratively. They do not appear interested in learning the policies or guidelines, or in building consensus in any way. Hence, WP:NOTHERE. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I am interested in editing. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I may be inactive. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Given all the above and the random comments in other sections of this noticeboard from the IP, I've blocked for a month on the basis of WP:CIR. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

LTA IP

• 143.159.244.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)/146.90.34.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)/185.69.145.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  Repeatedly removes, without explanation, wikilink for Georgina Baillie (to redirect, valid as per WP:1E) on pages BBC controversies, Johnathan Ross and Andrew Sachs. IP editor, apparently the same person under three IPs, three times removes useful & correct wikilink without explanation and despite warning. IP user has also blanked warnings from one of their talkpages. Refuses to even discuss the issue.
  Moved from the vandalism noticeboard to this board at the suggestion of editor Daniel Case.Romomusicfan (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This IP 146.90.34.153 is an LTA, violating WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:OVERLINK. Many IPs have been blocked for this (unfortunately I haven't kept a list, but a trawl of my edits to WP:AIV would turn them up), most geolocate to Portsmouth in the UK. There is a related sockpuppet case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/82.22.42.5. 143.159.244.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is also related. DuncanHill (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1031#IP editor, violating WP:NOTBROKEN, unresponsive. DuncanHill (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That discussion you linked to appears to be archived. Should I start a new thread on the first page of that board and link to the archived thread? Or what else should I do next? Romomusicfan (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

To open a further Sock puppet investigation about it go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and enter 82.22.42.5 as the sockmaster. DuncanHill (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Have entered report in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/82.22.42.5 Hope I've filled it all out correctly.Romomusicfan (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to be flattered or offended by your description of me as an administrator, but just to be clear, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Admin corps. DuncanHill (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

LOL okay, have sorted that bit out.Romomusicfan (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: Thanks for the extra info! I knew something seemed familiar about this one but I couldn't place it ... don't we even have an LTA page for this one due to the Portsmouth connection? Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I've just been reverting and going to AIV since my initial ANI thread. DuncanHill (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

GUtt01 - IDHT

GUtt01 (talk · contribs) complained about the premature NAC of 3 TfDs which, on procedural grounds, I reopened & relisted. They have now run their course and were closed as No consensus by Plastikspork. In a fit of WP:IDHT, GUtt01 renominated all 3 templates within around 12 hours of the previous closure

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 16#Template:Kingdom Hearts chronology
  • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 26#Template:Kingdom Hearts chronology
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 16#Template:Final Fantasy VII chronology
  • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 26#Template:Final Fantasy VII chronology
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 16#Template:Metal Gear chronology
  • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 26#Template:Metal Gear chronology

I closed the three discussions as an abuse of process. While happy to see my use of the tools 10 days ago to reopen & relist GUtt01 now contends I shouldn't do admin stuff. This has descended into WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Cabayi (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

But TfDs guidelines don't state that when a TfD is closed either with no consensus or Keep, that a new one can be started. If there were guidelines about it, I wouldn't have done so - as it is, it doesn't stipulate anything of the sort. Besides, WP:IDHT would imply I was the nominator of the discussions, which I was not, even if I highlighted that the original TfDs had been prematurely closed by their nominator against the rules. GUtt01 (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

You participated in the original discussions (hist). Starting new discussions hard on the heels of the closure of the first is WP:IDHT behaviour on your part. Reverting the closure of your fresh discussions is WP:DISRUPTIVE. It shouldn't matter to you whether I am an admin or not when you are deciding whether to engage constructively or dismissively. You have gotten into a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and need to get out of it asap. Cabayi (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cabayi: May I apologise for the trouble I may have caused you. I've had a sudden thought on the matter before you made that last response, and... maybe I might have actually acted in a manner similar to WP:RECENTISM. I will rescind the discussions for now, and wait for a while to see how things pan out. If after a few months, I feel the templates have issues based on my reasons, that haven't been resolved by other methods, would that be reasonable? If you suggest a year, I will abide by it. I am so sorry, I may have let my feelings on the matter make me act irrationally. Slap me on the wrist, or give me what you feel is appropriate punishment; I won't allow it to be used as an act of forgiveness, but I realise that perhaps I was too abrupt in the matter.

I might also recommend that something is done to avoid this happening again - it would probably be appropriate to make clear in the TfD guidelines that if a discussion has ended, that a new TfD should not be made shortly after its closure: I probably could have avoided giving myself this headache. And do let the other editor know I apologize too, if I don't do it myself. GUtt01 (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@GUtt01: Opening a new TfD, immediately after the same TfD failed, is dismissive of your fellow editors, and disruptive, and thus obviously inappropriate (and so—like putting beans up your nose—doesn't need to be explicitly prohibited). And in fact I'm sure you already knew all this. Paul August ☎ 23:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Technically speaking, not really. Even so, I wasn't thinking quite clearly on this matter. I've chosen to end the matter by undoing my actions and just leaving this for a good while. GUtt01 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Signs of a deeper problem

I suspect that this matter regarding TFD is another indication that GUtt01 has issues with respecting other editors in general.

To provide some background, GUtt01 has a history of engaging in edit wars when they disagree with edits made by other editors:

1. GUtt01 was blocked in December 2019 for violating 3RR, see [543]. In a subsequent discussion on their talk page (see [544]), they said, I made a catastrophic mistake there and I gonna be left with regret on several things such as not engaging in discussion and failing to heed 3:RR. I'm gonna try my best to engage in discussion if a dispute on editing (except for vandalism and introduction of false information) occurs. (Emphasis added)
2. They engaged in another edit war in March 2020 at Sonic the Hedgehog (film) (see diffs: [545], [546], [547], and [548]); while this looks like another 3RR violation, it wasn't treated as such at the time since no one said anything about it at AN3.
3. They received another warning for edit warring in July 2020, see [549]. This report did not result in a block since they voluntarily stopped edit warring after the AN3 report was made, see discussion on their talk page. (This report also includes information regarding their history of edit warring prior to the 3RR block in 2019.)
4. To GUtt01's credit, they seem to have taken the earlier discussions to heart, as their contribution history didn't show any indication of edit warring until the above TFDs were opened.
5. The three templates at issue here were proposed for deletion at TFD alongside several other similar templates that each listed entries in a particular video game series in the order of the chronology of their respective plots. While a consensus to delete some of the other templates was found, there was no consensus to delete these three specific templates due to the complexity of their respective storylines. After the TFDs were initially closed, GUtt01 began removing these templates from various FF7/KH/MG(S) articles (see their edit history from July 9–17.) This led to a slow, but wide-ranging edit war between GUtt01 and several other editors where the templates were removed and restored from various articles that used them. There was also a point where GUtt01 — the person who instigated this particular edit war — left a notice on another editor's talk page cautioning against edit warring.
6. I got involved when I discussed the removal of the templates on GUtt01's talk page [550]. (I happened to notice what was going on because I happened to have one of the MGS articles on my watchlist.) As a result of that discussion, the three templates were relisted on TFD.
7. Those TFDs were again closed without a consensus, which led to this ANI report as discussed above.

So, these are the issues of concern that seem to be important here:

1. GUtt01 should know by now what constitutes edit warring, given the above history. The fact they did not stop and attempt to engage other editors as to how these templates should be used before I engaged them is worrying.
2. GUtt01 leaving a notice about edit warring while engaging in edit warring themself indicates, at the very minimum, a lack of self-awareness as to how their edits are being perceived and interpreted by others.
3. Disregarding that GUtt01 did not recognize Cabayi as being the same admin who initially relisted the TFDs, GUtt01 initially attempted to revert the new TFDs without attempting to understand why the new TFDs were being closed or why the new TFDs should not have been opened to begin with. I don't think that they understand that logically (and regardless of what the current TFD guidelines say), if re-opening a TFD that did not find a consensus was allowed without establishing a new basis for removal, then TFDs could go on forever until an overly-assertive editor forces a "consensus" in their favor.
4. There are indications that GUtt01 isn't responsive to input from other editors who are not admins:
   1. The July 2020 edit war only stopped after a report at AN3 was opened.
   2. The most recent edit war happened because GUtt01 interpreted the initial TFDs as providing a basis to remove the templates from the bulk of the articles that they were being included in, which was not the case given that several editors made valid arguments in favor of maintaining the status quo.
   3. GUtt01 did not attempt to engage other editors even after multiple other editors were reverting their edits.
   4. While they did stop edit warring after I specifically pointed out the issue of edit warring on their talk page, that merely deferred the problem in hindsight, as it led to the issue with the TFDs that led to this ANI report.
   5. There's also GUtt01ʻs initial reaction to Cabayi closing the most recent TFDs, as discussed above.
5. There seems to be a failure to adapt past lessons to the current situation. GUtt01 made a commitment to engage other editors in the event of a bona fide content dispute after being blocked in 2019, but that did not happen here; so, there's now a question as to the credibility of whatever other promises they may make now.

Tl;dr, I think that GUtt01 has issues getting along with other editors that will likely result in future ANI/AN3 reports if those issues are not resolved. I don't know what would be the best course of action to make that happen. Musashi1600 (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@GUtt01: What do you have to say about all of the above? Paul August ☎ 15:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paul August: I write this, while feeling wholly ashamed and tearing up for acting irresponsibly despite promises to be responsible. I guess it is not easy to edit well when you have aspergers and learning difficulties. What I did was wrong, and shameful. I know I should have done better than this, I know I should have. I just don't want this matter being dragged out right now - I gotta learn to do better, to be better. I know I can do better in these things, and if I forget, I know the only one to blame for letting this get out of hand is myself. I still maintain the message of my first block on Wikipedia to remind me of what I did - I wish could make it so prominent a reminder, a form of self-punishment, to make me know what I shouldn't be doing. I really wish I could do better, but maybe my aspergers causes me problems because of how I don't socialise wholly a lot with other people than my own family and those I have spent enough time with. For what it is worth, I wish there could be people to say "Hey, we need to talk, because you did wrong. Can you take a moment to breathe and just read what I send you, and just tell me why you acted the way you did?" I mean...

Do editors on here, even those who become admins, ever do that? Just get people who don't mean to act but do so anyway, to get them to just talk about why they did wrong and try to help them understand better? It's not easy, but I wish I did have someone who could just help me know better. Even tell me not to get so emotional when people are reverting or disputing your edits, no matter who is right. I just... I just wish there was someone like a consuller to say, "Look. Let's try to do something different. Let's try to find another way for you to avoid this." I mean, if I have to take punishment for my actions, I would resign myself to it, but I know that an editor asking to be punished might not be learning things or admins may think that may not be the adequate solution for someone, especially if they genuinely know they did wrong.

I just wish that there was something there to help me do better. What I did above, there is no excuse. I should know quite rightly when not to do something that can become an edit war, I know I should be responsive to other editors even if they are not admins, and I know I should have honored my promise to do better. I know that for any editor, the only person who can make that change, make that editor become a better person on Wikipedia, is the very editor themselves. I just don't know now what I should do - do I improve and try to do better, or resign myself from being an editor on Wikipedia.

Whatever must be done, I know I am the only one to make that difference. It is my choice whether I become better or let others do what I am not doing for Wikipedia's future. GUtt01 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Economy of West Bengal socks/trolls

Economy of West Bengal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article (and related articles) were discussed here in June. Things died down after socks were blocked, but it's blown back up again. I can't work out who is driving which changes, but it's definitely in need of admin attention once more. pauli133 (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for three months and am hoping pauli133 will clean it up. Ponyo commented in the "discussed here in June" link and may be able to work out what else needs to be done. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a start. Can that be bumped up to ECP? I'm already getting interference. pauli133 (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Since Johnuniq applied semiprotection earlier today there have been 16 more edits including edits by two users who are now blocked. There is a steady stream of red-linked accounts, suggesting the possibility of off-wiki recruitment. Keep in mind WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Blscholljim/Archive which is all about various Economy of X articles. I've increased Johnuniq's protection to ECP for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

There have been so many Blscholljim socks and sleepers recently created. I'll update the SPI shortly.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Alalch Emis

• User:Alalch Emis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2021 United States Capitol attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zangezur corridor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Previous block discussion

This editor has an ongoing issue with edit warring and WP:ICANTHEARYOU talk page behavior. There were blocked from some articles related to the January 6 attack earlier this year for 3 months for this reason, but I have not seen improvement since their return. They have continued to edit war and ignore/bulldoze anyone they disagree with. Most recent example is [551] after three editors expressed varying degrees of disagreement with the idea at the related discussion. Other examples of this behavior since the expiration of their block include [552], [553], [554], [555]

Looking at their contributions, their edits are focused on the January 6 attack but similar behavior has been exhibited at Zangezur corridor: [556], [557], [558].

Attempts to address the issues with the editor have been removed without comment eg [559], [560], [561] so bringing it here. They have a good eye for article structure and organization and are quite competent with the technical aspects of editing, so I think a 1RR restriction might address the behavioral stuff and be better for the project than a topic ban, which would remove them completely from their area of interest. Thoughts?

Notifications:

[562], [563] VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not edit warring or bulldozing, and I'm not displaying WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior. I believe that my words, and actions (and outcomes thereof), speak plainly in support of my not being blameworthy. Instead I blame VQuakr for conducting themselves relatively poorly in what could still be (or very nearly could have been) a normal content dispute, which I believe to be apparent from his words and actions, such as this revert, which is clearly damaging to that article. This is how recent events can be summed up: In a recent dispute VQuakr defends certain extremely bold edits by Love of Corey (who tends not to defend said edits very actively). When these changes are disputed by myself, VQuakr merely opposes the disputant, without substantively defending the changes, and treats this highly unstable and inherently controversial newly-emerged state of the topic area as a completely regular status quo. In my trying to move the discussion along, he tends to accuse me of owning the articles in the topic area, of needing to be WP:SATISFIED, and tries to police me without grounds by posting relatively numerous attention-diverting messages on my talk page, which I find to be a facetious tactic to undermine normal dialogue. You can read more on the broader dispute which is fundamentally about article size here.

I should also add that my contribution to the Zangezur corridor article was significantly positive, and contributed to that incredibly fraught subject having a stable and readable article. When a disputant found fault with my approach to that article (and it's problematic AfD), they were essentially rebuked by an administrator -- read here.

The reason for my earlier block is unrelated to the behaviors which VQuakr now alleges.

I would also like to add that today, preceding VQuakr's request here, especially after the recent edits in the Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack article, I became aware that our dispute probably won't resolve efficiently without more significant involvement of other editors, and I started typing a Dispute resolution request. I believe our dispute should go through standard Dispute resolution. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I do not agree that your previous block is unrelated. To be fair I am not aware of any recent examples of you editing or archiving other editors' posts which was a factor then, but the issues of ownership, ignoring discussion, and repeating disputed edits were problems then and are still problems now. Even in your reply above your reference to "moving the discussion along" is indicative of part of the problem: you should not think of it as your role to moderate the discussion or decide whose reasoning has merit. Editor-focused communications are supposed to go on user talk pages; the fact that you consider input from others "facetious" is why we are here. I disagree with your characterization of what this dispute is fundamentally about (the article size discussion is just another example). VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

To clarify the claim by Alalch Emis: When a disputant found fault with my approach to that article (and it's problematic AfD), they were essentially rebuked by an administrator -- read here. El C criticized the manner in which the "disputant" conducted themselves everywhere on the AfD page; it was not an endorsement of anything Alalch Emis said or did. Schazjmd (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

VQuakr, for the sake of clarity, could you explain what is at issue with the Jake Angeli diff and the three Zangezur diffs? From the perspective of uninvolved editors, those just look like edits. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not repeat disputed edits then, did nothing even remotely resembling edit warring (confusingly there is something on my talk about 1RR from around that time, but it's simply a mistake; neither was 1RR active not did I even revert once to my knowledge), and that is not why I was blocked. You've mixed up then and now. It's really fundamentally unrelated with your current allegations. I participated mostly in the naming debate, and my conduct, at a certain point, became seen as "imposing and overstepping" (on the talk page, with regard to certain processes) -- no one credibly accused me of owning the article (seems superficially similar perhaps, but really it's a different kind of behavior), or making any disruptive changes to the article then. By "moving the discussion along" I did not mean moderate the discussion, I meant "discuss". I can hold an opinion that my position has more merit than yours, and that doesn't mean I am "deciding" anything. I stand by everything I've said so far in this thread, and deny any wrongdoing (I did not edit war, I did not own the article, did not bulldoze, did not display a WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior). You can't establish this to be true. A content dispute between two editors is not an "Editor-focused communication". I also stand by the assertion that the root of the dispute is a disagreement around organizing content based on perceived article size problems.

