Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CommanderInDubio (talk | contribs) at 18:25, 21 May 2021 (→Revocation of CommanderWaterford's permissions: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

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

    Start a new discussion

    Indefinite block for User:Sportsfanrob

    This person is clearly not here to contribute, given their behavior. Their edits have largely been disruptive in nature, and this person recently made even more disruptive edits, after he was blocked for 3 months and entered into a period of inactivity on his main account. During this period of "inactivity", he engaged in multiple instances of block evasion, via IPs, which can be seen on his SPI page, and some of which CUs are aware of (including instances that aren't in his SPI archive). As such, I am requesting an indefinite block on their account. This person is a sheer net-negative, and net-negatives do not belong on this site. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Widr, Favonian, ToBeFree, and Spencer: Can someone please take a look at this report? This person just continues to cause more and more problems. Their history of block evasion and IP socking is also a real concern. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    LightandDark2000, I'm afraid you need to give more detail and evidence for an indef block. Please link to previous discussions, diffs of disruption, etc. Fences&Windows 11:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a look at the numerous complaints/warnings on his talk page. He is *STILL* engaging in the exact same types of disruption. Also have a look at is SPI archives. This person has also evaded his blocks using IPs at least twice (one case isn't listed in the SPI). Oh, and he's editing on 86.0.200.183, his IP, in order to evade scrutiny. This is clear socking. This person is a clear net-negative. And I think that we should show him the door out. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man, Destroyeraa, Mattythewhite, TSP, and Lee Vilenski: You've dealt with this guy before and you're more familiar with his behavior than I am. What do you think? This guy hasn't changed at all, and given the messes that he's made again and again (along with the socking), I think he should be indeffed. And also blocked on his IPs for a while (since he WILL sock on his IPs if he is blocked). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't think of much useful to add here beyond what's self-evident from the user's talkpage. WP:CIR and this user lacks it, sometimes deliberately and repeatedly making erroneous edits in spite of plenty of warnings. Sometimes enough is enough. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd support an block for this user. There are CIR issues which can be shown by the many flounces they have done after receiving warnings, as well as the very clear sockpuppetry by using IPs to edit when under scrutiny. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've only had the encounters you can see on his talk page; but the pattern is fairly clear. He makes inexplicable, unsourced and unjustified edits; when questioned, he says he is leaving Wikipedia ("Goodbye Everyone who tells me to stop Good Riddance I will log out", or similar). He returns a few days later (with his account or as an IP), and repeats. He has posted comments containing the words "good riddance" to his own talk page at least fourteen times.
    He does edit a lot, and not all the edits are malicious (though most that aren't still seem to be unsourced); but there's a consistent pattern that he has no willingness to even attempt consensus, and reacts to any criticism of his edits by saying he is leaving Wikipedia - then returns a few days later to continue the same behaviour. As this cycle makes it fairly clear he has no plan or willingness to address his behaviour, I can't see any way forward other than a block. (I do expect that he will evade it.) TSP (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TSP: ... when questioned, he says he is leaving Wikipedia... Well, even though he did that on his own talk page (see diffs below) this may eventually amount to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS (4) if he persists in relevant article's discussions. I encourage you to provide diffs showing disruptive content editing.
    AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the user's talkpage contains sufficient evidence, it doesn't need to be ported over here. If that's not enough, then just allow the disruption to continue. This isn't a bureaucracy, if you can't see the problem clearly enough then, well, meh. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree that providing more evidence of the behaviour would be a waste of time in this case. Either we agree that the general record of disruptive editing, followed by flouncing aren't needed on wikipedia, and give a WP:CIR / WP:NOTHERE block, or we say it's not enough and move on. I would be on the side of a block, but feel I'm a little too involved due to the history to pass this without prejudice. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski: Well I would agree that intentionally logging out to continue disruptive editing would violate the WP:SOCK but this doesn't seem to be the case. Related investigation also didn't find relationship between the two: ip 86.0.200.183 and Sportsfanrob. Admins should not blindly ban a person for making silly replies. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the very clear use [1] and [2] when specifically told not too? They have been told multiple times, see User:sportsfanrob#Editing while logged out, User:Sportsfanrob#July 2020 et al. Also see Special:Contributions/82.20.190.222 for where they edit their own responses after being told about not doing specific things, and edit the same way. I think even if for some reason you aren't inclined due to the sockpuppetry concerns, there is a very clear WP:CIR issue, especially that they are unable/unwilling to communicate without flouncing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski: In fairness these edits are from the August 2020. Only 2 out of total 8 he made for the whole year in that article. He was banned in October later. Is this even relevant now?
    The latest 82.20.190.222 contributions are from September 2020.
    AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KrishnaVastav

    Blocked by Bishonen. Daniel (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    KrishnaVastav (talk · contribs · count) – Continuous disruptive editing on a mass scale (over 90 articles and counting). Keeps sticking "Delhi NCR" everywhere or other location-focused nonsense. Warnings left unheeded, including level-4 warnings. Does not engage in discussion. Temporary block requested. — kashmīrī TALK 12:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    He/she always leaves the edit summary "added content" irrespective of what he/she did. For example, 07:40, 14 May 2021 to Delhi Metro where he/she deleted wikilinks and added a mistake to the punctuation. As far as I can see, the only point to his/her edits is an attempt to build up an edit history in the hopes of becoming as extended confirmed user.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree their contributions are highly problematic, but they haven't edited since the latest warnings, so I guess we'll wait and see. I'll try to keep an eye out. Feel free to alert me on my page if I miss any more disruption. Bishonen | tålk 16:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    Blocked for one month. Bishonen | tålk 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Cheryl Fullerton

    TBAN ENACTED
    Open 5 days, not seeing much (if any) opposition to this - so passed as "Cheryl Fullerton is hereby topic banned from Craig Chaquico, broadly construed." I'll let her know. — Ched (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Cheryl Fullerton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Cheryl has mainly been focused on editing Craig Chaquico and Jefferson Starship, and caused various disputes, which I summarised in this thread. Since then, we've tried to resolve things, including a COI noticeboard thread. To cut a long story short, we can't prove Cheryl has a COI with Craig Chaquico, but there seems to be continual disruption, ignoring other people's advice, and just trying to insert a POV into these articles that I can't see anyone else wants.

    I have said before that Cheryl is civil and polite and has tried to learn policies and guidelines, but she has taken up so much administrator time now, than I think our collective patience has run out and we need to do something else. So I am proposing that Cheryl Fullerton is topic banned from Craig Chaquico, broadly construed. Discuss. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as I stated at the COIN discussion, I just am not seeing CF as being able to edit neutrally surrounding Craig Chaquico, and based on her interactions with other editors at various talks and noticeboards, I think Ritchie is quite right. Enough is enough. This has been a time sink for too many editors at too many articles surrounding Chaquico for four years now. —valereee (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. This has gone on way too long, and it is crystal clear that Cheryl Fullerton is 100% devoted to inserting Craig Chaquico's idiosyncratic view of the history of Jefferson Starship into Wikipedia articles, instead of neutrally summarizing what reliable independent sources say. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support because the time and patience of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource and Cheryl Fullerton is squandering that resource. I noticed in particular Ritchie333 writing at the COI noticeboard yesterday that he "ended up dropping out of the discussion through sheer exhaustion".[3] I've never noticed Ritchie being particularly prone to exhaustion, and he could have used the same amount of Wikipedia time and energy for so many much better things. It's totally unacceptable to wear out editors through sheer stubbornness and bludgeoning. Bishonen | tålk 15:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support. I missed the recent COIN discussion but I already knew from contending with her in 2017 that Cheryl Fullerton is here only to promote Chaquico. Before Fullerton was PilotRock61 in 2015 who signed as Chaquico's "artist manager"[4] "Dara Crockett".[5] Cheryl Fullerton has been active at Commons uploading a bunch of photos taken by Dara Crockett, and citing a book by Crockett and spouse, so it appears Fullerton has been hired as an assistant to Crockett. At any rate, both of these people worked very hard to represent Chaquico's point of view which is not the way he has been described by independent sources. Classic WP:NOTHERE. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      (Redacted) —valereee (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the proposal. I’ve been banging my head against this wall for four years regarding Jefferson Starship. I feel like it’s taken up all my available editing time. I think this is the best course of action. AbleGus (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It doesn't natter exactly why this person is acting like this, it is clear that lesser measures have been tried and have had basically no affect. A tban is a way to try and keep the editor while getting rid of the disruption, I hope they come to understand that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closer: Cheryl Fullerton has indicated she wants to respond. —valereee (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editors, since this may be the last opportunity for me to make my case here on Wikipedia, I will give it my best shot and defense and go on record with this:
    All I can say is not guilty on all charges, including the latest by someone going by Binksternet. I’m repeating myself, but I have edited the articles according to the guidelines of Wikipedia and have respectfully followed the advice of other editors and administrators. I have supported my edits with the best available sourcing. I have reached out to Dispute Resolution, as is suggested, after repeatedly and consistently not being allowed by AbleGus to edit the Jefferson Starship-related articles with good facts and verifiable sourcing. I do not have a COI—including not having been hired as anyone’s assistant. These accusations are going beyond the pale at this point. I am not the one with a conflict of interest. I believe further investigation of other’s motives is warranted. I haven’t done anything wrong.
    I have done my best to add to the quality of the articles I have edited over the years. When I first started editing, I helped clarify the difference between Starship and Starship featuring Mickey Thomas; I worked diligently to get permissions from photographers to use their concert photos and edited the articles with facts for more NPOV and balance and attempted to include all members instead of a select few. I have fought to establish that, while having some band members in common, that Jefferson Airplane, Jefferson Starship, and Starship were separate bands, with their own musical catalogues, histories and eras, and have backed this up with verifiable sourcing going back to the 1970s. If that constitutes COI, then I misunderstood.
    In the Jefferson Starship article, it now states that the band evolved from solo albums, which simply is not true and the source cited has nothing at all to do with this edit, but it has, so far, been allowed to stand? And in reference to the Craig Chaquico article, the article has recently been edited so that important notable facts have been deleted such as that Chaquico was a founding member of Jefferson Starship ( note that I provided reliable sourcing at Valeree’s request which she refused to read) and adding inaccuracies such as that he “joined the band” in 1974 when he was actually a founding member, along with others. While invalidating her edit, Valereee inadvertently attached a source to it which verified Chaquico as being a founding member; it’s an article by an Airplane and Starship historian named Jeff Tamarkin. Here it is in the first sentence; https://bestclassicbands.com/craig-chaquico-jefferson-starship-lawsuit-5-4-17/ if you are interested. The article now says “In 1993 he started a solo career,” when, in fact, he has had a solo career in an entirely different genre since 1993 which includes a Grammy-nomination. Are these facts not notable and interesting enough to be included in the lead, let alone the article itself? The fact that as a guitarist he has had two signature guitars is notable but has also been removed.
    Someone refers to me as argumentative or taking too much time; however, I believe I have been simply honoring and respecting Wikipedia as an important reference and that these errors and omissions should be corrected, or at least added in balance with other reputably sourced points of view in these articles. I also recommend that editors with no interest or familiarity with music should not attempt to edit articles about music and its creators. That would be like me trying to edit an article on quantum physics. :Thanks to Vivimanti for trying to correct the errors. I think it’s important that I continue to edit these articles about which I have knowledge and interest. I provide a valuable resource.Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Redacted) —valereee (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why yes, Valereee, I am. I used to work for Guitar Player magazine, several decades ago, and Ms. Crockett is the daughter of the owner/publisher of that magazine in the '70's and '80's. I do know Miss Crockett though we are not close personal friends. This is how I am interested in guitar and music, in general, and in factual journalism. I have had contact with Crockett, and others, to ask for help in getting permissions from photographers for historical photos to enhance and balance the articles I've worked on, but I'm not working for Miss Crockett, nor am I paid by her, nor is this a conflict of interest. Now, please stop these personal attacks and attempts to 'out me' in some way which is against Wikipedia policies. If I had something to hide, why would I use my real name? No, I would hide behind a pseudonym like others do. Thanks Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support time-limited topic ban – If Cheryl Fullerton can get more experience collaborating on Wikipedia, while avoiding topics that she is too close to, she might get the experience and editing behaviors to work better with these editors. If she keeps thinking she can have it her way without actually convincing others, that could be a problem. Six months? Dicklyon (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Dicklyon, there's a problem with time-limited topic bans: people can wait them out and then continue as before, having learned nothing. The advantage of indefinite bans is that the user has to appeal them (coincidentally, waiting six months to appeal is usually recommended), and that appeal needs to contain examples of good editing in other areas and/or other projects, and what they undertake for the future, or else they won't be granted. IOW they have to demonstrate that they get it. Very relevant here, I think. Where do you see the advantage of CF not needing to get it? Bishonen | tålk 08:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    Cheryl, I'll redact that and get it oversighted (which removes it altogether), but I'm not sure I outed you. Person A, who has the same name as a person mentioned in a book by person B, who once represented person C, who is also in the book, starts coming into the articles about person C and changing what they say to what person B and person C prefer, using the book as a reference. You've been systematically denying you had any relationship to Chaquico other than being a fan of his music when your behavior for the past four years has been that of a person with a COI. —valereee (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: Revision-deleting the two edits where you added information you no longer wish to be visible (deletion log) doesn't accomplish anything when the content still exists in the dozens of revisions after it (up to the point where you remove it). Anyone can still easily see the edits ([6], [7]). And I don't really see the point of rev-del if you don't also redact Cheryl Fullerton's statements plainly saying the same thing... Modulus12 (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    doh! —valereee (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "I also recommend that editors with no interest or familiarity with music should not attempt to edit articles about music and its creators." I sympathise with this point to some extent, and in my case you can judge my knowledge of 60s and 70s music by the articles I have taken to good article status listed here, including The Who, Genesis and Blind Faith. However, as I have said before, the amount of time and attention I have taken to try and get this dispute resolved so all parties walk away satisfied, or at least coming to terms with differences, has been extraordinary.
    The problem is, I seem the same questions coming up again and again. For instance, the history between Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship is complicated, in as much the first band didn't simply split up, and then the second one was formed. So, you cannot say there is a consensus for saying that Craig Chaquico was a founding member as presented by reliable sources. And if you keep saying that there is a consensus, people will start to tune out and ignore you.
    Again, I've got to emphasise that nobody is doing this to be mean to you - we just think you're spending far too much time on this topic, and people are urging you to just write about something else for a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Time-limited TBAN: Per Dicklyon, except the TBAN should be longer than 6 months, maybe 3⁄4 or 7⁄8 of a year? 73.158.114.70 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    I think now that she should be Indef TBANed per Bishonen and Valereee. 73.158.114.70 (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    • I agree with Bishonen that a time-limited t-ban isn't helpful. This is low-level but chronic. It has been going on for four years, and Cheryl averages only a couple of dozen edits a month, sometimes going for several months with no edits. A time-limited t-ban isn't going to solve this problem, as Cheryl can just wait it out and pick up right where she left off. We need to require an appeal. —valereee (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I was unfamiliar with this situation, but after looking it over, I think Richie333's proposal is necessary and justified. (Note: I was big fan of the Airplane, and then -- decreasingly so over time -- of Starship. I've been familiar with Chaquico's work -- as a fan -- since his time with Jack Traylor and Steelwind.)Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjholder issues