Recently it was shown that all along your sense of priorities regarding what's needed (and naturally extending from that: what's appropriate; what's generally expected, and what's bold; how to approach disputes etc.) was distorted by your erroneous belief that the article is too big, citing "300 kB" as a relevant thing. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

You are not an authority on my motivation. But since you brought it up, here are two relevant diffs of mine: "300 kB", "Fine, fair point regarding raw size". The fact that you are still bringing up the former when I conceded and clarified in the latter is another example of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. VQuakr (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm only bringing it up to put things in context and defend myself from allegations. The reader will easily see that I am presenting things in a relevant time frame, and will see from your replies to my comments that your bedrock argument was article size. You said "fair point" later on, only after multiple disputes have already formed up, and have shown a lack of flexibility with how to finally resolve them. It has led to you actually becoming disruptive, for example when you reverted 'Police injuries' in the 'Law enforcement' article. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Why do you keep throwing out things that are so trivially, provably false? My "fair point" concession was 7 hours after you pointed out the issue, [564], and was my first edit anywhere on WP after your post. You didn't and don't have consensus for the 'Law enforcement' change, and your attempt to force it through was the last straw that landed us here. VQuakr (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing I've said is false. What are the other things that are "provably false"? Let's go back to your "7 hours": It's easy to see from the h2 talk section what time frame I'm referring to when saying "later on". — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Jake Angeli: edit was made paired with this talk page post that ignored the opinions of three other editors, one of whom started the discussion because they were unsure if the material should be added and two (including myself) that expressed concern that the addition would be premature. This is an example of behavior that I characterize as "bulldozing". Zangezur: reverts were made in after concerns were raised on the talk page, [565]. Those might be merely incautious since it appears to be mostly a two-editor disagreement. VQuakr (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Orignal poster wondered not sure how exactly to cover it in the article, I showed it. Seeing is believing. You reverted, and we have an ongoing content dispute. Great! Same poster expressed support for inclusion upon seeing the edit. All of that was excellent. I absolutely stand by my edit. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a falsehood. OP's actual reply was balanced, not an expression of support: [566]. And you again glossed over the part where you ignored the other editors' opinions and stuck your preferred version into mainspace. VQuakr (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

OP's reply is an expression of support. Now we have at least a formally presentable version of the disputed content point to go by, and can make drafts on the talk page, based on it, or keep discussing, propose other things etc. This is the freedom afforded to us on Wikipedia. Your criticism is not based on anything solid here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

User repeatedly adding copyright content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Bittoomittal is repeatedly adding copyright content to Wikipedia, copying content straight from news articles and pasting it onto their created Wikipedia article Zorawar Fort. I fixed the article by removing/rewriting content and adding references before marking it as reviewed but the creator persists with adding more and more content and has ignored all administrator messages on their talk page. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 01:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@WaddlesJP13: Please remember to notify reported users. I have done that for you. NW1223_{(Howl at me|My hunts)} 02:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nightwolf1223: My bad, I definitely intended to do so but got caught up in a couple emails then completely forgot, so thank you for notifying them for me. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 02:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• The editor in question has a history of drive-by editing: a day in 2014, two days in 2020, and a day this year. It may be that we have seen all that we will see from this editor this year. Worth also pointing out that their entire editing history includes 0 edits to talk pages, so there's a good change they simply don't understand that collaborative part of the process. The fact that they've created articles but not the talk pages for them reinforces that for me. Reaching out on a talk page or using edit summaries to encourage them to discuss edits might help. That said, the obvious copyvio is problematic. I don't think this is a case of WP:NOTHERE; more WP:NOTHEREVERYOFTEN or WP:NOTHEREENOUGHTOKNOWPOLICY. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Also, has never used a talk page of any kind. El_C 02:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paula Abdul, WP:BLP violations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please protect the article, rev/delete the malicious crap and block the responsible accounts. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:BD4A:4B03:FD4C:CE7 (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you Zzuuzz. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks by User:Ashlebbay

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Ashlebbay had vandalized my userpage and had added the words "mairan" and "confirmed thayoli" [567]. The word "mairan" apparently means "pubic hair" in Malayalam [568] [569], and "thayoli" is a curseword which means "motherfucker" [570] [571]. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Indeed, it's a bit much. As noted on their talk page, being inexperienced isn't some kind of a magic exemption from misconduct that'd be prohibited pretty much anywhere else. Assurances will need to be provided that such misconduct won't be repeated again. El_C 16:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Imperialreal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Upon being reverted at the Timurid Empire article, said user, as he restored his own edit, wrote: "You Munafiq Burn in Jahannam."[572]

1. Munafiq = "Munafiq is a person who in public and in community shows that he is a Muslim but rejects Islam or propagate against it either in his heart or among enemies of Islam. The hypocrisy itself is called nifāq (نفاق).[2]"
2. Jahanam = "hell"

So basically, "you hypocrite fake Muslim burn in hell", which goes without saying is a gross violation of WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE."

He also said this in a earlier edit summary;

"No Kafirs allowed in personal Islamic Rules."

Kafir = Infidel. I guess I don't need to say more than that.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Definitely violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.VR _talk 15:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copy-paste votes at hundreds of AfDs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are at least two accounts that appear to be copying and pasting votes across hundreds of AfDs, with evidence that they don't read the AfD before voting.

Rondolinda copies and pastes these votes:

• "Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines." copied and pasted 41 times
• "Doesn't meet general notability guidelines" copied and pasted 85 times
• "I didn't found sufficient coverage that meets general notability guidelines" copied and pasted 12 times

There are times Rondolinda votes on AfD, then votes again on that AfD (24 minutes later), then realize they've voted twice and removes the second vote. Rondolinda also votes on AfDs after they have been closed. Here, Rondolinda copied and pasted the same vote at 3 different AfDs within 2 minutes[573][574][575]. Cyphoidbomb wrote that Rondolinda had "limited English reading comprehension skill". I don't believe that Rondolinda was able to go through these articles this fast. GreenC also noted the copy and paste nature of their votes. Rondolinda was previously blocked for copying and pasting content into articles, but unblocked by Drmies (courtesy ping).

TheDreamBoat copies and pastes these votes:

• "Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG." copied and pasted 49 times
• "Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG." copied and pasted 71 times
• "No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines." copied and pasted 30 times

Several times TheDreamBoat votes on an AfD, then votes again on that AfD (32 minutes later), then realizes they had voted before and removes the second vote. There are several times when TheDreamBoat will vote on AfDs that have been closed already. There are at least two times[576][577] when TheDreamBoat voted "Non notable player" on AfDs that were actually about buildings/places. TheDreamBoat's copying and pasting into articles was previously noted (though the copied material wasn't copyrighted).

Does anyone else think this behavior is of concern? VR _talk 14:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. Though, I note thy are also copy/pasting "Keep" votes as well [578] [579]. I'm just going out, but I would suggest a temporary partial block from Wikipedia space for both accounts while we work out what's going on? Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• (ec) Certainly. Topic bans would be in order, though they would probably pop up elsewhere. Do either actually do anything else? Or what BK says. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Call me crazy but I have a theory of sorts. Both have a shared interest in People's Mujahedin of Iran, an article that has attracted much sock puppetry and is currently at arbitration. Prior to this AfD copy-pasting, TheDreamBoat was accused of being dormant but showing up to RfCs to vote, then going dormant again. I wonder if this is an attempt to prove the contrary, and I wonder if this is being carried out by a click farm. Sorry if this is an outrageous theory.VR _talk 15:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

You may be crazy, but that doesn't mean you're not right. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Not an outrageous theory. I reached the same conclusion a while ago, and I think that is exactly the case. Copy-pasta AfD votes, obviously both using their own templates, seems to be cover up for their RfC vote stacking and similar activity at MEK-related pages. MarioGom (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK CheckUser seems to have been unsuccessful in the past, as this might be tightly coordinated meatpuppetry and not strict socking. See editor interaction, consolidated contribs. MarioGom (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Black Kite, I indef p-blocked them from the project space. Though they haven't edited sine July 13, I think we may as well. El_C 15:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• El_C The other account has been editing today. I've done the same for them. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oops, reading comprehension failure. Thanks. El_C 17:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Obvious sock puppets of one another (and probably an older master, maybe Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atlantic12/Archive where one was reported). They both previously overlapped on a few Iran related articles. The both started this AfD activity in February 2021, and have since both been active almost exclusively in AfDs each month through July 2021[580][581]. Add to this the same voting patterns, and it's a ringer. Most of their votes are probably done just to increase edit count, they seem to vote on cases of clear consensus. Their overlapping votes (interaction tool) seem benign, while the Iran related stuff is shared POV.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  For those not familiar with it, Atlantic12 SPI involved 2 separate blocked groups, and 1 independently blocked account. I think there were probably 3 sockmasters involved, even if they had a shared agenda. MarioGom (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Connecting to the muddy and stale (since 2018) Atlantic12 SPI will be complicated and require case specific expertise. However blocking these two as socks of one another is easy. They violated the multiple account policy multiple times by voting in the same AfDs, and it is obvious by their editing pattern that they are the same person or at the very least following the same particular template of voting instructions for whatever reason, which is an obvious shared source. A CU might uncover more of these, but whatever CU finds on these two they are strongly linked behaviorally.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Has anyone tried talking to them about this before floating ABF theories? Levivich 16:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  WP:DUCK (the pair to each other) and Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact apply. How would they come up with this AfD voting scheme independently, both together, in February 2021?--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheDreamBoat, as this is the right venue to discuss socking/meatpuppetry evidence. MarioGom (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Esotrix: "AFD voting scheme"? That's the ABF I'm talking about. AGF isn't a suicide pact, but it is a starting point. Did we start with AGF or did we go right to AFD voting scheme and SPI? They might know each other IRL and not realize that what they're doing is problematic. How would they know if no one ever told them? (BTW, both those links are essays and AGF is policy, meaning AGF has broad community consensus and the other two don't.) Levivich 17:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich I have tried talking to Rondolinda twice. It was after this talk when they stopped their copy and paste behavior at Bangladeshi schools and moved on to AfDs. The second time I asked them about Sea Ane. Sea Ane had started generic mass voting at RFCs, also in February 2021. Like Rondolinda, Sea Ane had also been indef blocked for copyright violations. Both Rondolinda and Sea Ane were created in 2018, but had remained relatively dormant until 2020 and 2021, respectively. Rondolinda responded I was ABF.VR _talk 17:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  I don't understand what User:Sea Ane has to do with User:Rondolinda and User:TheDreamBoat and their AFD !votes. I don't see where you've addressed the topic of this thread--AFD votes--with Rondolina or TheDreamBoat directly before posting this. (Although I see you have had concerns about Rondolina going back over a year based on their talk page, but not about this.) Also, as you know because you're a party, there is an open Iranian arbcom politics case right now. If you think this is MEK disruption, I think you should raise it there; Arbcom will have a much fuller picture than ANI will at this point. Have you considered that all that's necessary to get them to stop making copy-and-paste AFD votes is to ask? (Do you know these aren't the first two users doing this, and in the past, we've simply asked users to stop, and they've stopped, without sanctions? In some cases, we've had to sanction, but not always. Cookie-cutter AFD votes, and "spam voting," isn't a new or unique problem.) Levivich 17:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  (ec)They vote in the same manner. Same template. A very problematic template which involves rapid fire copy-pasted voting (3 in one minute: [582][583][584]). In theory it could be two people coordinating the same problematic behavior as well as the same votes in Iranian politics. Sure, in theory this is possible, but Occam's razor wouldn't go that way and it would still be a coordination issue given the shared discussions.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  You're just arguing that you're probably right. That's not what I'm arguing. Coordination, in and of itself, is not against any rules. We coordinate all the time, it's called collaboration. What's against the rules is improper coordination (WP:MEATPUPPET), but even if this is improper coordination, it doesn't mean we don't need to talk to them! I literally just saw two users who "coordinated" (via Discord) get blocked (improperly, and then quickly unblocked by another admin) because the blocking admin didn't talk to the editors before blocking. Someone should have talked to the editors before blocking (like the blocking admin), or reporting to ANI, or SPI. The solution might be as simple as educating them about our policies. Levivich 17:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Coordinating for vote-stacking at RFCs and tag-team in disputes to create an illusion of support is improper, and that's the basis of the SPI report. I consider AFD copy-pasta crucial evidence of sock/meatpuppetry, but not the most important basis for WP:ILLEGIT. That being said, I will not add any further comments about socking here. If I have further evidence to share, I'll post it at the SPI case. MarioGom (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Of course it's improper. The first step to addressing such improper behavior is to raise it with the editors, like on their talk page, with a link to WP:MEATPUPPET, etc. Levivich 17:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Since both accounts are now blocked from Wikipedia space, they cannot comment here. I have dropped them both a note to comment on their talk pages to comment there if they need to, and have watchlisted both pages. As I am in the UK, it may be worth admins from other timezones doing the same. Black Kite (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What's appropriate as an RfC comment?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's currently an RfC at Talk:Andy Ngo#Request for comment: "Journalist" in lede about whether Andy Ngo should be called a journalist. I'm in a dispute with FormalDude who has decided to insult Steven Crowder during this discussion, saying "Hard to believe people are still trying to call Ngo a journalist. They'd likely call Steven Crowder a journalist too". [585] When I challenged them on this, FormalDude said "Fuck Steven Crowder. What's the issue with that?" [586] as well as "I'll hate on Steven Crowder if I damn well please, especially if it has relevancy to people calling Andy Ngo a journalist." [587]

This is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, first of all. The RfC is about whether to call Andy Ngo a journalist. FormalDude's opinion on Steven Crowder is irrelevant here. Second of all, even if it was somewhat relevant, the follow-up comments are a blatant violation of the spirit of WP:BLP. You can't just attack living people in talk page comments like this. I don't believe this is OK and I'd like to see BLP actually enforced for once. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I apologize and am sorry for any violation of WP:BLP my comments had.

(My comments saying "Fuck Steven Crowder" are in the section Talk:Andy_Ngo#Journalist_in_lead, not the RfC.) ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 04:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I mischaracterized the context of these remarks. Sorry. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not an excuse, but I was not in the best mood with @Chess due to his prior accusation that I was WP:Canvassing here in the RfC survey. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 05:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• No, of course. As I said there: in my opinion the American politics topic area would be vastly improved if we actually enforced WP:BLP (which applies to talk pages) for people talking about their political enemies. And I say this as someone who does not watch or care about Crowder at all and disagrees with his right-wing politics. It's just a consistent pattern by various editors in the topic area. I don't see how editors who feel so strongly they can't resist going off on the talk page about their political opponents can be confidently trusted to edit neutrally on articles about people from that same political side. People can go to Twitter and Reddit to grind their axes. The comment Chess quotes above comparing Ngo and Crowder seems to also cast WP:ASPERSIONS on those of us who voted to describe Ngo as a journalist per various RS which do so. FormalDude says he is sorry above, which is good and I appreciate that, but I think this should be a wake-up call for him to make sure he is really following WP:NPOV in how he edits and discusses. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I promise it was not my intent to cast any aspersions on editors with opposing viewpoints from me. I merely wanted to point out a possible similar opinion that opposing editors might hold about another person (Crowder) in a similar-ish field, which was then poorly double down upon by my use of expletives. My original statement, however, was open to whatever other editors may–or may not–think about Crowder. I hope that would not be categorized as an accusation of misbehavior of people who disagreed with me, because, again, that was not my intent.