    The user in question here now has a very substantial sock history at this point, continuing to stalk/harass me across other Wikis.

    For reference...

    Wikipedia:

    Wikimedia Commons:

    Simple English Wikipedia:

    Wikidata:

    Wikimedia Meta-Wiki:

    Wikiquote:

    There may be some others I'm forgetting right now. At this point it seems like there won't be any stop to this. I've now just recently realized I can disable talk page notifications on those other Wikis, so I've turned that off. Other than that, what would the best solution here be? I'm familiar with SPI and stuff but don't really have much knowledge in the LTA area... would an LTA report be justified at this point?... Magitroopa (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Still currently going at it. Anything at all that can be done??? Also updated with the new accounts from today... Magitroopa (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Magitroopa, the cross-wiki activity should be reported to meta:Steward requests/Global. Fences&Windows 12:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Pmffl reported by Alexander Davronov

    User being reported: Pmffl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User reporting: Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Statement by Alexander Davronov

    Reviving this from the archive as Pmffl continues to remove my replies without due justification. ANI NOTICE DIFF

    WP:TPO/WP:UNCIVIL violation
    Page: Browser engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
    Page: User talk:Pmffl (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    • 16:06, May 8, 2021) "Notable engines as subsections (remove bullets): removing weird @me with unrelated link. Just simply propose what you want without weird crap."
    • 16:07, May 8, 2021: "Flow engine: removing non-sequitor - there is a template and Comparisons article for this"
    • 20:25, May 8, 2021 — Me requesting on his talk page to stop editing my replies
    • 20:27, May 8, 2021 "No, for reasons in my commit comments there. Stop @ing me with really sloppy crap. in the talkpage. I cleaned it up to be sensible"
    • 20:55, May 8, 2021 — "restore AXO comment that I shouldn't have removed, plus more info in my response"
    WP:TPO/WP:EDITING/WP:ZEAL breach
    Page: JavaScript (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
    In the past (2020) Pmffl has made various questionable, unWP:PRESERVEing or simply WP:SNEAKY-bordering edits to a legitimate content which might have been otherwise kept under WP:IMPERFECT provision, or get improved otherwise:
    • 20:58, February 6, 2020 "remove redundant sidebar" — There is no sidebar listing the same information.
    • 21:25, February 6, 2020 "almost entirely obsolete + largely self-promotional" - Cut out a list of books of mostly historical value from the Read further subsection .
    • 17:33, February 7, 2020"Development tools: rewrite to be concise and remove the obsolete" — Cutting out some (legitimately?) sourced details on JS debuggers software.
    • 20:58, February 8, 2020 "more concise and polished, remove tangents)" - Removing sourced information

    Here they remove my replies on the talk page:

    • 14:28, May 9, 2021 "removing smear post by a guy with an axe to grind"
    • 16:37, May 10, 2021 "exactly, MrOllie, which is why I'm removing this garbage"
    • 12:38, May 16, 2021 - «‎Latest changes by Pmffl: removing the smear, as stated before; keep the specific items»
    • 17:27, May 17, 2021 - «Undid revision 1023467424 by Alexander Davronov talk) No, not okay to say this as others have told you.»

    --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Request

    Comments

    There's a reason you got no comments last time Alexander Davronov: no admin thought there was any action to take. Someone using mild curse words in edit summaries is not the kind of dispute that needs admin attention. You don't need all the structure btw, this isn't Arbitration Enforcement. You need to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and that does not involve trawling your opponent's old edits for supposed wrongdoing. Fences&Windows 19:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fences and windows: Am I correct that you're saying that I can remove other's comments, including yours? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Alexander Davronov. Pmffl restored your talk page comment, which is what I was aware of. However, this today was not OK. Pmffl, you must not remove others' article talk page comments. You must also follow correct talk page archiving rather than just removing old comments as done here for example. Pmfll, please promise not to repeat the removal of others' article talk comments unless you are strictly following WP:TPO and please correct your incorrect removals without archiving. Fences&Windows 20:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. His vaguely-worded post is merely a smear of me. As MrOllie and others have pointed out, it doesn't belong on the Javascript talkpage. So I keep removing it. -Pmffl (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pmffl: Letting everyone to know that I disagree with your edits isn't a "smear" of you. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not up to you to decide, Pmffl. Let others do it: don’t edit war with someone who is critiquing you. You didn't reply about your inappropriate removal of old talk page comments without archiving. Will you clean up after your earlier inappropriate edits to create an archive? Fences&Windows 19:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, you mean restore Alexander's original post, in which he literally added a support line to his own idea? No, it's better to not have ridiculous stuff like that in a talkpage. -Pmffl (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pmffl, you missed this: "You must also follow correct talk page archiving rather than just removing old comments as done here for example." That was another example of you "tidying" a talk page, Talk:Browser engine. Please address this by restoring the posts to an archive and please follow TPO and proper archiving in future. If you have concerns about someone's posts, follow WP:DR and don't edit war to remove them unless it is blatant vandalism, a severe BLP breach, or grossly offensive. Fences&Windows 14:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Second sentence of WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. From my reading, the parts you highlighted in yellow are indeed Pmfll commenting on content, with some mild language like "sloppy", "crap", "weird", "garbage". The only thing that is nearing a personal attack might be "removing smear post by a guy with an axe to grind". Leijurv (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In fairness, when that comment is "I think the latest edits by Pmffl must be revised and amended. Feel free to notify me of proposals." It does indeed sound like someone who is just against another user's edits, because. Canterbury Tail talk 23:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Canterbury Tail: I wasn't able to elaborate because Pmffl has removed it the same day it was posted. The same thing has happened two times a day earlier (8 May) so I decided to fill ANI complaint instead of explaining anything. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Leijurv: In all three cases he was either editing or removing my replies. In very first diff above he's removed a diff link pointing out to his edit. That's what kind of "content" he has called a "weird crap". All these highlighted summaries are only about my replies. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexander Davronov, The way you format your talk page entries, with all the subsections and templated diffs and such, is fairly unusual. People who mostly read talk pages by looking at diffs are going to be confused, and it does tend to make for alerts that are difficult to understand. "weird crap" isn't a very charitable way to describe it, but I do understand what Pmffl means. MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The following should clarify why MrOllie is making remarks like that one above: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#Canvassing in Malassezia AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you do have a history of using ANI to try to win content disputes, thank you for pointing that out. (See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#Request to enforce WP:FOC & WP:NPA in Talk:Malassezia) However, the reason I'm commenting on this dispute (and on Talk:Javascript) is that I have had the Javascript article on my watchlist for years. - MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrOllie: Just saying. I don't want to turn this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexander Davronov, bit late for that. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Kpmm198495

    Blocked indefinitely site-wide. Daniel (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Kpmm198495 (talk · contribs) keeps violating the BLP policy at James Charles (Internet personality). I'm not saying that these events didn't happen as the article has them written in a neutral tone in the body. I'm saying that Kpmm198495 is deliberately calling Charles a "child predator" despite he was never arrested nor sentenced for such charges. What's even worse is that Kpmm198495 not only added the link of the "Photo taken by Charles and sent to minors on social media platforms", Kpmm198495 decided to upload it as "JailbirdJC" and leave it there ironically doing what Charles did in the first place, but instead of sending it to specific minors, Kpmm198495 decided that anyone reading the article had to be a spectator of his naked photograph. Kpmm198495 is not explaining his actions and as a fact, his account remained inactive for 18 months until they autoconfirmed it yesterday in order to edit the page. The inclusion of it in the lead is already being discussed here, where of course, has to be done in a neutral and due way. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Given their... response... here, an indef for disruption and BLP violations seems appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Their contributions include a revdelled response to this AN/I section, so one can't help but wonder if they're WP:HERE. Much to think about. jp×g 02:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    p-blocked from the article in question as an emergency measure, no objection to anyone increasing the block to a complete block for blp vios, so consider this report not closed. —valereee (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've increased this bloke to indefinite site-wide, that was some of the most heinous BLP violations I've seen in a while. Daniel (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mass deletions of operators

    In a series of 3 edits User:FOX 52 has performed mass deletions of operators in the BN Islander article.
    Of the previously listed 243 operators, a mere 36 were left in place in the current "List of Britten-Norman Islander operators", equalling a deletion of 85% of all operators.
    Apparently, he feels that this might be justified by his "remove un-sourced content" comment.
    However, it appears somewhat ridiculous to me to demand one source for every one to four words (= one operator) in a long standing article. Using this method, one could delete some 90% of the entire Wikipedia contents.
    An attempt to solve the problem in Talk:List of Britten-Norman Islander operators has failed.
    The previous content has to be restored, possibly by adding the note "citation needed", and efforts might be continued to raise the percentage of sourced material.
    Wholesale deletions like those having been done cannot be tolerated, they would destroy a huge percentage of WP contents. --Uli Elch (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: In the meantime, he has deleted the entire list as such and downgraded it to a section the main Britten-Norman Islander article. --Uli Elch (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Uli Elch, this is a content dispute. Please seek input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. The old list is still in the history for you and others to verify: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Britten-Norman_Islander_operators&oldid=1018241843. These are the relevant guidelines: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Fences&Windows 12:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)@Uli Elch: When you asked him to discuss the matter with you, what were the results of that discussion? --Jayron32 12:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (I did respond on the talk page) I only removed the un-sourced content per: WP:PROVEIT, - further I added citations to others I could find - Also the list contained a huge amount of non-notable operators WP:GNG - Cheers FOX 52 talk! 13:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Fences and windows, this is fundamentally about content not behaviour. Uli Elich opened a discussion at Talk:List of Britten-Norman Islander operators#Mass deletions of operators, which is a redirect page's talk page - curious place, but never mind. Notifications have been posted to the odd associated WikiProject. FOX 52 and others have engaged in the discussion, including me. As far as I can see it is very much live and ongoing. I'd suggest closing this issue as far too soon for ANI involvement. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Jr Tahun and repeated additions of unsourced content