I will make sure I am following WP:NPOV as closely as possible though, which is one of the reasons I've recused myself of editing articles about Steven Crowder, because I do have a personal conflict of interest bias against him. I can certainly agree with you that some editors who make comments similar to mine are often not be trusted to edit neutrally. It was a poor choice for me to make that comment. I am not one of those editors though, and I have never had a NPOV dispute in the mainspace that wasn't an honest good faith mistake. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 05:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• No, while incivil, I do not believe the comment in question to by revdelable. Cheers.09:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs)
• Dunno about revdel eligibility or what the appropriate action should be, but 1) such comments shouldn't occur on talk pages; editors opinions about subjects, particularly their opinions about BLPs, need not be expressed onwiki. 2) some appropriate administrative action should be taken when that idea is violated. It just raises tensions unnecessarily, particularly on American politics articles, and is entirely unhelpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • To expand on revdel eligibility, admins would know better, but just wanted to note that skimming the Steven Crowder article it seems to me that he fits into the Donald Trump category of persons. I've noticed that insults directed at Trump and similar high profile people (eg Tucker Carlson) are frequently made onwiki without consequence, including by admins, which somewhat sets the standard I think for what's considered improper. In particular, high profile living persons whose Wikipedia article says they've engaged in discriminatory comments or harassment tend to be considered fair game. Hence, especially since saying "Fuck XYZ" is not even an insult (although saying a BLP is "vehemently immoral" might be), I doubt it's eligible for revdel or sanctions. (regardless of whether I think it should be) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Chess, if you think it might violate the BLP, then PLEASE don't put it in the title of the thread--come on now. Drmies (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Indeed, not to be harsh, but that ought to be intuitive. Talk:Andy Ngo = 164 page watchers. ANI = 8,241 page watchers. El_C 12:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• ”Fuck XYZ” isn’t a BLP issue (what is it even saying about the BLP?) or even incivility (it’s not an insult to an editor). It is however WP:NOTFORUM and should be reverted (not revdel’d) on that basis. DeCausa (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think the point is more general: about quoting a purported BLP-sketchy line in a section header, in a venue that's viewed nearly 100 times as much as the original one. But, that's right, no revdel needed. El_C 12:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, I wasn’t responding to that - just the general point. Probably put it in the wrong place. DeCausa (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Not BLP violation. I'm involved with the topic but not this particular discussion. I don't think comments like this are at all helpful. Sometimes they are said out of frustration, sometimes to make a point, sometimes to express feelings about the one being... well F'ed. Still, as an expression of opinion it doesn't violate BLP so long as the target isn't an editor. This isn't a BLP violation because it doesn't accuse the target of anything. Springee (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Phew, that was a close one, Springee. You almost fucked up! (Thank you, thank you, I got Dad jokes for every occasion.) El_C 13:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• The statement "this behaviour did not violate WP:BLP" is technically true, but very much not the point. Quite arguably, BLP should be applied here, since the behaviour discussed (purely invective commentary without constructive purpose for developing encyclopedic content) violates at least the spirit of WP:ATTACK. But at the same time, this question is very much superfluous considering that our WP:HARASSMENT policy very much does apply here, by way of WP:HNE: "In alignment with the protection of editors from harassment described throughout the rest of this policy, edits that harass living or recently deceased people who are not members of the Wikipedia community are also prohibited. Per the oversight policy, harassing content will be deleted or suppressed. Editors who post such material in any namespace may be indefinitely blocked."(emphasis added). An unqualified "Fuck Person X" is undeniably harassment as it is contemplated in that policy: we wouldn't even be arguing this point if we were talking about an editor, but as just the second sentence of the policy makes clear: "Wikipedia must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here." (again, emphasis added). Furthermore, this article falls under discretionary sanctions twice over, being covered via WP:NEWBLPBAN and WP:AMPOL.

Mind you, even FormalDude recognizes the inadvisability of the comment. Even if we were to adopt some truly myopic misisng-the-forest-for-the-trees standard with regard to whether this kind of comment violates community supported curbs on disruptive behaviour, it still raises the question of WP:tendentious editing and of bias so strong that it raises questions about the ability of the person using such excoriating rhetoric to contribute in related areas, and might easily become the basis for the community beginning to contemplate topic bans for certain areas. Now I'm making a broad point here in order the underscore how incorrect I think are the handful of comments above that suggest there is no policy violation or anything that could be met by sanction here: that is very clearly not an outlook in conformity with policy or community consensus. But I'm also not calling for a sanction because FormalDude has seemed to get out ahead of this issue and owned up to it being non-productive and dipping into WP:disruptive. But I will also note that this is not the first time in the last few days where I've felt like we were giving FormalDude the benefit of the doubt in an ANI thread relating to their approach to discussion. Speaking solely for myself, if he ends up back again soon for anything similar, I'm going to start feeling like it's time for the community to get proactive here. Snow ^{let's rap} 14:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Farrel Alfaro Ho

Farrel Alfaro Ho is continuing to add unsourced information to articles despite multiple final warnings and a ban earlier this month. Is currently active, and does not seem to have responded at all to any previous warnings. Meticulo (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Farrel Alfaro Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lego Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ellen's Game of Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

They seem to enjoy creating hoaxes about other versions of game shows. Their previous block was due to adding hoaxes and then disrupting by trying to remove the deletion tags. They also don't communicate at all - no response to any talk page messages and, unfortunately, they don't leave any sort of edit summary, which would at least help us to see what's going through their head with some of these edits. I don't believe that their behaviour has improved at all since the previous block and feel that a further one might be necessary to prevent further disruption and vandalism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: waiting for you to block this real vandal. He is blocked for 1 year on IDWIKI for the exact same reason ("menyebarkan informasi palsu", spreading false information). @Meticulo: @Spiderone: please report to WP:AIV since I am blocked from there for reporting a sock as a vandal. Flix11 (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the reported user. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking them. From their edit history, it's quite clear that they were WP:NOTHERE and had no intention of changing their behaviour. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Refusal to drop the stick by Manwë986

Manwë986 has refused to drop the stick on a particular photo they want used on Lee Kuan Yew, with their preference to use an older photo of a deceased man. While there's no active policy to enforce the usage of a younger photo, Manwë986 has reverted many instances of editors changing the photo without a valid reason.

• Added by Kohlrabi Pickle Reverted by Manwë986 on 5 February
• Readded by an IP, reverted by Manwë986 on 5 February

While the photo in question here is copyrighted, Kohlrabi Pickle was not aware of it. Manwë986's reversion was not out of copyright concerns but their insistence of a photo of an older man, going against the first consensus to depict a younger man instead.

• First consensus on 26 January

This is demonstrated by Manwë986's lack of sufficient knowledge over copyright when they tried to upload copyright photos and engaged with me on my talkpage over copyright. I created a vote to judge the concensus of the community, which Manwë986 failed to participate in, but nevertheless was clear not to use the photo. A mild warning to them to cease pursing the matter unless they can find a better photo was also concurred upon.

• Second consensus on 2 May

Manwë986 returned to my talkpage on 12 July, refusing to drop the stick numerous times despite my recommendations, which is their right. I finally re-directed them to discuss it on the Lee Kuan Yew talkpage instead. A third consensus, while acknowledging copyright concerns as the main factor, also cites my argument to use a younger photo.

• Third consensus on 16 July

Manwë986 threatens to continue pursuing the matter. While I initially ignored the final remark, they returned again on 27 July to yet again reinstate their preferred version of the photo.

Per Manwë986's refusal to drop the stick per WP:IDHT and actively going consensus, I am requesting for some administrative action to be imposed. Seloloving (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Because there are many freely licensed photos of Lee Kuan Yew available on Wikimedia Commons, it is crystal clear that no image restricted by copyright will be used. Do you understand that, Manwë986? Selecting among freely licensed photos is a routine content dispute. Since this has been a contentious issue for at least six months, a formal Request for comment may be the best way to establish a broad and lasting consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Currently, I think there is consensus, though not broad and lasting, to keep the current 1975 photo of LKY. While I agree with Cullen to have a RFC to establish a broad and lasting consensus, currently there is only a different opinion on the choice of photo so perhaps any RFC be done after seoloving's revamp?

And can we use this discussion as the current firm consensus to keep the current 1975 photo as the main photo to be used? Please do note the comments in the article's talkpage as well. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I see that this user has been pretty disruptive and refusing to acknowledge consensus, despite the fact that there have already been three rounds of discussions on the issue. He has also tried to garner support from other users to support his stance, as stated on this user talk page (the user rejected to do so), which somewhat violates Wikipedia:Canvassing. Also, I don't mind if the 1975 photo remains in use.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

With four opposes on the talkpage, Manwë986 reinstates the photo again with an edit summary I just can't let him be disgraced like this. Clearly, this is a issue with competence and refusing to adhere to consensus, and I would recommend for a limited topic ban on Manwë986, covering any discussion of the lead photo for a period of time, or changing it, with an admin's discretion on the timeframe. Seloloving (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Having failed to gain consensus on the talkpage, Manwë986 is now edit warring while this AN/I is open [588][589]. I would suggest a partial block from the page is warranted at the least. CMD (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Feel free to unblock if Manwë986 shows some kind of a clue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Repeated WP:BLP violations in the Zina Bash article.

• Zina Bash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See the recent article history. [590], and in particular the repeated addition of content like this. [591]

In brief, two contributors (User:TrueQuantum and User:Attic Salt) have been tag-teaming to insert content into the Zina Bash article, in contravention of WP:BLP. Since it has been made perfectly clear, in reliable sources already cited in the article, that claims that Bash made a 'white power' sign are based on nothing more than 4Chan conspiracy-theory trolling, the material being added, which implies that Wikipedia takes this nonsense seriously, is a gross violation. Further comments about Kavanaugh are likewise improper, given that they simply have no bearing on events that actually occurred, rather than on a particularly silly conspiracy theory.

Any responsible contributor would surely understand that if there is a dispute about possible WP:BLP violations, the proper course of action is to resolve the matter through dispute resolution. Since however those responsible have acted in the manner they did instead, I suggest that appropriate sanctions be taken against them.AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, when I asked you what specifically is the BLP violation that concerns you: [592], [593], you did not provide an answer: [594]. Attic Salt (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no 'I didn't like the answer I was given' exception to WP:BLP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I should probably have also linked the earlier WP:BLPN discussion too - comments there seem relevant to assessing what happened later. [595] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I fully protected the article for a week and will watch the talk page for a while. Let me know if the issue cannot be resolved with normal discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Trust me when I say that I do not want to be involved in this dispute. What first got my attention were complaints that Marquardtika was tendentiously editing Bash's page to such an extent that the editor was making attacks and accusations of sexual assault against other BLP subjects who accused Bash of making the controversial hand signal. This was particularly evident against another BLP subject Eugene Gu where Marquardtika overrode an RFC to put sexual misconduct accusations against him not only on Gu's page but also on Zina Bash's page as well. Upon further investigation I saw that Bash's page was edited in such a biased, non-neutral fashion that it looked more like a PR defense or reputation management for Bash than as an encyclopedia entry. I want us all to adhere to our policies in WP:BLP. My thoughts on this are simple. Either we discuss Bash's highly publicized hand signal during Kavanaugh's highly publicized confirmation hearing in a neutral way considering all reliable sources from all different angles or we nominate this article for deletion. We can't have a PR style reputation management entry for Bash because that undermines the credibility and neutrality of Wikipedia. TrueQuantum (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

TrueQuantum, you have repeatedly added BLP-violating content to the article. Specifically, "It is unclear whether Bash made the hand signal to distract from Kavanaugh's controversial confirmation hearing." The reliable sources aren't ambiguous at all here. Vox says "Bash was not making a 'white power hand signal'" and called the incident "fake news." The Washington Post says "The idea that the hand sign is a secret symbol for white power owes its mainstream spread to a viral troll campaign aimed at making liberals and the media look gullible....The gesture is not considered a real hate symbol by organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League." If you want to nominate the article for deletion, go ahead. But you need to stop confusing our BLP policy with "PR." Marquardtika (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I have not edited the article in any way other than enforcing the 3RR policy by reverting some of your contentious edits. Reverting your TE does not constitute "repeatedly adding" BLP violating content. I have not added anything to the article at all. I am simply trying to undo your TE and preserve the principles of neutrality that is central to our mission on Wikipedia. TrueQuantum (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, 3RR policy isn't 'enforced' by involved contributors adding (or restoring - the same thing, in this context) material to articles. It is enforced by taking violations of policy to an appropriate noticeboard, where an admin can, if necessary, impose sanctions on one or more of the involved parties. Though I think it is safe to assume that said admin will take due account on the explicit exemptions to WP:3RR rules which can apply when removing WP:BLP-violating content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Marquardtika, the New York Times source [596], which you keep removing, for example, here: [597], is more circumspect about whether or not Bash intended anything and whether or not the gesture is or is not offensive. We can't get into her mind, so the most that can be said is that there was an accusation. I don't know if Vox is actually considered to be a RS, but the Vox article you keep citing is clearly loaded with opinion. It is not as definitive as seem to suggest. Thanks. Attic Salt (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The NYT article you cite is a 2019 article about the evolution of the OK gesture. It's not particularly useful or accurate when discussing an incident that occurred in 2017. And no, we can't "get into her mind." But we can and we must identify conspiracy theories for what they are. She unequivocally did not "flash a white power sign." And we're certainly not going to say she was accused of such in the article without addressing the fact that, per the myriad reliable sources I've provided, that's a false accusation. Marquardtika (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Um, Marquardtika, the NYT article you keep removing notes that it is not always clear when the okay gesture is or is not intended to be offensive. In this respect, your quote, including mentioning the ADL, is not necessarily accurate. It is, at times, clearly used as a hate symbol. Attic Salt (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

If you genuinely don't understand how edits like this are BLP violations, you need to stop editing biographies. That you are not comprehending that saying a Mexican Jewish woman was accused of flashing a white power symbol without providing any context about who was accusing her or how this came to be is problematic. The fact that sometimes the OK sign is used as a hate symbol does not mean that she used a hate symbol. The Washington Post is very clear that she gave an OK sign with her hand to a judiciary staffer after that staffer fulfilled a request to bring Kavanaugh a glass of water. We obviously need to be extremely careful about including any content that accuses someone of making a white power symbol. That is a serious and ugly accusation. It's a shame that several editors on the Bash page don't understand the BLP issues. Marquardtika (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Um, please don't personalise this discussion. The edit you cite this was not made by me. So why do you cite it here in responding to me? I'm all in favour of providing context, but the quote you keep presenting, asserting that the gesture is "not considered a real hate symbol" is simply false. That the WP article is simply wrong. The NYT article you keep removing makes that clear. I'm not suggesting that Bash used it as a hate symbol. In fact, I'm completely agnostic on that matter. Attic Salt (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

So it is your contention that The Washington Post is wrong? You might want to take that to WP:RSN. Marquardtika (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Truequantum, trying to defend a WP:BLP violation by making a personal attack on a contributor, entirely unaccompanied by any evidence, generally isn't considered a wise tactic. I'd recommend taking a little time to figure out how Wikipedia actually works (you've only been editing since the beginning of June) before making further comments. The question of what should or shouldn't go in the Bash biography (and indeed whether there should be one at all) can now be determined at more appropriate locations than WP:ANI, and if anything needs to be discussed on this noticeboard regarding what went on with the Eugene Gu article, it will need a new thread. Accompanied by actual evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a serious accusation, AndyTheGrump. Please show me where I have made a personal attack on a contributor. I have simply laid out the evidence of what has occurred in the editing history. Furthermore, I recommend you refresh yourself on Wikipedia policies and our ethos. It does not matter if an editor has been here for 1 day or for 10 years. We do not undervalue the contributions and opinions from any editor regardless of how long they have been editing. TrueQuantum (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