    Jr Tahun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been repeadtly warned for adding unsourced content to various articles related to the 2020 Summer Olympics. However, they continue to keep adding this information per WP:SYNTH and without adding any concrete sources. At this point, I cannot continue reverting this user's edits as that would violate the 3rr rule, but something needs to be done here to stop the addition of the unsourced content. The user has even admitted (on their talk page) to as such, I am lazy looking for it, but you can find it yourself on the BWF website and tomorrow, May 18th, the ranking will be published. Here are some examples [8], [9]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User is not labelling reverted edits incorrectly as vandalism. [10] and [11] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:VERIFY is an important part of Wikipedia, and this user seems to be blatantly ignoring that. And knowingly so, per the message highlighted on their talkpage- FWIW, I couldn't find it on the BWF website, which is the whole reason why we add sources on Wikipedia. They're a good faith editor, but they really need to agree to add sourcing to every edit they make. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the user for 48 hours for persistently adding unsourced content. Mz7 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility By Admin User:JzG

    NOT INTERESTING
    Nothing to see here, no need for admin action. (non-admin closure) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    According to WP:ADFAQ#CONDUCT "You can report problems with admins misusing their privileges at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." To editor JzG: response to closing response to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#When_WP:BLPCRIME_does_and_does_not_apply do not seem to appear to be consistent with WP:ADMINCOND and WP:CIVIL. The user's response was condescending, passive aggressive, and presumptive. Since "Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." this issue is more appropriately brought here as opposed to the normal course.Yousef Raz (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you provide diffs for the behavior you're discussing? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG is not currently an admin, and a link to the specific diff where the offending comment was added would be helpful. The comment I think you're referring to doesn't seem objectionable. The concern that Yousef Raz may be tendentiously ignoring consensus was a valid one. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yousef Raz, I've checked literally every post by Guy (JzG) currently there, and I'm not seeing a conduct issue, even if JzG were currently an admin. They might be a little short with people, and certainly I saw posts that were not neutral. Can you provide a diff to show us what you're complaining about? —valereee (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol&oldid=1023512666 Close please. This is tending towards bad temper as one editor doesn't seem to like the answer, so to summarise the above: consensus is that calling it an insurrection doesn't violate BLPCRIME, not least because it's a term in common use by so many reliable sources that even WP:ATT would look weird in context. To summarise the summary: insurrections have consequences, and one of them is being called an insurrectionist. Yes, I understand that those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade. Cults are shitty that way. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Yousef Raz (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept a consensus with no objections. I'm an adult, if my view is not accepted I move on. Being uncivil is not appropriate. User:JzG page identifies him as an admin.Yousef Raz (talk)
    More specifically Yes, I understand that those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade. Cults are shitty that way.20:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    I get that I'm new here, but that is considered a civil response, a respectful response, of an administrator? If it is, then so be it. But it appears to be condescending, passive aggressive, and presumptive.Yousef Raz (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not an admin. The userbox you've taken as saying they are links to Wikipedia:Rouge admin, which identifies itself as a humorous page that is not official policy. ◦ Trey Maturin 20:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Trey Maturin. That's a little misleading.Yousef Raz (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if he had been an admin, participating in a content discussion is not an admin action – admins have no special privileges or powers when it comes to content questions. In any case, I fail to see anything inappropriate in that response. Exasperated, yes, uncivil, no – apart from the fact that the part you quote specifically isn't even directed at any of the participants in the discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no incivility in the reported remark, simply a little justifiable sarcasm concerning recent American political events. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a little misleading. @JzG used to be an admin, and they probably put that userbox on their user page then and forgot to remove it when they resigned the bit. Guy, you probably should take that off your user page. —valereee (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe also the banner about reviews of your admin actions. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And this (About Me paragraph): “... I sometimes, to my chagrin, mention that I have been an admin for a long time: some people think this is me invoking admin status in order to...” — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs) 06:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the avoidance of doubt, I do not think that Yousef Raz is an insurrectionist. I do think that many of the people who were sucked into the insurrection exhibit some or all of the qualities of cult victims - not an especially controversial view given the prevalence of QAnon belief in this group. I have sympathy with people who genuinely believed that they were going to save America from democracy, restore Trump to his throne, and be feted as heroes. It's easy to see how those who live entirely within the bubble of conservative media might come to that conclusion, delusional though it so very obviously is to those of us that consume a diet of facts and reality. I have sympathy. But that sympathy stops short of whitewashing the insurrection. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bonadea does incivility need to be overtly directed at a specific person? My understanding of passive aggressiveness, which is inherently uncivil, is that it is commonly directed at a person or group in a manner that is not overt.Yousef Raz (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if we're going to call passive-aggressiveness "incivil", then I guess this report itself is an example of incivility. But Guy's remark? Not so much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've corrected the title of the section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken nothing I have stated was sarcastic nor passive-aggressive. My statements have been concise and assertive. There were quite a few people that responded in that feed, and not one other person was mentioned in my statements because no one else was uncivil.Yousef Raz (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Please protect poor defenseless little me from the big bad admin who said something mildly critical about my political beliefs." Sounds pretty passive-aggressive to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and its uncivil, so I reported it here in accordance with the rules.Yousef Raz (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that's uncivil. YR is a newish editor who is trying to figure out our ways. —valereee (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yousef Raz, I'm trying to understand your complaint here. IMO yes, incivility probably needs to be directed at a specific person? I'm open to your argument that it doesn't, but you need to convince me. What exactly are you complaining about? I see what you linked to above: Close please. This is tending towards bad temper as one editor doesn't seem to like the answer, so to summarise the above: consensus is that calling it an insurrection doesn't violate BLPCRIME, not least because it's a term in common use by so many reliable sources that even WP:ATT would look weird in context. To summarise the summary: insurrections have consequences, and one of them is being called an insurrectionist. Yes, I understand that those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade. Cults are shitty that way. While it's not particularly kind, I'm not sure I'm seeing uncivil. Are you talking about "one editor doesn't seem to like the answer"? What are you objecting to? —valereee (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @—valereee The comment, I interpret as directed at me with This is tending towards bad temper as one editor doesn't seem to like the answer...} and then Yes, I understand that those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade. Cults are shitty that way.. As if me wanting to use a legal standard set by WP:BLPCRIME puts me into a cult or that I'm disappointed in the results of the 2020 election. I view this as condescending, passive aggressive, and uncivil. I looked at his profile, and it appeared to be an admin. I felt this was inappropriate behavior for an admin.Yousef Raz (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yousef Raz, FWIW, I tend to err on demanding civility, and particularly from admins. That said, even if JzG were still an admin, I probably wouldn't see this post as uncivil. It's as I said not particularly kind, but it's not outside the standard of vigorous debate we engage in here on WP talk pages. I don't want to discourage a newish editor, but there's debate here, and it sometimes includes criticism of opposing viewpoints. IMO this would fall into that category. —valereee (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @—valereee Thank you.Yousef Raz (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I came here looking for any incivility, no matter how mild, by "The Other Guy". We have a good working relationship, I would welcome it if he told me I was going too far, and I am sure that he feels the same about me. What I am not seeing is even a hint of actual incivility. "Yes, I understand that those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade. Cults are shitty that way" isn't incivility. It is an accurate description of a group of people without saying that any particular person is or is not in that group. Should I be punished for saying that people are idiots if they believe that Covid-19 can be cured by taking medicines full of poisonous mercury and lead after they have been "purified" by baking them in cow shit?
    On the other hand, edits such as this one[12] make me think that a topic ban from US politics for Yousef Raz would be an appropriate solution. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy Macon, Care to elaborate why that one diff makes you think a AP topic ban is a well thought out and good choice? Because I am not seeing it. PackMecEng (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I wrote too hastily. I should have looked for a pattern of edits, which I have not done. One of QAnon's talking points is calling the riot/insurrection/sedition a "demonstration" but just because QAnon says that doesn't mean that all who say that are QAnon. My apologies for sloppy thinking. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guy Macon if you want to relitigate the discussion on that edit, then lets do it. My basis was in accordance with the US Attorney. The oppossing basis was largely based on pundits. Pundits won.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, @Yousef Raz, if that edit was based on (maybe the language used in the court filings by the US attorney?), then that's not actually how we do it. That would be original research. We use what reliable sources say. And, yes, that means pundits, and yes, before you say it, many reliable sources do have a likely liberal bias. If you'd like to dive into why we follow them anyway, read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and all the links and "See also" links from that guideline. —valereee (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @—valereee My interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME is that if no one is convicted of the crime, then we should use more neutral language. Since the US Attorney did not indict anyone nor convict them of the crime of insurrection[[13]], then it would be improper to label people as insurrectionist.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yousef Raz, which is a fair question, based on how we refer to deaths (death/killing/murder) based on legal rulings. It's something you can argue at the article talk, but it's not something that is going to be decided here at ANI. We focus on behavior, not on content. —valereee (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @—valereee I wasn't trying to revive that discussion here. I presented my perspective in the talk page, the consensus wasn't with me, and that's ok. I came here to discuss the behavior of someone that appeared uncivil and I thought was an admin. You time is much appreciated, thank you.Yousef Raz (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, and I thank you for your civility. —valereee (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any reason for any administrative action here directed at either party at this time. We've got one diff of a user phrasing something in a manner that only one user sees any problem with, and one diff of the OP making a POV edit that was reverted one minute later. For the record: you can see if a user is an admin by clicking "change user groups" in the left hand column. You won't actually be able to change them but you can see the logs. In this case we can see that Jzg voluntarily tunred in their admin tools five months ago, there's even a link to the request in the rights log. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Beeblebrox Thank you.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You can also see them if you enable Nav Popups in Preferences>Gadgets. —valereee (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Beeblebrox: for us ordinary editors, that's "View user groups". Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 02:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too believe that no administrative action in either direction is required, but I did want to express my view that Guy's comment (fully quoted above) was indeed uncivil. The statement that insurrections have consequences, and one of them is being called an insurrectionist [...] those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade is difficult to place in the context of the preceding discussion, since that very long discussion contains nothing at all about the insurrectionists themselves being baffled at being called that way. The comment is, in fact, very hard to understand in any other way than as an underhanded suggestion that the editors opposing the use of the word insurrection in the article are the ones protesting being called that way, which of course equates them with the insurrectionists. The comment also makes it personal by stating that one editor doesn't seem to like the answer, while there were at least two other editors taking Yousef Raz's position. Though I personally agree with those saying we should use the word insurrection in as much as RS are using it (and the underlying view that neutrality is to be determined by what sources say, not the other way around, which is basic WP:NPOV really but not often well-understood), I find Guy's comment completely unacceptable. I also feel that this comment was enabled by the other editors opposing Yousef Raz's position, who rather than explaining the intricacies of WP policy were being condescending from the very start (e.g., We are summarizing what sources say. If they said magical flying unicorns scaled the walls, we'd also include that). Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 00:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Apaugasma, it was a general reflection on the numerous (indeed incessant) demands that we reframe our articles around the insurrection to support the Trumpist narrative that only Trump supporters were injured in the insurrection, that it was an exercise of free speech and not an insurrection, and so on. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      This is going to be the creationism de nos jours, I reckon. And I was here for the OG creationism disputes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 07:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Nobody said only Trump supporters were injured. A few correctly noted that the only person killed that day was a Trump supporter, as was the officer previously and baselessly said to have been killed. Hard to have an insurrection when the insurgents gave up in hours, having killed nobody, toppled nothing and captured nowhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Failed criminality is still criminality. EEng 08:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not even talking criminality, just the act itself. Insurrection did not occur. That's basically why nobody was charged with inciting, engaging in or assisting in one. Other crimes, sure, alleged in the hundreds. The guy from Iced Earth is already guilty of two. But nothing related to insurrection. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Just like failed attempt of uncivility is still uncivility. Politrukki (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Guy, I totally get that patience can wear thin in such circumstances, but behind every username on WP there's a different person, whose intents and motivations are always more complex than it is possible to imagine through the WP interface. In such situations, it's important to not lump people together, which can in part be achieved by structurally exaggerating the AGF-thing. When you find yourself incapable of doing so, it's probably a good idea to take it as a sign that a wikibreak may be in order. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 13:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As a guy who's disagreed with Guy and been indirectly lumped in with a lot of allegedly bad types for it, I reiterate I'm thinking for myself, influenced by Hogan (as accepted in the '80s). I supported Trump (in spirit) over Clinton, but chose Harris the next time. There are pedophiles in high places and The American Dream has died of cancer, but QAnon didn't figure those ones out. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @InedibleHulk: Picture Ivanka and Hillary right now in a bar somewhere, sharing a tall cool glass of adrenochrome, with two straws. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what that is, so I replaced it with cocaine and pictured a well instead of a glass. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's a well they'll need hoses instead of straws. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    revdel needed for racial attacks