You have 'laid out' no evidence at all. Evidence, at WP:ANI, consists of links (e.g. diffs) to the relevant material, as posted by the person concerned. It doesn't consist of mere assertions that something or other happened. And no, it isn't a good idea to undervalue a contributor on the basis of how long they have been editing. It is however often relevant to how much allowance should be made for their evident lack of understanding of how things work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if TrueQuantum (talk · contribs) NeneCaretaker (talk · contribs) and 66.190.166.205 (talk · contribs) are meat puppets or sock puppets, but they are all new accounts with a sudden and similar interest in Zina Bash. Marquardtika (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of personal attacks on contributors, this false accusation is utterly uncalled for. TrueQuantum (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The text "new accounts with a sudden and similar interest in Zina Bash" is completely accurate: TrueQuantum (talk · contribs) was created on 6 June 2021 and has 268 edits starting with their user page (permalink) while NeneCaretaker (talk · contribs) was created on 16 July 2021 and has 26 edits starting with their user page ("The red font for a blank user page is ugly" permalink). Regarding the issue of the article, TrueQuantum and NeneCaretaker have received the BLP discretionary sanctions notification and I will ensure that any BLP problems result in appropriate action. If anyone wants to oppose a sanction against those who came to Wikipedia to add fuel to an article, please speak up. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I'm surprised by your suggestion of sanctions. What, specifically, are you asking us to oppose? Certainly you are obliged to clearly state what you are proposing. More generally, I think the evidence you cite for a sockpuppet is flimsy. Why not request a CU to verify? Independent of that, TrueQuantum's behaviour has been both civil and well reasoned. I find Marquardtika's edits to be tedious and I view AndyTheGrump as a bully. Those are my thoughts. Attic Salt (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This is getting pretty ridiculous. I am being accused of making sockpuppet accounts (namely that of NeneCaretaker and 66.190.166.205 without any evidence whatsoever. Now there are threats of sanctions against me for trying to enforce our policies on neutrality? I would like other administrators to weigh in here because this seems patently unfair. TrueQuantum (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Which 'policies on neutrality' are you trying to 'enforce', and where do they state that a participant in a dispute should be 'enforcing' them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I second the call for a different administrator. Attic Salt (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course you do. But User:Johnuniq is a very experienced administrator and I, an even more experienced Aministrator, see no problems with the suggestion that any BLP violation after the discretionary sanctions alerts have been given may lead to sanctions. In fact, they should lead to sanctions. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Please identify and cite the evidence used to justify a BLP violation and discretionary sanctions alert that AndyTheGrump placed on my talk page. I am concerned that rather than using this mechanism to protect our policies on Wikipedia, AndyTheGrump as an editor involved in this dispute is using the discretionary sanctions as a silencing tactic against me. Wikipedia is meant to be open to editors of all levels of experience and time spent here. I am highly unsettled and concerned by bullying from "experienced" editors that will degrade the quality of this encyclopedic resource. Why do I have discretionary sanctions and AndyTheGrump and Marquardtika do not? Please examine their contentious editing history and talk page comments regarding this issue. Fairness and objectivity should be values that administrators believe in. TrueQuantum (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You are not having discretionary sanctions 'used against you'. You are being notified that they exist. Experienced Wikipedians already know about them, and don't generally need such notifications, since they are already aware of them. I certainly was, and fully expect that if I ever violate the relevant Wikipedia policies, such sanctions will be applied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The allegation that this BLP subject repeatedly made "white power" hand gestures at a deeply controversial, very public confirmation hearing never made much sense and has been clearly refuted. Supporters of racial justice and equality, which I hope includes all of us, should find better causes for their editing efforts than further promoting this allegation, which at this point is both a defamation and a digression. Actually, the interesting BLP question about this article is not whether we should "neutrally" report that something is possible where it obviously is not true, but whether this type of spurious but potentially life-destroying allegation against a non-prominent person should be included in a Wikipedia article at all. I have referred to this question elsewhere as the "allegations problem": when does an allegation that would otherwise not be worth mentioning, whether because it is untrue or (in other cases) because it is non-notable, need to be included because the making of the allegation itself became a public controversy. (Compare my comments here and the discussion problem here.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, You seem to be rehashing things already said. Both TrueQuantum and I have stated that this article might be worthy of deletion. But I disagree with your quotation marks about neutrality. As long as the article exists, we should certainly strive for neutrality. I also disagree with your simple assertion that the allegation is "obviously not true". We don't know that, so let's stop saying things we don't know. Regarding "further promoting this allegation", no one here is promoting an allegation. I suggest you retract that comment as unhelpful (to say the least). And, finally, TrueQuantum requested "Please identify and cite the evidence used to justify a BLP violation". For clarity, your response, here, does not do that at all. Attic Salt (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, this is symptomatic of a broader issue: the tendency of Wikipedia biographies of living persons (and articles in general, though that matters less) to become battlegrounds between contributors with opposing views, if there is any political context at all, and for such battleground behaviour to result in articles consisting of little more than a series of 'pro' and 'anti' sections based on marginal sourcing, chosen not to actually describe the subject biographically, but to score points. Not only is this a poor reflection on contributors, and on Wikipedia in general, but it is also an insult to readers, who I'd have to assume would rather read something less resembling the Somme after a particularly bad day. For the record, as a Brit, and thus as an outsider generally only observing US politicking from a distance, I had no recollection of knowing anything about Zina Bash before I saw the thread on WP:BLPN, and reacted to it not because I wanted to take sides, but because I saw what was so blatantly a violation of WP:BLP policy that I couldn't ignore it. As the few of you who have seen comments from me on a Wikipedia-criticism forum I participate in may have noticed (the rest of you will have to take my word for it), my own political views are about as far from those of the Trump administration, and its appointees etc, as could be imagined. If I were to pick sides, I'd be on the other side of the trenches. If my politics influenced my actions here at all (which is of course possible) it was probably because this insult to readers intelligence (to even describe it as a conspiracy theory suggests more coherence than it deserves) makes those pushing it look utterly idiotic, and consequently harms efforts to confront real-world racial bigotry from actual advocates of 'white power' etc. Real-world bigotry with real-world consequences. If people want to use Wikipedia as a political battlefield (which no doubt they always will, since being political is part of being human) they really need to use more subtle tactics than those employed here. 15:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)

Hi Newyorkbrad, I would like to understand your points and arguments in good faith. I do agree with you that a "potentially life-destroying allegation against a non-prominent person" has no place on Wikipedia. That is why I have repeatedly said that if Zina Bash is only known for the hand signal controversy at Brett Kavanaugh's controversial hearing, then the entire article should be deleted. What I am adamantly against is using Wikipedia as a reputation management PR service for anyone. In fact, there seems to be three main possibilities for Zina Bash's OK hand signal:

1. It may be an innocuous OK hand gesture without any bad intent. There are reliable sources that state this perspective.

2. It may be a white power hand gesture with malicious and racist intent. There are reliable sources that state this perspective and cite individuals who have been fired from their jobs and disciplined after flashing this hand signal during media interviews.

3. It may have been a way to distract from Kavanaugh's controversial hearing where accusations of sexual assault were causing significant impediments. Reliable sources have stated this possibility as well and the Washington Post noted that even after the first uproar about the hand signal, Bash did it again.

I honestly do not know which of the above possibilities are true. Also, it is not my duty as an editor to determine which is true or to fight for any single narrative here. I believe that in the interests of neutrality we must cover what the reliable sources state about this incident and let the reader come to her or his own conclusion. We cannot pick and choose what reliable sources are "true" and what reliables sources are "false." What I believe to be a violation of our principles on neutrality is to only include the sources that state that the whole incident is a "conspiracy theory." That would make Bash's page appear to be more of a PR type reputation management service since Wikipedia articles, especially BLPs, often make it to the top of anyone's Google search. Wikipedia is not here to vouch for anyone nor to repair their reputations. Our job is to make sure that for BLPs we remain absolutely neutral. Since I do believe in the presumption of innocence and the tenets of due process, the most fair scenario here is to delete Bash's page. If the page is not deleted, then portray the incident with absolute neutrality. TrueQuantum (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

How to shoot yourself in the foot in one easy lesson: "I believe this article should be deleted, but rather than nominate it for deletion, I'm going to turn it into a battlefield instead". AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your dismissive and derisive attitude here towards me. I gave an explanation citing my reasoning based on the available evidence and sources and you simply state "How to shoot yourself in the foot in one easy lesson" and accuse me of turning the article into a "battlefield." It would have been more appropriate for you to actually go through my arguments and rebut them based on the evidence and with your own logical reasoning. That's how I expect editors to conduct themselves when discussing issues on here with maturity. TrueQuantum (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

To quote what I said earlier, when I started this thread "Any responsible contributor would surely understand that if there is a dispute about possible WP:BLP violations, the proper course of action is to resolve the matter through dispute resolution". WP:ANI is not the proper place to engage in a content dispute. What is being discussed here is behaviour - specifically, the behaviour of a couple of individuals who, when it had already been made abundantly clear that the disputed content was considered by responsible and experienced editors to violate WP:BLP policy, continued to restore it to the article. You don't have to agree with other people assessments regarding WP:BLP policy. You are however expected to at least conform to the minimum standard of expected behaviour, and discuss issues over such content properly (asking for third-party comment etc if needed) rather than edit-warring it in to 'enforce' (your own word, used above [598][599]) your preferred version of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand this correctly. If you are making accusations that I am violating BLP guidelines despite not actually writing anything into Bash's article at all (simply reverting Maquardtika's edit once and your edit once), I am supposed to not even discuss the topic whatsoever here and take the consequences of your accusations including discretionary sanctions without defending myself. If I defend myself in the proper forum and explain my reasoning, that to you is a violation. All of this is occurring in the setting of you and Marquardtika violating the 3RR policy. Tell me how this makes sense. Also, please cite the evidence for my BLP violation on Bash's article that justifies these accusations leading to possible BLP discretionary sanctions against me rather than against you and Marquardtika. TrueQuantum (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, and, again, when you were asked what the BLP violations that concerned you [600], [601], you refused to answer: [602]. Attic Salt (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking further into the history of the Zina Bash biography

Having looked at the history, I'd like to first state that this revert, [603] made by TrueQuantum, was absolutely in compliance with WP:BLP policy, and had I seen the material myself, would have done exactly the same thing - and quite likely pursued it further, at least to the extent of finding out who was responsible for originally adding it and asking them what the hell they thought they were doing. My endeavours to figure out who actually added have so far however been thwarted by the convoluted edit-warring that has taken place. The article history is a total mess, and reflects poorly on almost everyone concerned.

Going back to the origins of the article, one will readily observe that it has been abused as a political battleground right from the start, as competing factions alternately add their preferred spin to a facile troll-fuelled 'debate' over the position of the hands of someone sitting in the background of a Supreme Court conformation hearing. If it wasn't created for that express purpose in the first place, it might as well have been. If Wikipedia can't do better than this, it should maybe consider tightening the notability criteria for biographies of living persons further, to at least reduce the number of vacuous-battleground-biographies enough to enable less politically-motivated contributors to keep a better eye on whatever idiocy is being perpetrated on this self-proclaimed 'encyclopedia'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like AndyTheGrump is completely retreating from his call for an ANI. Attic Salt (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

What the heck is a 'call for an ANI'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You brought us here, but you have declined to provide evidence of BLP violations, see: [604]. Attic Salt (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that your interpretation of multiple Wikipedia policies (as shown here [605]) is clearly entirely at odds with mine, or indeed with more or less anyone I've seen who actually understands them (e.g. your suggestion that "Perhaps the only thing that is noteworthy enough to justify a Wikiarticle on Zina Bash is this accusation. If there is to be an article on her, then the accusation needs to be discussed. Though not in unrealistic terms, like whether or not it is debunked.") perhaps you might like to ask that question of the many other people who have responded here, who appear to agree with me. I very much doubt you'd take any notice of what I said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Topic bans

• Suggest topic banning both Attic Salt and TrueQuantum from BLPs. Their arguments here are ridiculous. They're edit warring to restore debunked claims about a living person flashing a white power sign and also removing the context of where those allegations came from. Attic Salt is playing dumb and pretending that they don't understand how that's a BLP violation. And TrueQuantum is pulling the "I was just enforcing the 3RR policy" card, which is irrelevant because we're responsible for any edit we restore. Neither editor has any business editing BLPs until they learn our policies. Woodroar (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support for Attic Salt (talk · contribs) only, as it is clear that they have an issue with BLP policy; but weak oppose for TrueQuantum (talk · contribs) because of their conduct at other BLPs, like their comments at Talk:Bill_Cosby#This_page_feels_heavily_subjective_and_biased_in_Cosby's_favor., Talk:Jimmy_Savile#RfC_about_Savile_as_a_child_molester, Talk:David_Gorski#Notability_Question, and Talk:CallMeCarson#Sexual_allegations_and_innuendo, is mixed at worst. But I would recommend at minimum a one-account restriction for TrueQuantum, if NeneCaretaker (talk · contribs) and 66.190.166.205 (talk · contribs) prove to be socks. I also see that they also violated WP:NOTFORUM by initiating Talk:Sex#Biological_Sex:_Binary_or_Spectrum, which points in the direction of a topic ban from human sexuality that may void the need for a BLP topic ban. (All their recent BLP edits focus on sexual abuse scandals.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

What issue do I have with the BLP policy? Attic Salt (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right — this seems to be an isolated incident, and the only problematic conduct on your behalf was on Zina Bash and its talk page; for instance, this edit to remove WP:PROMO from a BLP looks uncontroversial. Changing to oppose for you, but may still support a topic ban from Zina Bash from your previous comments there. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Very confusing. I've asked several times what the controversial conduct was. Please provide diffs. Why is that so difficult? Attic Salt (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This edit reverted by Marquardtika (talk · contribs) and then reverted again by AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) (after one round with TrueQuantum) is alleged to violate the BLP policy. You previously brought up a point about the sexual abuse allegations against Bash in January 2020, at Talk:Zina_Bash#January_2020_2, which was refuted by CWC (talk · contribs) and Marquardtika. I think at this point that this has descended into a content dispute where you are innocent that should have gone to WP:BLPN first (Bash has never been discussed other than this zero-reply thread by the creator), although TrueQuantum may still be problematic based on the evidence I presented. Thanks for telling me to address this more closely. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

And you really consider that edit to be so controversial that you contemplate a ban against me, specifically? Please don't complain about splinters in my eye. Attic Salt (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Rather than playing dumb, I think that Attic Salt truly does not yet understand a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia's BLP policy, which is that it is more important than most other policies, and more specifically that it is more important than otherwise basic content policies like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. When talking about accusations made against historical figures who lived 2000 years ago, a comment like Nope. We are not at liberty to interpret accusations as being either true or false. Accusations can be made and denied. Proof, here, does not exist. [606] might be a perfectly legitimate interpretation of policy: we just report what historians are writing about the accusation, and we don't engage in our own research about whether the accusation was true or false. The person involved is long dead anyways, and what we write about it does not have any real-world impact apart from the accuracy of our information about ancient history. When talking about living persons, however, a completely different standard applies. For living persons, the question whether we do or do not repeat serious accusations made against them can have far-reaching real-life consequences. In these circumstances, it is not enough to consider whether what we report is objective, or whether it complies with what expert sources are telling us. For example, when it comes to serious allegations that are reported by reliable sources, but which nevertheless show some of the characteristics of gossip, we would report it without a second thought in the case of historical figures (the fact that objective historians are writing about it is proof enough of its notability, and everyone likes a bit of speculation on the personal lives of the ancients). In the case of gossip about living persons, however, we are required to ask ourselves whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Basically, if it is even remotely likely to be just gossip, mere allegations without any substantive form of proof, then the preferred course is to either not include it, or to write about it very sparingly (perhaps one sentence, e.g. if it is directly relevant to something else we're writing). It doesn't matter that in principle it could be true, that there is no evidence that it isn't true, that a number of reliable sources have reported on it, etc., etc. Our first goal in such a case is not to be objective, but to avoid being complicit in defamation. Now I'm fairly confident that Attic Salt just wasn't aware yet of the extra stringency we apply to BLP's (which, by the way, includes an exemption from 3RR), and that after the explanation I have just given they will understand and agree. If, however, that would turn out not to be the case, I would support a topic ban on BLP's until they do understand. As for TrueQuantum, I can't and won't comment on their understanding of BLP policy in other articles, but I note that they too elevated neutrality above BLP concerns in the case of the Zina Bash article, and that throughout this thread they have failed to understand the importance of these concerns. I think that also for TrueQuantum, a topic ban would be in order if they should not come to understand this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

"[BLP] is more important than otherwise basic content policies like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR."

Without necessarily disagreeing with some of your ultimate conclusions on content issues here, I'm going to have to push back against that statement, Apaugasma: WP:NPOV is a pillar policy of this project, and more or less by definition has a higher stature, in terms of over-arching community consensus formulated over the duration of this project, than does BLP, by a significant margin. And WP:OR is of course one of the primary outgrowths of that pillar policy explaining how we apply it in practice. Don't get me wrong, I very much support the precautionary principle which undergirds BLP, but it sometimes takes on a life of it's own in the hands of those who would like to excise content which they do not like with regard to living persons--even where good faith application of the standard WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT process clearly established an argument for inclusion. BLP was designed to work synergistically within the bounds of a policy of neutrality that is not meant to be abrogated under any circumstances, not to become a talisman that causes neutrality to be thrown out the window when we determine that information is sensitive in nature--which latter approach would be too vulnerable to abuse from POV pushers looking to sanitize articles on living but highly controversial figures.

That said, I do recognize that BLP has, as an informal cultural matter, grown into something of a standard held in greater regard than your average policy page, but as a structural matter regarding how this community has codified its priorities and over-arching community consensus on the most paramount concerns when deciding a content matter, no, WP:NPOV is not some "basic" policy which bows to BLP. Quite the opposite: in a theoretical context in which the two are in direct conflict (which in reality is almost never the case, because the nuance of both policies generally allows for threading the needle and the two being applied in concert), we would be expected by the highest level of community consensus to err on the side of neutrality. Of course, let me reiterate again, that in practice you and I might agree on the right content call in both the present circumstances as well as most others that potentially implicate both BLP and NPOV. But with regard to the statement I quote above, you are categorically incorrect as to which policy is meant to inherit the greater level of concern as a recognized fundamental policy of this project. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Snow: Yes, I struggled to formulate that without causing offense. I am of course aware of WP:CRYBLP, and I hope I did not inspire anyone to misuse BLP policy in that way. But what I meant with NPOV being basic is precisely that it is "elementary, fundamental, essential", and when I said that BLP is even more important, it was very much in the specific context of this ANI report where I was trying to convey that when evaluating a specific edit, it does not matter that it seemingly complies with NPOV if it blatantly breaches BLP. Of course, when an edit blatantly breaches NPOV it also doesn't matter that it seemingly complies with BLP, but in practice this is just not often the direction of concern. You are right to say that BLP works within the bounds of NPOV, but even within that framework it generally does function as a kind of additional rule, and yes, it often does trump other concerns. This statement is descriptive rather than prescriptive. It is just a fact that, because BLP violations may have serious real-life consequences, we tend to be very sensitive about them, more so even than with edits violating our most fundamental content policies (God knows that more than half of the encyclopedia consists of those). As an additional 'check' type of rule, BLP is far less central and therefore in a way far less important than our core content policies, but when it comes to enforcing rules, we just tend to be far more strict on BLP, and in that way grant it more importance. Anyways, that's surely what's relevant here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 05:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a good summary of the situation, particularly when we consider your caveat that it is a descriptive rather than prescriptive description. That said, sometimes that is precisely a part of the concern for me: that the weight of BLP relative to other important policies and principles prioritized in the BLP context itself is sometimes out of proportion to the relative support in established community consensus. I sometimes think the community is long overdue to have an express discussion about this issue on a mass scale, to resolve it one way or the other. Either we should have some more explicit language so as to define the contours of BLP when it is in conflict with nominally more fundamental policies, or the ways in which it can permissibly abrogate those principles should be agreed upon by the community and expressed in policy. And I very much see arguments that appeal to me running in both directions, but at the end of the day there needs to be more clarity than presently exists. A lot of people just act from very impulsive a priori assumptions when a bit of sensitive information imputes BLP on a topic, and it often allows original research in via the back door. It's usually proscriptive OR (that is to say, an original research argument in support of keeping content out) rather than inclusive OR, but it's still not a workable standard like the more straightforward applications of WP:WEIGHT/WP:RS that govern most non-BLP content. But for now it's the best we have. Mostly we are able to manage in BLP areas because there's usually a strong consensus for or against inclusion of a particular piece. But it must be noted that more borderline BLP questions become some of the most fertile ground for both dispute and disruption because of BLPs strange, sometimes quixotic application and status. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Well I thank you for this explanation. I accept it and the BLP policies in general. I would have appreciated a clear explanation like this earlier on, rather than all the antagonism and arrogance that has bee directed my way. Attic Salt (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I find it extremely unsettling that both Attic Salt and I are under threat of a topic ban and/or other discretionary sanctions. Such drastic actions require detailed and specific evidence because these actions censor our views and contributions to an encyclopedic resource that is meant to be free and open to all editors in good faith. If I am to be subject to a topic ban on BLPs, I demand the specific violation(s) I have made and how each of these violations went against specific policies. I cannot be subject to a topic ban because of the articles that I choose to edit, which range from topics in physics to biology to mathematics to BLPs. If I believe in the tenets of WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME and seek to apply these policies to protect BLPs, I should not be punished for my good faith understanding of Wikipedia's policies even if other editors may disagree. Furthermore, I am unequivocally not NeneCaretaker nor am I IP user 66.190.166.205. Yet somehow I stand accused. I would appreciate a Check User action to verify this. In summary, I am very concerned with how Attic Salt and I are being treated here. It's beyond chilling that we are subject to sanctions based on vague accusations without specific evidence to back them up. It would be extremely troubling for editors who have many years of experience here on Wikipedia to form a clique because of the age of their accounts and to gang up on newer editors like myself. To then apply sanctions or even the threat of sanctions is anathema to the spirit and ethos of an open source encyclopedia. TrueQuantum (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Does you 'good-faith understanding' of WP:BLP now extend to an understanding that when multiple experienced editors state that material you are adding or restoring to an article contravenes the policy, the correct way to proceed, if you disagree with that assessment, is to try to resolve the matter through discussion (including if necessary formal dispute resolution etc) rather than adding or restoring it again? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I share TrueQuantum’s disgust with how this has unfolded. Attic Salt (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Attic Salt, samequestion for you: does you 'good-faith understanding' of WP:BLP now extend to an understanding that when multiple experienced editors state that material you are adding or restoring to an article contravenes the policy, the correct way to proceed, if you disagree with that assessment, is to try to resolve the matter through discussion (including if necessary formal dispute resolution etc) rather than adding or restoring it again? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Andy,your behaviour here has been horrible. I’m not interested in interacting with a bully. Attic Salt (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure those wishing to determine how best to proceed further will take your non-response to a perfectly reasonable question into consideration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm really concerned that nobody is addressing the bullying behavior from editors AndyTheGrump and Marquardtika. So far they have accused me of being NeneCaretaker and 66.190.166.205 without any evidence nor CU action. They have attacked my character repeatedly as well as my intentions. Furthermore, the administrators involved so far have only been piling on by threatening sanctions against me and Attic Salt while giving a free pass to AndyTheGrump and Marquardtika. I sincerely hope that Wikipedia has not become an insular group of editors and administrators who give favoritism to those they know or those whose accounts are older while discriminating against newer accounts like myself. TrueQuantum (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

At no point have I accused you of being NeneCaretaker or 66.190.166.205. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@TrueQuantum: I agree that WP:BITE may have been a concern here (@AndyTheGrump: please do try to take it easy). However, the accusations are not vague. They're simply that this edit and this one reinstated what other editors had identified as a BLP violation without waiting for the discussion about this to end. This is not acceptable, and demonstrates that you do not yet sufficiently understand the gravity of BLP violations. Even if there is just a possibility of an edit violating BLP policy, it should be extensively discussed before being reinstated. If you simply acknowledge this and promise to take this into account in the future, I'm fairly sure that no action will be taken. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for actually pointing out what the potential violation is and what policy it violates. I did in fact discuss the BLP issues in the talk page for Zina Bash way in advance of reverting Marquardtika's edit. Not only that, but furthermore I pointed out on Marquardtika's talk page that I identified contentious editing and politely asked the editor to refrain. The talk page discussion was as follows: "I saw you put in accusations of sexual assault against Eugene Gu in your edit to Zina Bash's BLP. Upon further investigation I saw that you were aggressively editing Gu's BLP to include accusations of sexual assault that a unanimous RFC forbade. Please refrain from tendentious editing and look up our policies on WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME. Thank you. TrueQuantum (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Maybe Eugene should have looked up the BLP policies before he used his public platform to falsely accuse a Mexican Jew of flashing a white power symbol. As for the accusations of sexual assault, it's right there in the reliable source: "Eugene Gu, a prominent anti-Trump doctor who recently made news when he was accused of sexual assault..." Marquardtika (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC) Okay. Seeing as how Gu isn't a Wiki editor, it's strange to say that he should have looked up the BLP policies. Sounds like you have an axe to grind against Gu that makes you ignore RFC consensus and then attack him in Zina Bash's Wikipedia page to get revenge on him using his "public platform" to "falsely accuse a Mexican Jew of flashing a white power symbol." I highly recommend you refresh yourself on the 5 pillars and WP:BLP policies. Please discontinue the tendentious editing that is clearly motivated by feelings of retaliation and desire for retribution. TrueQuantum (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)." I made repeated attempts to reach out and discuss on the talk page before resorting to reverting what I believed to be TE. If I made an error in this case, then it was unintentional and I will take it as a learning point and lesson. I hope that Marquardtika and AndyTheGrump can similarly learn lessons on Wikipedia policies and civil behavior so that we can have a better community here. TrueQuantum (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The crucial difference is that after Marquardtika got reverted on the Eugene Gu article, they did continue to discuss a bit on the talk page, but they did not reinstate the edit without getting consensus to do so. Likewise, after you reverted them at the Zina Bash article, they discussed a bit with you on their talk page but they did not reinstate the edit. I do think it rather questionable that they incorporated the sexual assault allegation against Gu in the Zina Bash article just two days after their inclusion of it in Gu's own article was reverted, though as they write on their talk page, the allegation against Gu is specifically noted in the Vox article we are using on Zina Bash. Anyways, the important thing is that when editors identify BLP violations, they should not be reinstated without a thorough consensus, and they can in some cases even be reverted beyond 3RR. This is not always an obvious point for newish editors to catch on to, but I guess that learning it the hard way is also one form of learning it. :-P Thanks for your attention, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

To piggyback on Apaugasma's very useful advice here, I would recommend that you take a look at WP:BRD, if you are not familiar with, or to review it even if you are--and when doing so, consider every note of caution with regard to the principle of discussing before acting to have a particular vitality in the context of BLP. Mind you, when it comes to the tone of the discussion itself, I believe you acted in a civil and measured fashion, and I intend to note that in an !vote below. However, the edit warring here never should have taken place. The burden was upon you and Attic Salt to achieve consensus for these changes once they were reverted, and you skipped that rather principal step. In the future, where things are looking rather intractable, you should consider soliciting additional perspectives through a process such as WP:RfC rather than resorting to attempting to get the content in by brute force of redundant edits: that approach will never work in your favour. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Fairly strong oppose. The behaviour here is limited to a one-time instance as far as has been presented (absent a trivial WP:NOTAFORUM violation, but in any event both excuseable in a newer user) and frankly (though I would support a different view) their content arguments are not wholecloth without merit. The proposed sanction is way out of proportion with actionable behaviour here (if any), given that at least one of these editors has pretty clearly recognized shortcomings in their approach and assumed the appropriate attitude that their approach to these situations must adjust. Blocks are administered for purely preventative purposes, not punitive statements, even where we might find the content in dispute objectionable in some respect. Putting aside for the moment the question of whether or not Andy's bringing the issue here was appropriate--I assume for argument here that it was--we have already achieved an acceptable approach in that the editors have evidenced no suggestion of a more disruptive pattern (at least that I have seen submitted here), and seem not to object to adjusting their approach to community expectations. So long as we have no reason to expect duplicity, I see no reason not to AGF as to their intent and give them the benefit of the doubt as to their ability to adjust.

There's also the fact that, upon reviewing the discussions in full, I actually think there is reason to feel they handled themselves fairly appropriately and with restraint in those discussions. Andy frankly was showing so much WP:BITE there from word go, I would say it was verging into uncollaborative discussion. This is, if my memory recalls correctly, something that has brought Andy to this board more than once in the past, and has certainly, looking at his block log, something close to behaviour that has earned him blocks in the past, so maybe if there is an editor who does have a pattern worth noting here, it is not the two named in the complaint. Not that I'm arguing for sanction for anybody here. But weighing the behaviours of TrueQuantum and Attic Salt in the light of the dispute and taking into account their responses here, I don't see a good argument for sanction, let alone something as severe as the proposed T/PBAN. If there's any lingering concern, it is that Attic Salt has not been quite as forward in owning up the edit warring as has TrueQuantum. I also advise the parties to RfC this issue if they can't resolve it any other way (unless the standing consensus is already pretty substantial and recently arrived at, in which case the issue should be left alone for a time), though if I am perfectly blunt, I can't imagine TrueQuantum and Attic Salt can prevail on this editorial question in any discussion that pulls in a substantial number of experienced editors. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Partial blocks. Per all the above, and noting especially the aggressiveness of TrueQuantum in the discussion, I have blocked TrueQuantum and Attic Salt indefinitely from Zina Bash and its related talkpage. I don't mean to close the discussion; other sanctions, such as topic bans or sock puppet investigations, may well still be on the table. Bishonen | tålk 08:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC).

I would like to know why and how Bishonen can just unilaterally apply a sanction on me without further discussion with other editors as it seemed the discussion above was about how sanctions are preventative and not meant to be punitive. I very much desire to make positive contributions to Wikipedia and strongly oppose being censored like this. If an uninvolved administrator or editor can help me apply for an appeal I would very much appreciate it. I don't believe in censorship and hope that this community does not believe in silencing users. Furthermore, I find it highly unusual that Bishonen interprets my behavior as aggressive and threatens even more sanctions that are "on the table" while willfully ignoring the rather bullying behavior of AndyTheGrump and Marquardtika. I really hope for there to be a semblance of objectivity and balance here. Is this how administrators treat conflicts between older and newer editors? TrueQuantum (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

How is it that a seven-week old account with under 300 edits is so confident about procedures at Wikipedia? When two established editors started removing what they said were WP:BLP violations at Zina Bash, did you ask anyone for an explanation? At your talk, some kind advice "to be self-reflective" was dismissed diff with "Demanding that I be self-reflective ... is very chilling to me." That is not the way to succeed at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

TrueQuantum, most sanctions are put in place "unilaterally", by a single admin, at their sole discretion, and that's what I did. A partial block from one article and its talkpage is an extremely narrow sanction, which leaves you free to edit the rest of Wikipedia, so you have hardly been "silenced" by it. Nor am I "threatening" "even more sanctions"; I merely point out that suggestions for other sanctions have been made above, and therefore it's not time to close this section yet. I myself have no opinion on these potential other sanctions. Bishonen | tålk 11:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC).

I believe this egregiously goes against the spirit of WP:BITE, especially the comment "How is it that a seven-week old account with under 300 edits is so confident about procedures at Wikipedia?" Moreover, when Marquardtika accused me of being a "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet" in violation of the policy "Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet" rather than admonishing the editor or recognizing the violation of WP:BITE I was piled on by other administrators including Bishonen who calls it an ongoing investigation. Why is it that established editors can violate Wikipedia policies with impunity while newer editors like myself are treated with hostility and even sanctions? I am currently researching how to perform a proper appeal with a complete understanding of all the policies that I believe were violated. It will take some time for me to do this, but you all will hear from me soon once I am prepared and can launch a strong defense and bring to light what has occurred here to me and Attic Salt, who has sadly decided to leave Wikipedia because of all of this. TrueQuantum (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on Baikal seal

I didn't want to take this to AIV because it a. might not be urgent vandalism and b. this was not past multiple warnings.

Lately, there's been a few users vandalizing on Baikal seal by adding an image of a Baikal seal who has become a meme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baikal_seal&oldid=1035669788 vandalism by User:Wormsbee

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baikal_seal&oldid=1034658584 vandalism by User:CementEater99

I suspect socks or vandalism-only accounts. The meme picture is a picture of this exact kind of seal, but I don't think the image is free use, so I think it violates policy. (I got someone on Commons to speedy tag the images for copyvio) wizzito | say hello! 02:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I’ve applied semi-protection for a week; let’s see if that brings it under control. Ping me if it proves insufficient, and consider reporting issues like this to WP:RFPP in the future. Red Phoenix ^talk 18:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Wallywally23

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user (its name was mentioned on the title of the section) making "talk-in" edits on the page YK Osiris; then proceeds to make personal attacks against me on its talk page.----Rdp060707|talk 09:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

According to User:PrincessPersnickety (on my talk page), this user also has a WP:NOTHERE behavior.----Rdp060707|talk 10:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AmorLucis

• AmorLucis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Juneteenth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:NPOVN#Intersectional Bias in the Juneteenth Article--Multiple Editors Blocking Inclusion of Diverse Voices

User:AmorLucis has been fighting their corner over what may well be OR at Juneteenth (and elsewhere) for over week now. The problem is they are using this kind of language [[607]] [[608]] despite repeated warnings (and one block). It is becoming a time sink, and despite a willingness (they claim [[609]]) to drop it the tone of that is an attack on users and on the project (and I would argue with language like "gaslit" an attempt to morally blackmail us into giving them what they want.