    This person put terrible messages in their edit summaries. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment In my humble opinion, a good practice would be to email an admin and ask them for a revdel rather than disclose the purely disruptive material here.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Shahaneh's persistent unsourced additions and edit warring

    This user was blocked indefinitely on December 24, 2009 by NuclearWarfare. On April 16, 2021, Maxim unblocked them. Since April 17, 2021 (Special:Diff/1018352013), the account's edit are almost exclusivley related to 3D-film. Their whole list of contributions is a series of unsourced additions of a film being released in 3D and/or IMAX 3D. After being reverted, citing the unsourced nature of their edits and the lack of notability for the inclusion of the information in the lead section, they repeatedly edit warred with the different editor that reverted them.

    The user was notoriously persistent at Black Widow (2021 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Their first edit to this page (diff) was reverted by Adamstom.97 (diff). Shahaneh repeated their edit a total of seven times, some of those comprised of two or three consecutive edits ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]). Another case was The Suicide Squad (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ([22], [23], [24], https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Suicide_Squad_(film)&diff=1021506444&oldid=1021502658), but there's also Venom: Let There Be Carnage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ([25]), Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ([26]), and Mission: Impossible 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ([27]) to name a few. Virtually all their edits are like this.

    After seeing the editor's actions nature, I consulted a fellow editor, the aforementioned Adamstom.97, on what to do about the editor (diff). The editor changed my comment, trading his own name for IronManCap (diff), who was the first one to place a warning at their talk page (diff). After InfiniteNexus put a final warning on their page (diff), only one last edit was performed by the user (diff).

    Then, 64.183.125.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appeared, making identical edits to articles such as Mission: Impossible 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (diff) and West Side Story (2021 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Shahane diff, IP diff), where Shahaneh had also edited, and to many other pages where they hadn't, such as Untitled Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse sequel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (diff), Untitled third Fantastic Beasts film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (diff), and most recently Jackass 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (diff).

    I guess that, being a recently unblocked user who almost immediately after being able to edit again started mass-adding unsourced information and edit warring, changed another editor's comment and then apparently resorted to sockpuppeting (WP:QUACK) after receiving a final warning, this editor should be blocked again. —El Millo (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Run n Fly have are connected with Khorkuto serial

    Moving to WP:COIN. Fences&Windows 12:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I was observing Run n Fly since some days. And i have noticed one thing, when Run n Fly completed the article, Alivia Sarkar aded the wikipedia link in her instagram bio withing 5 minute. So after my observations i am sure Run n Fly have some connection with Alivia Sarkar. Apart from this Run n Fly is edition much about Khorkuto cast. So there is some connection with Run n Fly with Khorkuto Serial as well as Alivia Sarkar. Bengal Boy (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:JakeyPaul123456

    This is a persistently—and now exclusively—disruptive user who ignores all warnings. The vast majority of their edits gets reverted—repeated unexplained content removal, adding wrong information, unsourced changes, repeated unconstructive changes that get repeatedly reverted, replacing valid images with their own dubious or obscene images that always get deleted for copyright violation (example). On top of that, the user also received a warning for username violation. The user refuses to communicate and keeps making disruptive edits after a final warning, after a 31-hour block and after yet another final warning after the block (like another copyright violation in Apple Inc.). The next block should be either much longer, or preferably indefinite.—J. M. (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not ask an admin to indef block him, if he is so clearly a persistent vandal? You should probably report him to AIV and say that he is a vandalism only account and he will probably be indef'd. 73.158.114.70 (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    AIV is a place for reporting obvious vandalism. This case requires more than 5 seconds of examination.—J. M. (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    True, we should discuss more here. 73.158.114.70 (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    We does not include you, as you are now blocked for using an IP to evade the blocks on your accounts.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    P-blocked from article space. Maybe that'll get their attention. —valereee (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit War at The Voice (American TV series)

    An edit war has been going on at The Voice (American TV series) for a few days and seems to be escalating. Is there something administrators can do to defuse the situation? Instant Comma (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not report the users edit-warring to the Edit Warring Noticeboard and if that doesn't work, request page protection? 73.158.114.70 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC). sock chatter-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this about the colors in the table? Perhaps you should ask for help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear; I don't think protection is warranted at this time, the dispute seems to have moved from article space to the talk page, and could use more input from affected populations. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response. The edit war continued, so another admin blocked the two editors from editing that page. Instant Comma (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent vandalism: User:Umsunu Wabo

    Umsunu Wabo (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocked by another admin. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Umsunu Wabo Persistent vandalism. See talk page for repeated warnings, with this recent activity [[28]]. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Once again, the date-changing vandal from Poland

    Once again, the date-changing vandal from Poland has returned to disrupt music articles. Two IPs have been blocked recently: 37.248.171.152 and 37.248.168.89. As a preventative, can we block the /21 or /20 range containing these two? Lengthy rangeblocks have been made in the past, including a one year block of Special:Contributions/31.0.0.0/17. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've rangeblocked for three months, no objection to an extension if another admin prefers that. Fences&Windows 23:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Virulently racist comment at Talk:Black Lives Matter

    Venalhype (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocked. Apparently an LTA. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Venalhype (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    The comment speaks for itself: [29]. Seems to be a clear candidate for revision deletion.