I was not going to report this but the first diff, made after the claim they would drop this, shows I do not think they will stop fighting their corner. In fact, they are an wp:spa that does not seem to be here for any other reason than to promote these views on the topic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I blocked AmorLucis on July 14 after they responded to Slatersteven with this [610], following admonishments from me about treating other editors as opponents [611] [612]. They did modify their behavior somewhat, for which I thanked them, receiving this [613] response. I blocked shortly after, when they went after Slatersteven. Once the block expired, they adjusted their approach somewhat, but the walls of words persist, and they are still characterizing disagreement as "gaslighting." Rejection of other editors' advice has been rationalized as "setting boundaries," ignoring the project's own boundaries. I offer no comment on the content dispute,apart from the observation that it appears to involve an obscure synthesis tangential to Juneteenth. Acroterion (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

AmorLucis is here for one purpose, to correct the injustice of how the literature about Juneteenth does not adequately address women's issues. But Wikipedia exists to summarize the literature. It does not exist to replace the written record with new concepts. So AmorLucis is not going to find satisfaction on Wikipedia unless they decide to drop the stick. They need to adjust to Wikipedia's policies rather than trying to force a new policy. AmorLucis must start listening to and accepting sensible advice from veteran editors. Binksternet (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I've pointed out to this editor in that NPOV that despite their claims that they are being personally attacked (of which they appear to be turning around to make this accusational), none of the editors in the NPOV nor the Juneteenth talk page have made personal attacks against them; its all been arguments against the logic for inclusion of their material, commenting on the contributions. I've replied just now to their last post at NPOV to review NPA and that no one is attacking them as an editor, so their treatment of the dismissal of their reasoning for inclusion as a personal afront isn't helpful to consensus discussion. --Masem (t) 13:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

For information, non-admin comment: There was also some discussion about this in the Teahouse, a couple of paragraphs down here [614]. I had what I felt was quite a useful exchange with AmorLucis on my talk page (a bit of a wall-of-words)[615]. My impression was that AmorLucis is a good person, but trying to right a wrong in the wrong place; I suggested they find a more appropriate forum and accept that WP isn't here to have a moral viewpoint (in fact since we are reliant on secondary sources, we're likely to be last on the scene when moral viewpoints change). I am concerned that some of the language (gaslighting, malewashing) may almost be buzzwords that have become the natural vocabulary of this sort of fight, but which we (unsurprisingly) perceive as aggressive. In fairness to AmorLucis, I don't think they see the language as anything more than telling it how it is. But any male editor is going to feel bruised when accused of malewashing. This is not going to go away; AmorLucis is not going to change their point of view, or how strongly they feel about it, so unless they can be encouraged to find a better outlet, Juneteenth is going to remain a conflict zone. Elemimele (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm a male editor who couldn't care less about the "malewashing" comments because I see it as just a simple statement of fact: the contributions and experiences of women are excluded from countless histories and venues, and calling this "malewashing" seems an appropriate neologism.

Even if I didn't immediately understand what the term referred to, I can't find anything objectionable about it.

I've also been trying to help Amor at my talk page and at their sandbox, and I have to say a few things:

1. There is a large disconnect between what editors here believe Amor is trying to accomplish versus what they actually seem to be trying to accomplish. Their goal is to add material about the experiences of Black women, specifically at Juneteenth. Their long-term goal seems to be to get some representation of the discussions around Black women within intersectional feminism better represented in this project, which is a laudable goal. However, their overuse of social-justice jargon and their sheer (overwhelming, almost) verbosity are obfuscating that, giving the impression of a POV pusher here to "fix" what WP says about those subjects.
2. The complaints here about the difficulty of dealing with them are not without merit. Amor is sensitive and prickly about things, and seems more interested in venting about their past experiences here than in building content worth inclusion. I've tried to keep them focused, but my own patience is not infinite. I waffled between supporting or opposing a block per WP:DISRUPT, but decided it would be better for me to lay out my thoughts more fully.
3. The discussions I've seen at Talk:Juneteenth and at WP:NPOVN and here have been quite bitey, though not to a sanctionable degree. AmorLucis' frustrations are understandable from their perspective. Their reception to editing here was essentially a stone wall, and some of the objections to their edits are downright nonsensical.
4. AmorLucis might grow into a valuable contributor on subjects of interest to intersectional feminism, if they can learn to communicate better, and grasp our sourcing and compositional standards. That's my goal in helping them.
5. Amor will categorically not ever become a valuable editor if I'm the only one willing to help at their sandbox. If a couple of editors could dig up some sourcing (there's some at my talk to get started), and review and summarize it to add to the work at Amor's sandbox, and engage with Amor with some patience to explain what we're doing and why, that would probably be the best outcome of this thread. If that is not the case, and Amor doesn't take notice of what's being said here, then I'm afraid a block might be in order, just to put an end to the back and forth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I did try to help AmorLucis in a general way, but I didn't try to help incorporate intersectionalism into the Juneteenth article because I don't happen to believe it's a correct use of intersectionalism. In fairness to AmorLucis, I got a polite and appropriate response when I said this on my talk-page. MPants is right that communication is key. It is difficult to communicate about intersectionalism; it suffers from all the difficulties of discussing discrimination, and it's new and sometimes ill-defined. If I disagree that intersection is relevant in a particular situation, the intersectionalist will reply "that's because you're still living in a pre-intersectionalism era and don't recognise your own prejudices" and once I've been told that I'm getting it wrong because of an unconscious bias, I have no way to reply - how can I argue that I'm not guilty of not knowing something that by definition I don't know I have/lack? The big question is this: is AmorLucis' editing at Juneteenth actually preventing other editors from maintaining the balance of the article, and is it wasting prodigious amounts of other people's time? We can't expect all editors to be neutral; sometimes neutrality is achieved by different editors with conflicting points of view agreeing on an article that holds the middle ground. If AmorLucis can accept this, I don't see a problem. But I've been staying clear of Juneteenth recently as it's not really my subject. Elemimele (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity to publicly air both sides of this controversial issue. First, I had already explicitly publicly disengaged from all public forums on this discussion before this incident report was filed.

My good faith edit to include the history of Black women in a Juneteenth article was initially labeled as "racist" and "callous," which is not an attack on the content of the edit, but on the motive behind the edit, which is clearly a personal attack. I was also told by an editor that I, personally, was trying to "Right a Great Wrong." Which is clearly a comment on my personal motives and not on my edit. My good faith efforts for other pairs of eyes on the edit was labeled as forum hopping to "get the answer I wanted," which is also a clear attack on my motives. When I set a boundary against that personal attack, I was block for 31 hours for being "disruptive."

More troubling, when I pointed out these personal attacks, the response was DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender). I was told that they were not personal attacks and that I was the abusive person and being "uncivil" for setting boundaries for myself about these personal comments. The editor who blocked me also misrepresented me repeatedly by claiming that I pushed back against being informed about Wikipedia policies (framing me as uncooperative) which is not what I specifically, in writing, set a boundary about with that editor.

The issue of whether or not including the unique history of Black women in Black history adds bias (as the editors here claim) or removes bias (creating neutrality, as I claim) is an evolving debate in our culture's current zeitgeist. Yet, here, my view is being repeatedly characterized as having a "moral" or "political" agenda, which are yet more comments on my motive and not my argument. On the contrary, my goal has always been to make the article neutral, improving Wikipedia's integrity. Other editors characterized that neutrality as "too female-centric" and "too much feminism."

As is, the Juneteenth article explicitly states the legal status of Black men (using the term "Freedmen" three times) as though it were the legal status of all Black people at the time, which it was not. Black women were under the common law status of "coverture," which reputable sources term as "more akin to slavery than to citizenship." (the quote is 28 minutes, 21 seconds into the cited video, which I recommend watching to learn more about "coverture").

I honestly did not realize that Wikipedia would hear the term "malewashing" as aggressive--that surprised me. It's like a white person hearing the word "whitewashing" as aggressive--a word that is regularly used in reputable sources as a colloquialism for when history has an inherent bias of assuming that white history is the history of all people. Once I was told that "malewashing" is heard as "aggressive" in this community, I ceased using the term. AmorLucis (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

can you please provide a link to when your edits were referred to as "racist" and "callous,"?Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Only because I went looking for what might have been personal attacks against AmorLucis, I believe this is based on this linked section on Talk:Juneteenth here [616], which, at least to me, all seem to be assertions related to the contributions and not the contributor. --Masem (t) 14:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Hard to see from that who they might be accusing, so I will be inform all involved.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

And note that both [[617]] and [[618]] are an of odd thing to do as neither user was named in the ANI, nor their edits mentioned. You might need to read wp:canvassingSlatersteven (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources

What is this?Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Case in point...the responses of Slatersteven illustrate the type of DARVO communication that has been repeatedly directed at me. Specifically, they are framing my tagging two editors as "odd" and instructed me to read about "canvassing" when both editors I tagged had previously expressed an interest in this topic and the debate around this edit which falls under "appropriate notification" according to Wiki standards. They also posted "What is this?" after I moved my cited source to be placed within the content of this incident report for clarity, rather than at the end of the entire page.

I am choosing not to engage further with this type of communication, which I believe demonstrates bad faith. Let the chips fall where they may based on what I've already said. I'm letting it go. AmorLucis (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, accusing someone of canvassing because they notified people who were previously involved in the situation is about on par with accusing me of bigotry over making the world's least offensive joke, with respect to basic competence.

By the way, it took me less than 2 minutes to find this comparison of AmorLucis' arguments to arguments made by racists and and this accusation of being "callous". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Only if they invited all users, did they?Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hence why I asked them to read it, to give them a chance to rectify it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Considering that most of the editors involved at NPOVN were already commenting in this thread, I'm still not seeing a problem, or even a reasonable facsimile of one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Has the person whoes comments you linked too (and therefore directly metioned by you, and referred to by them, which means they should have told the user, as they made them party to this ANI)? This is the kind of thing a mentor should be telling them.Slatersteven (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Well then, maybe I should follow your example, and instead of trying to help new editors, I should just bitch and whine because they're not already familiar with our norms. And, apparently, I should make a point to not understand the difference between an editor whom they've pointedly stopped engaging with weeks ago and an editor who's been working with them as recently as yesterday. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

What? please, just stop now. I have asked them to read policy, more than once. This will be my last reply to you here I have no idea what your issue is and frankly do not care. If you want to help this user fine, but do not try to make it seem like they are the victim of my bad faith (this is not about me, if it is ask for a boomerang, but stop with the deflection).Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Stop what? Pointing out that your own behavior has been substantially subpar throughout this? Sorry, that's a feature of ANI. If you don't like it, maybe you should stay away from this page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the war room!" But seriously, I would humbly suggest disengagement as I see nothing productive coming from this. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd really like to a few editors to actually come help Amor compose some material worth inclusion. I understand that they're difficult to work with, but frankly, Slater is even more difficult to work with, and Amor at least hasn't been here so long that there's no hope of them changing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I have now informed the user accused of PA's in this ANI as the accusers seemed unwilling to.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

you might need to read wp:canvassing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

At the top of this page "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.", it is required to inform users (which you should have done, when you quoted them) who are mentioned at ANI they have been mentioned, it's a rule. So stop acting like a 4 year old and grow up.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Funny, I see your signature after the OP post, not mine. In fact, I don't see where I've accused anyone of anything sanctionable, though I've quite clearly hinted that your behavior is seriously lacking.

You asked for diffs, I provided diffs. That's not an accusation. That's not starting a discussion about someone. No matter how much of a tantrum you want to throw over it, providing diffs in response to a request for them is called "being helpful" not "making accusations."

You know what does constitute making accusations? Demanding evidence of something that you're easily capable of finding yourself when you've got good reasons to suspect the person you're demanding it from doesn't even know how to find it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

(I received a notice) I withdrew several weeks ago, my last comment similar to my first comment, 'we need the direct sources', otherwise there are all kinds of problems that can arise, particularly with respect to content policies, but as maybe others later concluded we need the sources, or there was a behavioral dimension. To the extent that AmorLucis is "difficult to work with", it seemed to lie in part in what appears to be in contributing with what they accuse others of -- besides which, it seems asking the impossible, to find a middle path, with the 'sources not needed' position they argued, at the time. At any rate, as perhaps comes as no surprise, I agree with Masem, here and at NPOVN, that my comments of several weeks ago were directed to contributions, not PAs; the only thing I could add to Masem's analysis is my comments were intended to be directed at the contributions, not the person. I remain open to seeing the directly connecting sources that no one has seemed to be able to find (at that time, it was connecting coverture to Juneteenth).

Unconnected to Juneteenth, Angela Davis wrote about the struggle of several black women after the war -- and even the struggle of the man she calls the greatest male, women's rights advocate of the nineteenth century: their focus, she says was on race oppression; the focus of their struggle was not on discussing, celebrating, nor disputing, Juneteenth, nor June 19th (otherwise she would have said that), it was in a life and death struggle against racism, inside and outside the women's movement.[619] Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Googling malewashing gets me:
  • [620] Oatey, 37357 Moda Fire-Rated 2-Valve Copper Male Washing Machine
  • [621] Men wash their hands much less often than women
  • [622] Front view of young male washing clothes
  • [623] Spanish students call for end to male washing machine ban

Which one are we talking about? (That last item certainly bears further investigation: Students at a university residence in Madrid are demanding an end to a long-standing ban on male students using the residence's washing machines. Despite repeated calls for more than three years for a change in the rules, the code of conduct at the Duque de Ahumada de la Guardia Civil residence continues to specify that "use of the washing machines by male residents will result in expulsion, ranging from 15 days to three months, from the residence". Male students at the dorm, which caters for the children and grandchildren of Guardia Civil officers, are instead instructed to quietly pass their clothes to female friends to be washed.") EEng 15:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) The third of those items may also. Narky Blert (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

My wife is the only woman in our home, and she's instituted a similar rule after I accidentally shrank one of her shirts and my 12yo son decided that about a half-gallon of liquid laundry detergent would be the correct amount to wash his karategi last year. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You can't get out of it that easily at my house. The hubs does 99% of the laundry. Only the stuff I both value highly and can't easily/cheaply replace gets me into the laundry room. —valereee (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

My wife took that stance, right up until I shrunk her shirt. I swear, it was an accident. Truthfully, I still do laundry, I just do it when she's not around. Life's easier that way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Potter, Lifemanship theorist, recommended that on your first day as a houseguest, you should offer to help with the washing-up, and break something valuable but not irreplaceable. Your hosts will thereafter decline all your offers of assistance, and you can relax. Narky Blert (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Giano insists on trolling

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

So, four years ago I made an entirely routine WP:ORGNAME block. The user selected a new username and I unblocked them myself. Fast forward to yesterday when Giano, for some reason, felt compelled to troll me over it [624]. I think we can all agree that was trolling, commenting out-of-the-blue on an uncontroversial block from over four years ago and pinging the blocking admin to see the sarcastic comments made. So I reverted it as trolling, Giano has chosen to revert again. Somebody please deal with this as you see fit, I probably won't comment on it again as Giano doesn't merit that much of my time. He doesn't like me and thinks I suck as an admin. That's fine, this isn't a popularity contest and I already am well aware of his opinion and don't need to be trolled over it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Giano obviously can't see the deleted content of their old userpage, which made it abundantly clear that there were multiple people using the account (so "curator" should be plural, not possessive). But apart from that, his comment is spot on. You did a fine job, applying policy correctly and explaining yourself clearly, and you are obviously an asset to the project. – bradv^🍁 04:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This thread is arb-heavy yo! Honestly, I'm a longtime Giano fan, but even I can't make sense of this one. It's such a routine block/unblock, I've done like a million of these myself (I consider myself to be an asshat to the project, btw!). El_C 04:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Not surprised. Don't approve. I don't expect anything to happen. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Giano does something silly but mostly harmless. People overreact. Nothing will happen. Must be Wednesday. --Jayron32 17:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's unfortunate that the response is always "well everyone knows he's a troll, what else is new?" Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's unfortunate that our first response to being trolled is to do anything except nothing at all. So I guess we're all going to be unsatisfied today. --Jayron32 17:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

What should our second, third, fourth, fifth, etc., responses to trolling be? You're not suggesting this is the first time, of course? What do we do when an editor repeatedly trolls another editor? Ignore it? Hmm... I for one would support a one-way IBAN if Beebs wants one. Levivich 17:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt my feelings or anything that he doesn't care for me, the feeling is mutual for sure, my concern is more that he may harass someone who actually does care what he has to say. However, it is clear that the broader community is willing to turn a blind eye to over a decade of outright trolling, so I've used the "mute this user" function so he cannot ping or email me anymore. I don't like to do that, being an admin I prefer to be open to communication about my actions, but Giano doesn't communicate with me, just spews petty insults, so no big loss. Normally we ban trolls but I guess this one gets a free pass simply because he's been here so long. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, if the frequency of these is not insignificant, then maybe. But otherwise, I've experienced plenty of annoying acerbic comments from established users that are also weirdly non sequitur, but myself, I don't usually bring it to ANI. I just point out the absurdity of it to the user in question and move on. I mean, does it really matter if the annoying comment stands, in the talk page of a user whose last edit was in 2017? Who even sees it, except for the pinged admin being provoked. But to each their own, I guess. Giano looks silly (perhaps even a bit mean-spirited) for their out-the-blue: Hey, Beebs, you (still) suck! As does Beebs for their: Hey everyone, I was told I suck, but actually I don't. Meh. --Asshat out! El_C 18:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, obviously, there's a difference between trolling (occasionally) and being a troll outright (unrelentingly). El_C 18:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Giano is a textbook WP:UNBLOCKABLE so of course it won't happen, but like Levivich I would also support a 1-way IBAN. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I think the frequency of these is not insignificant, having filed the last ANI thread about this, and I was right that this would continue, as it has. It will continue until we stop giving him a free pass. Levivich 21:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, this is a weird conversation threading/positioning. Anyway, again, I dunno. Maybe...? But, somehow, I just don't think the RexxS blowout is on-par with this dumbity, which is much more asshat-innocuous. This is the thing with Beeblebrox: they are one of the most influential Wikipedians around, being both an ArbCom member and a WPO powerhouse, so he should expect some extra-scrutiny, even if unfair (obviously, that doesn't feel great to him, but it is what it is). To sum up: I'm still undecided as to what if anything should be done here (i.e. I'm helping!). El_C 21:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I think our policy of asking people to declare COI, but to prohibit doing so in their username is pretty stupid. Similarly, shared organisational accounts are allowed on many other Wikimedia projects (the German Wikipedia has a dedicated process for this) but here we ask people to use an additional private account instead of the shared SUL one. Our policy of blocking people over this before even explaining the issue to the user is also very unfriendly. We managed to make the editor in question leave four years ago, after Beeblebrox correctly applied our policies. (Is this what this thread is about?) —Kusma (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

(It is not.) El_C 18:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I've had experienced users say far worse things to me, and just brushed it off. This is barely "trolling" at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Kusma we do not prohibit people from declaring their COI in their username - you could change your username today to User:Kusma@whereveryouwork if you like, or User:Whereveryouworkkusma, or even User:Whereveryouwork_K. You just can't be User:Whereveryouwork. I would not support a change to the policy that prohibits shared accounts - I don't relish the prospect of trying to communicate/collaborate with someone who turns out to be a bunch of different people. Account creation is free - there is no reason why multiple people at the same organisation can't create multiple accounts to edit from.

I don't agree with Tryptofish that this was barely trolling at all. Worse things happen at sea and all that, but it was a barbed comment on a talk page that had been untouched for years, and it served no purpose at all other than to needle someone for a decision they made (which is a really bad way of convincing them that they might have done it differently). Pointless, uncollaborative and, frankly, textbook trolling. If Giano is the sort of person that I hope he is, he'll recognise that he was wrong, and apologise. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate how this is something where reasonable people can disagree, and I think that your view is indeed entirely reasonable. But I don't think that the purpose was really to change Beeblebrox's mind, and there's a difference, however subtle, between barbed criticism and trolling. I get the feeling that this was not an isolated occurrence, and I would be more inclined to call it trolling – and worthy of intervention – if it were a case of Giano following Beeblebrox around and pestering him at every step. But we are asked here to respond to just one diff. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish, well, two diffs actually - the original comment, and then the reverting Beeblebrox's removal of it. And then there's this response, which I've just noticed, and seems to indicate that he thinks there's nothing wrong with what he did. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit, I, on the other hand, would rather communicate with the press office of SomeCompany than with NamedIntern1, NamedIntern2, NamedIntern3 and NamedIntern4, all of whose COIs I have to establish individually. It seems so much easier to deal with them if they share an account. About half of de:Kategorie:Benutzer:Verifiziert are accounts that we'd block as "implying (potential) shared use" (and many of them have been blocked). Note also that we don't just block accounts because they are in fact shared, we block them (without warning) if it looks as if they might possibly become shared. I find it very difficult to see how Wikipedia is improved by blocking museums like User:Museum für Kommunikation, Bern on this wiki. Such accounts are legal on Commons and dewiki and (I think) actually on most wikis. A museum that donates content to the Commons has to tell the people they hired to do Wikipedia-related work to use the museum account for the Commons and for all languages except English, where they should use individual accounts instead. It's just insane that we have SUL but completely incompatible username and account use policies. —Kusma (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Kusma, we'll have to agree to differ on the one versus many question - I want to know that I'm talking to an individual so that I can keep track of a discussion. I think we're getting off topic though - whatever any of us feel about policy or its application, pointless snark is never helpful. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish's comments above. I would add that the words in the title of this thread appear inflammatory; do you like trout, Beeblebrox? Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-close comment. The closer's statement about "everyone seems to agree" is counter-factual, although that does not in any way change the outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:COI account apparently used by multiple editors

Betinfo (talk · contribs) has had one purpose in twelve years, creating and editing what appears to be an autobiography, Peter Betan. Recent discussions have proved really odd on the matter of multiple users [625]; [626]; [627]; [628]; [629]. At various times the user has claimed to be Mr. Betan, at others says the article is not an autobiography, and is consistently referring to the account as used by "we." Probably this all goes away once the article is deleted, but for numerous reasons, the account is being used in a manner contrary to our guidelines. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Was actually about to create a thread about Betinfo; he's working on bludgeoning the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Peter Betan with wall-o'-text arguments that verge on boilerplate, and has been doing so for the past 48 hours (he's done it to the last four Delete arguments). I'm getting tired of writing out what amounts to the same counterargument and just adding more words to it each time and there's not much indication he'll stop; can we get him partial-blocked from the AfD until it runs its course? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 13:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Judging from their talk page history they also can't keep from uploading the same copyrighted image repeatedly.Citing (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why the user hasn't at least been topic blocked [630]. Until then, the bludgeoning continues, in a spiral that grows more frustrated. There's a reason we have WP:COI guidelines, and this is exhibit A. 2601:188:180:B8E0:BD4A:4B03:FD4C:CE7 (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I was close to a stronger sanction when I warned them for NPA, Jéské Couriano, but then I realized I'd voted in the AfD. That discussion would benefit from some winter precipitation, which would have a side effect of ending the disruption. Star Mississippi 01:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Per WP:NOTHERE, personal attacks, seemingly shared account, badgering, self-promotion, repeated copyright concerns. Take your pick. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

User: Johnpacklambert emptying categories prematurely; edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Johnpacklambert has nominated dozens of categories for deletion and merge. Before the nominations are closed, has started emptying some of them without any notice. When challenged, he refused to honour WP:BRD.

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 18#1431 establishments in Ukraine: he removed Derazhnia[631] and Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine[632] from the category, reverted my revert,[633], and then at talk:Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine#Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine, simply refused to respect the normal (academic, political, and Wikipedia) practice of treating earliest mention as the date of foundation.
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 18#Establishments in Ukraine when most of Ukraine was under the Russian Empire (33 categories): removed articles
  • Lviv National Agrarian University[634]
  • Trinity Monastery of St. Jonas[635]
  • Odessa University[636]
  • Grekov Odessa Art School[637]
  • Odessa Military Academy[638]
  • Beskydy Tunnel[639]
  • Perechyn Timber-and-Chemical combine[640]
  • Port of Skadovsk[641]
  • Odessa Art Museum[642]

There is no reason to remove these articles from the nominated categories during the merge discussion. If the proposal is accepted, then they would be removed as a matter of course. But if it is rejected, then these categories have been wrongfully removed. In my opinion he is doing so to stack the merge proposal by making it look like these categories are empty and unneeded. Perhaps he is also so sure that his rationale about the definition of “establishment” is the only possible correct view that he doesn’t need to wait for consensus to proceed.

In several of his nominations I have provided alternative valid rationales for inclusion of places in “establishment by country” categories, and on his talk page (User talk:Johnpacklambert#Historical categories by period) suggested that a central discussion is needed to establish a guideline for these scores or hundreds of changes, but he has refused to accept my arguments, and refused to start a broader discussion on the category framework.

As remedy, I suggest he revert all of his category changes under all of his nominations, including ones I may not have found, and make a note of this in each relevant discussion. The category discussions should remain open for a reasonable period afterwards. Perhaps discussion participants should be notified. —Michael Z. 23:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The relevant categories fall under discretionary sanctions per WP:AC/DS (Eastern Europe), and the user has been alerted.[643] —Michael Z. 23:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I was reading the discussion as it developed. From what I could tell Mzajsc and few othwr people repeatedly copy and pasted the same (or extremely similar) bad faithed acusations that the whole thing was (is) due to imperalism/colonialism, instead of engaging the counter points other people (not just JPL) were making. So I highly doubt any resonable admin would close the duscussions in Mzajac's direction.

Also, at one point JPL said someone (not him) had emptied out one of the catogries. So there should really be more of an investigation into who actually did what before the finger pointing/reverting takes place. Especially if he was just "following the crowd." Not that I think something being removed from a category matters that much during a discussion though. Who ever did it. Just like AfDs don't suddenly become invalid or are people normally chastized (let alone reported to ANI) if someone edits an article during one. Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1: without comment on the detail of this case, I'd note that this seems more akin to someone blanking an article undergoing AfD, that would probably be viewed as rather more problematic. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the case, going by what Liz said it sounds like there is precedent to remove links from categories that are going through a CfD. There's zero precedent to blank pages that are going through AfD. That doesn't mean I personally agree that the links should be removed, but I don't think it's worth sanctioning JPL over since it's already going on either. There should really be a broader discussion about it at WT:CFD instead. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to ask JPL to undo his revert-revert? Or am I just wasting everyone’s time at ANI when I could just push him to 3RR? Asking sincerely, since I tried to follow the advice at WP:WAR by coming here. —Michael Z. 02:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1: That is false. Please back up your accusation with evidence, if you expect anyone to take it as in good faith. —Michael Z. 16:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's a massive hassle to provide diffs when phone editing. Especially when they would be in the double digits. That said, the first thing I saw when I opened the link at the top of this complaint was Place Clichy saying "Oppose per Mzajac. In the age of imperialism, which is also the golden age of nationalism...Etc..Etc.." Which they copied and pasted like 9 times, without ever responding to anything JPL was saying. You also opposed the whole thing because "It is eliminating national and social history in favour of colonialism." Plus "it represents an extremely dated colonial WP:POV and WP:BIAS against the national histories of nations." So claims of imperialism, nationalism, and colonialism were being tossed around a lot and at the expensive of actually engaging in the discussion. Especially with Place Clichy. That was just from a quick glance to. I'm sure there's more, but that's all I feel like contributing. BTW, I wasn't saying that it's a problem that or Place Clichy brought those things up, just that doing so was/is extremely unlikely to result in the categories being kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not make bad-faith accusations. So someone else copy-pasted their own comment? I did not do that either (although it doesn’t seem unreasonable when several independent CFDs come off a production line making the same argument). Yes, there are historical (historiographical) views that are represented in current reliable sources, and others that come from the nineteenth century and Wikipedia should absolutely not uphold. —Michael Z. 02:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I copied and pasted your comments. They are bad faithed IMO because a CfD isn't the place to litigate wider historical (historiographical) views. Just like an AfD related to an ethnic minority isn't the place to discuss race relations in America. It's never productive. Also, since JPL was the one that initiated them, by claiming they have anything to do with imperalism/colonialism your associating him with those things. Even if you didn't directly say he was being imperialist. I'm not saying you know that or were intentionally trying to to derail the CfD discussion, just that it wasn't fair to JPL or other people to make the discussion about that. Especially at the cost of discussing the CfDs more directly. That's just my opinion though. It's more feedback on how to be more effective next time then anything else. Which your free to take or leave. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It’s my point that CFD is the wrong place. But JPL brought it to CFD when he decided to restructure dozens of categories to conform to his view, a change from the existing consensus that had interpreted categories “by country” broadly and variously. JPL declined to start the necessary conversation beforehand, and refused to consider it when I and others pointed out its necessity. He further committed to it by editing affected articles before his CFDs were concluded, and in fact after it was becoming clear that his view is not the consensus (you can read him complaining about opposition on his talk page). The result is likely to be a large random selection of categories changed out of thousands, and the issue no closer to a consensus or even a discussion. —Michael Z. 13:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Your really not making any sense. If CfD was the wrong place to discuss colonialism/imperialism then why did you discuss them there? Also, your saying he should have started the necessary conversations when he literally took the categories to "Categories for Discussion." That's what it's there for. To discuss categories. Finally, how did JPL edit the categories after it was clear that "his view" was not consensus when the CfDs aren't concluded yet and even your saying there is no consensus? I just don't get it. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken if you thought I was saying it was okay to empty categories in the middle of a deletion discussion. I was just saying that I'm seeing it happen repeatedly and from CFD regulars. But I complain about it at WP:CFD all of the time. It is irritating because editors spend their time considering the merits of the deletion proposal and emptying out the categories prematurely is a waste of their time. It bypasses the consensus building process. It's one thing if a category has only one page in it or if the category doesn't fit into the existing category structure & is a mistaken creation but to do it on a regular and widespread basis is disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if I miss-read or miss-represented your opinion. To me something is OK to do, as far as not being worth sanctioning any person over, if it's being done by a bunch of people already. Especially if there's no guideline against it. I don't think that means it "should" ultimately be done though and looking over your comment a second time (not on a cell phone) I can see that you weren't saying it was OK to do either. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have no comments about the Johnpacklambert's edits but as someone who regularly deals with empty categories, it's becoming more common for categories to be emptied prior to a CFD decision. I'm not pointing fingers, just pointing at a trend for categories to be emptied prior to a decision of whether to delete, merge or rename categories. It can sometimes be a challenge to determine who is emptying them. It might be a good discussion to happen at WT:CFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• None of these entries fit in the category in question. Odessa was part of the area of the Ottoman Empire that as a unit was much further south. It was no more part of any logical Ukraine than anything in Bessarabia. In the case of the places in Austria-Hungary they cannot be placed in a category under the Russian Empire. In the first two cases there is not enough evidence to place them in a specific year. If something clearly does not belong in a category, it can be removed, even if it is the only entry. I even explained in depth about the first two having no evidence that was the year of their founding. There is no coherent way to say any of these things happened in Ukraine in those specific years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• The first example, the university in Lviv, was founded in what was then Lemberg. Which was in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Ukraine category for that year is a sub category of the Russian Empire category, so we cannot place in it things that clearly happened outside the Russian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually that was in 1852, so it was in the Austrian Empire. There is no reason to allow categorization to be preserved in a case where it is so clearly wrong. Only a few years before the Polish nationalists in that area had insisted the very idea that there were Ukrainians was a ploy by the Austrian government to kill the asperations of Polish nationalists. National identities are very contested in the 19th century, but in Europe international boundaries at any given time are clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

    Johnpacklambert, please respect WP:BRD and discuss the specific category changes at the relevant articles’ talk pages, or better yet, wait for your CFD results before making changes. I filed this ANI because you refused to do that, there, and not to re-litigate the subject-specific questions here. —Michael Z. 16:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing in WP:BRD that dictates discussions have to occur on the articles talk pages when there's a dispute, otherwise there couldn't be RfCs or ANI complaints, and JPL was discussing the changes on the relevant CfD talk pages. Which is more then adequate. Or it would have needlessly created duplicate discussions with the same exact people and points being made. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Johnpacklambert should stop emptying categories he nominated (or plans to nominate) for deletion, as that influences and pre-empts the discussion badly. In many cases, his nominations for "obviously wrong" categories failed to get consensus, as there is serious disagreement about the best way to categorize such establishment by country / region / whatever entries (for JPL and some others, only one view is possible, the "historical" one, and the "current" point of view, that something in "current" country X was established in year Y, is unacceptable and should be eradicated by all means possible: the idea that a lot of readers might be more interested in what was established in what was established Ukraine throughout the ages, year by year, even at times when the country didn't exist, seems to be totally alien or unacceptable to them, as it is "wrong" from their point of view and no other point of view is acceptable). If they are not willing to stop this, I guess another editing restriction is in order. Fram (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact details and I don't feel like bludgeoning, but there was an AfD recently for what was essentially a personal essay written by someone who thought Afghanistan (which was formed in like 1949) should somehow be credited for something done 2,000 years ago by Sumerians, just because it took place in what is now modern day Afghanistan. Not surprisingly the article wasn't kept. If allowed, such articles are a huge slippery slope that can lead to a lot of nationalist type edit warring, arguing, and nonsensical duplication of historical subjects.

Whatever our personals beliefs about the issue are, it wouldn't be a maintainable, fair way of doing things. Especially when people start wanting to go the other way with it, where Sumerians are supposedly responsible for things currently taking place in Afghanistan because time/ownership are just imperialist/colonialist Western scientific notions and other views are possible, or whatever. At that point the big bang/god/Neanderthals should be mentioned in every article. There's zero precedence for it either. Let alone is it worth restricting JBL's editing abilities due to him keeping the slope from being slid down. Adamant1 (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

...which is hardly comparable to the current issue, i.e. that e.g. the Odessa University, a currently existing, major university in a major city in Ukraine, is removed from the "what things in Ukraine were established in what year" category tree[644] because it wasn't Ukraine in that year, and may only be included in the Category:1865 establishments in the Russian Empire. Now, Johnpacklambert may argue that at CfD (though he could do with turning down the hyperbole about how terrible and stuoid it is to have the "current country" cats as well), but emptying the category at the same time is not allowed. That's the behaviour problem for which a restriction may be needed, the other issue is the way he treats the content issue as if his PoV is the only possibly correct one and the opposite position, which would allow for both categories (one historical, one from the current situation) is an abomination. A tree of what is or would be currently located in country (or US state or whatever), by year of (dis)establishment, is of interest to readers, and informs clearly and succinctly about things that shaped the current country, even if the country didn't exist at all at the time of establishment. The dogmatism that only one tree is valid and the other needs to be erased is highly tiring. Fram (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I fail to see how it's JPLs PoV when he wasn't the only one in the CfDs with that view point. From what I can tell it also lines up with how historical subjects are handled in Wikipedia more broadly. Maybe the Ukraine/Russian Empire thing is (or should be) an exception. I really don't know. Anyway, with your tree thing sure it would be of interest to readers, but what readers find interesting shouldn't come at the cost of accuracy. You can't really have a "current situation" category for things that are in the past. Category:Trees of the United States (dis)establishment during the Silurian period or whatever just wouldn't make sense because the United States wasn't around during the Silurian period. Just like Spain/Mexico City/Tenochtitlan aren't all the same thing and things related to them shouldn't all be in the same category just because the area that comprises modern day Mexico City switched between them (and likely other groups) multiple times. So what if readers would find it interesting or that there were trees during the Silurian period on the landmass that now makes up the United States? Also, emptying the categories is allowed. Otherwise, can you point to a guideline/RfC/anything that's not an essay that says it isn't? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think it makes much sense to continue this discussion if you try to continue it with ridiculous examples, but without actually adressing the issues (simply "claiming" that it isn't accurate that e.g. the Odessa University is in Ukraine, and was established in 1855 or whetever year it is), and if you claim that something can't be someone's PoV if that position is shared by others as well (???). But to address your final point: the introduction of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion says "Except in uncontroversial cases such as reverting vandalism, do not amend or depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD as this hampers other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion.". Which is exactly what they are doing, and what is being discussed here. Fram (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

How is it a ridiculous example when fossilized trees from the Silurian period exist on the landmass that the United States currently occupies? It's literally the exact same thing as the University. Just because one is a tree and the other is a building/organization doesn't make the standard we should apply to them any different, or one ridiculous and the other not. I think Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine is a perfectly example of that. There was no Ukraine in 1431. When you do a Google search for "1431 Ukraine" all that comes up is the Wikipedia category. So 100% that's exactly the same as the tree example. If one is ridiculous, then both are and so is the category.

With the CfDs being depopulated, the guideline says not to do it if doing so will be controversial. if it was clear that the CfDs were likely going to be closed as "not keep" (which seemed to be the case) then IMO it wasn't controversial to depopulate them. Unless I missed it I didn't see Mzajac ask JPL not to depopulate the categories in the CfDs themselves either. The fact that JPL, not Mzajac, brought up someone else doing it makes me think that Mzajac wasn't really that concerned about it at the time either. I'd hardly call one person taking issue with something in an ANI complaint after the fact a controversy. It's pretty clear that JPL is being singled out over it also. Since no one else that has done it is a part of this complaint. Plus, Mzajac went out of their way to specifically call out JPL and say he was doing it "to head off consensus." None of which should be encouraged. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Where did you get the "which seemed to be the case"? There have been plenty such discussions, and they nearly always are controversial. The issue of depopulating cats under discussion was already brought to their attention in 2011 (User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 2#Note), 2012 (User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 3#CfD a,d January 2021 (User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 7#Establishment in Taiwan categories) (the latter one makes it abundantly clear that they are aware that these nominations are controversial). And from his current talk page, we have User talk:Johnpacklambert#Russian Empire-categories. As for "ridiculous example", we are talking about the "established in" categories, and you discuss fossilized trees. If you consider that "literally the exact same thing", then our positions on what is reality are too far apart to have a meaningful discussion. Fram (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I was talking about in the CfD. I don't think a discussion from 10 years ago on his talk page is that great of an example. With the one in 2021, it looks like what was said is that the categories shouldn't be emptied because it looks "like a sneaky attempt to circumvent the CfD process." In no way does that translate to "hey, maybe you shouldn't be emptying categories because it's controversial." Even if it did, one person saying something on a users talk page doesn't mean what they are saying has wider community support. Plus, you can't say the CfD rules are being broken if the categories were emptied before the CfD. Look at it this way, there's a tree on the landmass that the United States currently occupies. The tree (de)established before the United States was formed. Then there's a university in the Ukraine, that was started before the Ukraine was formed. How are those fundamentally different? If you think they are, cool. IMO figuring this out is fundamental both to if JPL did something or not and how to move forward the CfDs. Just saying they are different and that we can't have a meaningful discussion because of it doesn't help though. Pick a better example. I don't really care. What about Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine when there's literally nothing that connects Ukraine to that date? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to accent my point, it appears that JPL removed articles from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine before the CfD was started. So saying the category should not have been depopulated because of the CfD guidelines is wrong. Since there was no CfD at that point. Also, one of the articles he removed, Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine (which was the only example I could find), clearly states that they don't know when the city was founded. So, it clearly shouldn't have been in the category anyway. I have nothing more to add. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Avoiding the "don't depopulate during the CfD" by depopulating right before the CfD is hardly any better, but is a nice example of wikilawyering. And examples of his emptying of cats during the CfDs have been given, e.g. on Odessa University he removed the cat on 23 June[645], 5 days after he has nominated it[646], and at a time when there were already three oppositions to the nomination (so the "didn't know it would be controversial" defense is again shown to be clearly invalid). Also this one, this one, this one... Fram (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith that he didn't know he was going to do the CfD at that point. It happens sometimes. I know I've done AfDs for articles that I edited beforehand because it turned out the sources weren't as solid as I originally thought they were. Specifically with Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine there doesn't have to be anything in the category for people to know that there wasn't such thing as the Ukraine in 1431. So nothing could have been established in the Ukraine at time. It doesn't matter to the CfD what's in the category or not, because it's literally a hoax. None of the keep "voters" ever addressed that fact either. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

He didn't know he was going to do the CfD ... 5 days after he started the CfD[647][648]??? Uh, bye, thanks for confirming my first impression that discussing this with you was a total waste of time. Fram (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD. Since that's what we were talking about. Either way, with your first example he said why he removed it in the changeset comment and it seems like a reasonable explanation. Same with the other one. There isn't a known establishment date for the city. Nothing says clear categorization errors can't be fixed while a CfD is going on. None of the edits that I've seen show a clear intent on his part to try and stake the CfD (or whatever claim Mzajac is making) either. Outside of that, I'm not going to litigate every single edit or discussion he's been involved in over the last 10 years just so I can read (IMO) non-existent bad intent into his actions. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD." Such an edit doesn't seem to exist, not in the one article you provided, and not in the other one I provided; both of these were already given in the opening post of this thread, so nothing new there. So it appears that not only did you not provide a single new element, you furthermore made, again and again and again, incorrect claims about these old elements. I hope you were simply mistaken and not trolling, but coupled with the "fossilized trees" attempt above it sure looks that way. Fram (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know we were required to add anything new to ANI complaints aside from our opinions about if action should be taken on them or not. Which I've clearly gone above and beyond. Also, I don't know what "incorrect claims about these old elements" that I've supposedly repeatedly made is in reference to. Outside of that I'm not engaging in this discussion anymore. Since I've said all I need to and it's pretty obvious that your just trying to provoke me. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment So the view of some is I shopuld leave in a category articles that either A-were clearly created outside of Ukraine in that year if Ukraine is as our own category structure says it was a sub-units of the Russian Empire, ignoring that the Russian Empire recognized no sub-unit. B- articles that expressly state that the year the subject was established is unknown, so how exactly do we then categorize it in a specific year. There should be no precendent to leave such very clearly wrong categorizations in place just because they happen to be the only one in a specific category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Liz and Fram have provided sufficiently clear reasoning for why editors should not depopulate categories that they have nominated or plan to nominate for deletion. You don't seem to be engaging with those reasons. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Fram. Such edits with such justification (edit summary) are questionable. As reflected on our page Ukraine, this is not just the modern day country. My very best wishes (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

What about things that took place in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth? Just put them in multiple categories or one for "Ukraine" stuff and call it good there? Also, how is it fair to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth or not robbing them of their history to credit stuff they did to the Ukraine just because both were in the same area at different times? Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

ANI is not the proper forum for debating the merits of the disputed categories. If a category is problematic, get it fixed or deleted at CfD. If the CfD results in a delete outcome, then the category can easily be removed from all pages at that point. But if consensus does not support such removals, they should not be carried out. In short, JPL needs to get consensus before he blanks the categories. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that in general. The problem is that this ANI complaint is about specific edits. One of which was him removing an article from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine because it doesn't have a known establishment date. I don't see how it can be determined if that was the right action to take or not if we can't discuss categories. Nor is it a given that there needs to be consensus before removing an article for something that doesn't have an establishment date from a category that's about places with establishment dates. There is zero consensus that someone can put whatever they want in establishment date categories and then there has to be a protracted, consensus building discussion to find out if the edit is OK before the articles can be removed. No one is out there asking permission on talk pages to remove irrelevant, off topic entries from categories. Even if it empties the category. A few people complaining about something on a user page doesn't represent the broader consensus of the community either. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the angle from which one endeavors to view the situation, the bare fact remains that JPL has been emptying categories shortly before and after he has nominated them for deletion. Moreover, he appears to have disengaged from this thread without acknowledging the substance of the concerns raised by Liz, Fram, and co. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that at the bare minimum JPL should acknowledge that a few people are concerned with him emptying categories. It's not like he's completely ignored that a couple of people think it's a problem though and in the meantime I'd still like to see the broader issue that led to this dealt with. It's not really helpful to the health of the platform (or editors) if everything ends in someone being blocked from editing because a few people took with their edits in an ANI complaint, without more being done to address the root cause of it. Totally, JPL should acknowledge that's it an issue though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (as participant) It's definitely best practice to leave the articles as is in categories so that other editors can evaluate them themselves in CFD. (I may have occasionally done this myself though when I thought I could save a cat before realizing that was hopeless and then nominating it for deletion.) There have also been a lot of other challenges with these CFD discussions with cutting and pasting, questioning motives, and especially WP:RGW. I don't think these nominations, including my edits, have brought us closer to a consensus about the categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Conversely, there seems to be mass-populating of categories going on with regards to expatriates. Raised on Lambert's talkpage, to be met with a wall of rambling text. When another query is raised, it's met with this reply. Hopefully every single one of those categories added is supported in the article and they aren't BLP violations. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"A wall of rambling text" that the person he was writing it in response to enthusiastically thanked him for. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It was that long I gave up before getting that far! I read that reply has humouring Lambert. I may, of course, be wrong. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• This was raised by Lugnuts just above; is replying "THis is just plain stupidity on your part."[649] really acceptable? It again is a case of Johnpacklambert seeing his interpretation of a term as the only possible one, and rather vehemently denying that other interpretations are possible: but this time it doesn't attack the results, but the person asking a civil, logical question. If this is the stress caused to Johnpacklambert when his categorization edits are challenged, then it may be better to get him removed from discussing categorization. Fram (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Kind of like you telling someone "I hope you were simply mistaken and not trolling" because you don't like their civil, logical questions? "If this is the stress caused to Fram when he's asked questions in ANI, then it may be better to get him removed from ANI discussions." --Adamant1 (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can look for my comment in this discussion and judge whether it was a reply to a "civil logical question" or instead to yet another blatantly incorrect statement of fact. But feel free to raise my comment in a separate section or subsection if you think it was problematic: what I said to you doesn't really impact what a third person said to a fourth one. Fram (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

How was me posing a hypothetical question about trees that are located in America a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact"? Hypothetical questions don't have correct answers and they aren't facts either. Anyway, what I think is problematic (or really just kind of odd) is that your saying he should be blocked for calling something stupid, an extremely minor thing. When your ignoring him not acknowledging his edits are a problem. Which is something that has consensus is an issue and can actually lead to sanctions. If you want him to be blocked, why not bandwagon around something that actually has a chance of leading to it? "It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory." --Adamant1 (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The "blatantly incorrect statement of fact", as I pointed out in that part of the discussion, was you claiming " it appears that JPL removed articles from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine before the CfD was started.", and in a next post "I'm assuming good faith that he didn't know he was going to do the CfD at that point", and in a third post "Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD.", even when it was pointed out again and again that all edits removing articles from categories were made after the CfD had started. I hope this is finally clear now? Fram (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It's been clear this whole time. At least it has been for me. Apparently it's not clear on your side though. Since as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. Accidentally Miss-reading something isn't a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact." Your the one lacking clarity here because for whatever reason you keep reading non-existent bad intent into the mistake when there was none. Are we finally clear about it now or are you going to keep acting like I miss-read the edit histories on purpose? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Where have you said that already? I can't find it in the above discussion. Fram (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

So he removed Beskydy Tunnel from Category:1886 establishments in Ukraine at 13:28, on 18 June 2021. He also removed Lviv National Agrarian University from Category:1852 establishments in Ukraine at 13:24 on 18 June 2021. The CfD for both wasn't started until 14:00, 18 June 2021. Which was half an hour after he removed the articles from the categories. Those are the edits I was originally talking about. Are we clear now? Next time you repeatedly accuse someone of making "blatantly incorrect statements again and again", maybe at least check first to make sure they are actually incorrect. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

So "you were originally talking about" these examples you never gave then, and not about the examples you gave at that time? Furthermore, your claim in your previous post (that you misread the dates and had already said this) is apparently something you made up and now try to ignore? Finally, the Lviv National Agrarian University edit was made at 13.24[650], but the CfD nomination was started at 13.23[651]. In the next 40 minutes or so, he was adding cats to the nomination, and removing articles from the cats at the same time (e.g. the Beskydy edit at 13.28, and the cat nom at 13.29[652]). So, as has been said all this time, he wasn't first removing articles from categories and only then realising that deleting the cats altogether would be better: he was removing some articles from the categories during and after the nominations. As was clear from the very start of this discussion, and is clear from his edit list (here, edits starting at 13.06 on 18 June and ending at 14.01 the same day). Fram (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are you continuing to accuse me of trolling and trying to hide the discussion? Weird thing to do if your right and I'm just trolling. Also, it's Interesting that this whole conversation suddenly became off topic and of zero benefit when it turned out you were wrong, not back when you repeatedly trying to instigate and perpetuate things lol. Anyway, I did miss-read the date of one of his edits, which was the example I originally provided you. That doesn't mean it was the only example I had or was going to give you though. I just decided not to provide the other ones because you started accusing me of trolling and I didn't want to feed into your bad faithed baiting. So there was really zero point. Plus, it's not like you couldn't have looked at his edits yourself anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This seems to have been a bit de-railed somewhat. Notwithstanding, there are still some legitimate concerns still to be addressed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• And, in the meantime, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 18#1431 establishments in Ukraine has been closed: “The result of the discussion was: delete as currently empty”. It appears as if the nominator emptying the category led directly to its closing, possibly irregardless of consensus or its absence in the discussion. —Michael Z. 20:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Indeed, a Cfd discussion can hardly take place if the category has been emptied, so this practice subverts the process in the most serious way. It is easy to get away with, and rarely penalized, and that needs to change. God knows what the TLDR above is about, but whoever has been doing this should be sanctioned. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have misgivings about whether this thread should be closed by a non-admin. Furthermore, I object to the claim that the 1431 CfD is a 'red herring'. If I understand correctly, it was JPL who emptied out the category, and the subsequent deletion was based on the emptiness of the category, so it seems that JPL's actions are absolutely the reason why that category was deleted. I urge @力: to reevaluate their close, especially in light of recent comments which suggest the discussion was not over. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you objecting because you think my close is wrong, or because I am not an admin? And I stand by (and will continue to stand by) my statement regarding the 1431 category; it is simply an observation of discussion on other pages. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Both. I think this thread was murky enough that it required admin attention. Also, your statement on the 1431 category is incorrect. JPL emptied the category; the category was deleted because it was empty. So yes, that category was deleted because of JPL's actions and it is not at all a 'red herring'. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• While administrators go through a vetting process at WP:RFA, a non-admin can have just as much if not more experience in handling closes such as this. User:力 has been active on the project for 5 years, with 40k+ edits. I haven't done a thorough review, but I think WP:NACEXP has been met based on my cursory review. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  Regardless of the closer's level of experience, the closing statement is still flawed. That's the bigger issue. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Mareklug passed away

Mareklug died on January 21, 2020. His account was already blocked indefinitely on plwiki. Tempest (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Trimmed per OSPOL Primefac (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tempest: Sorry to hear that. The instructions you need are at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines. Narky Blert (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

El Greekos

Users warnings are enough to warrant a block. Last edit "Stop vandalizing the page just because of your ethnic biased and use a real account."[653] 85.108.134.234 (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 11:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)