    The account is apparently single-use, but could of course be blocked as a precaution. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Revdeled and indeffed. Nothing else to see here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Dehumanization/racial attack

    Sock neatly put back in the drawer by Bishonen. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Is this comment by BilCat really all that appropriate by Wikipedia standards even though it was written on a talk page? Notwithstanding the non-neutral point of view, this seems more than a baseless racist attack as compared to a valid criticism of a country's government, by assuming that everyone from China is a "skilled hacker", are "citizen-slaves", and when they make contributions to China-related topics, it's "shilling for their masters", and that do "they" really think "we can't tell", and ending with "LOLOL". I'm not Chinese but it did rubbed me the wrong away as such comments dehumanizes them. I'm sure there are many well-established Chinese Wikipedians who aren't any of this. Many civilians are not their government (or as BilCat considers them as "Chi-Com"), and they just have to make do with what they have. PluggedOzone (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't agree with this complaint, which IMO misrepresents what BilCat said. Their comment isn't even a little about "everyone from China". It's explicitly about the "skilled hackers" which are (in BilCat's view) used by the Chinese government to 'shill for their masters'. I too am sure there are many well-established Chinese Wikipedians who aren't, and don't do, any of this. It doesn't look like you read BilCat very carefully, PluggedOzone. Bishonen | tålk 13:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    And I'll go one step further. Brand new account, who's first edit ever is to ANI. Who's sock are you? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yes, I was just going to add that it was very clever of PluggedOzone to find Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents with their first edit. Bishonen | tålk 13:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    Doesn't really matter whose sock, does it, RickinBaltimore? Blocked as a trolling-only sock. Bishonen | tålk 13:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:CIVIL and personal attacks by IP

    I was hoping to avoid coming here, but there's an IP who is insistent on getting the last word and engaging in uncivil behaviour and low-level personal attacks. At Talk:Scottish National Party there was a dispute about one of the sources (now resolved, mercifully) where 88.104.60.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) became fairly uncivil in his instance about how WP:BRD works. This didn't bother me too much; I tried to explain to him how it works and direct the conversation back on track, and fortunately it was resolved thanks to two other editors contributing. However, the IP took to a lengthy discussion on my talk page where he eventually made this post where he said, I realised you were an εejit and waited for better users to join in, thankfully they did. Please think about confining yourself to vandal swatting or something at your level, for the sake of the encyclopaedia. I wasn't wholly appreciative of this so I placed a warning on his talk page for personal attacks, and I removed this from my page. He then posted another uncivil comment on Talk:Scottish National Party here. By this point I simply wanted the arguing to end, as I could see he was more interested in having the last word and being belligerent despite my insistence that he WP:DROPIT. Consequently I removed his personal attack and hatted the discussion to prevent further useless arguments continuing. He posted on my talk page a few more times, even though the content dispute had long since finished [30][31][32], and then unhatted the discussion and re-added his uncivil comment, suggesting I bring an admin into this, so here I am. I'd appreciate if someone could restore my hatted version of the talk page (sans his uncivil comment) and maybe give him a talk about what WP:CIVIL behaviour looks like. — Czello 14:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate talk by the IP, in particular these comments: [33], [34], [35]. The IP is also giving off the vibe of an experienced user, not an IP, either evading scrutiny or a block.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He does indeed claim in one edit that he has been a Wikipedia editor "for almost two decades" and also knew of certain policies (such as WP:BRD). So yes, I agree with your assessment. — Czello 15:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read Wikipedia:IPs are human too. Too many users like yourself see anons as some sort of low level user on a MMORPG Wikipedia with yourselves just above, but anonymous editing since Wikipedia's dawn is just as legitimate as any other form of editing; there is no default requirement for anyone to edit under an account, and editing outside a registered account does not justify accusations of subversion. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am glad Czello has brought this here, calling more attention to himself, I hope that if he every pursues adminship this thread leads to a thorough reconstruction of events, not as he chooses to represent them but as they were. My side, sorry don't care enough to go digging for diffs, I was randomly reading the article on the Scottish National Party a few days ago and I noticed that an organisation founded in the 1970s was being described as 'proto-fascist'. This is impossible as a historical description since they post-date fascism and thus can't be 'proto' in any historic sense, so I attempted to improve the entry. The page has restrictions on anons, and Czello used those to make improving the article on the point unnecessarily difficult. He ignored the semantic problem, insisted without knowledge of the references that they supported the offending text, insisted I didn't have any right to change the text and continually reverted any attempt I made to improve the article. I even investigated the reference in question (I own the book), supplied the page number, but even that was reverted despite his rhetorical commitment to a 'don't remove cited material' stance t. I brought the matter to the talk and he largely ignored the issue and focused on trying to explain his understanding of certain wikipedia guidelines and principles and how I hadn't been acting right. As I showed, the reference did not even support the offending description, and thanks to the assistance of two uninvolved users the issue was resolved. Talk between Czello and I then did continue due to his apparent wish to get the last word. His insistence on talking down to me as an anon, dropping phoney hypocritical 'warning' templates on my talk page, and explaining guidelines he doesn't really understand was extremely irritating. Based on my own experience he is obviously not an editor who is fit to make advanced content decisions, I would normally have kept a thought like that to myself as it is quite impolite and it's not as if he's going to take me seriously, but I had no incentive to build a relationship with him by that stage and I found his petty, repetitive ritualistic personality so annoying that I didn't care. I realise my comments will be taken as unnecessarily uncivil by some, but I actually don't think 'civility' is the be all and end all of behaviour, this is an encyclopedia, he was making it difficult to improve it and he was frankly trying to bully me because I was an anon. He combines edit-warring and policing of behaviour, does the latter when he is involved, hypocritically, without any awareness of the issue; he responded to my concerns about his 'warnings' by dropping another 'warning' template on my talk page, he then deleted a comment I made on the article talk page on the grounds that I had been rude to him and 'closed' the discussion; and now he shows up here pretending to be the straight-playing mature actor. One of you can explain the issues with his approach if you like, but I doubt it would be worth earning his enmity, just please file this down mentally in case he every tries for 'promotion'. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are indeed correct, so far as the insertion of the term "proto-fascism" is concerned, as the sources did not so much as mention it. However, you have embellished certain aspects of this dispute, such as Czello's alleged administrative aspirations, disrespect towards you for being an I.P. editor and the extent to the value of civility. Had you not lobbed incessant insults at Czello, this would not have been brought up here and your sound reasoning on the article talk page would have stood. You weren't just tort with Czello; you took a series of unnecessary jabs that violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which is a policy and not a mere essay. You're obviously a good contributor, so I won't ask anything of you, other than perhaps keeping focused on the content dispute and not on amateur hour insults. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 19:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained the 'jabs' & I understand that not everyone will like them, but do you seriously think he would have reverted any of these changes if I weren't editing as an IP? I mean, it's counter-factual obviously, but when you edit as an IP for enough time you get a sense of when that's affecting someone's behaviour towards you. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    when you edit as an IP for enough time you get a sense of when that's affecting someone's behaviour towards you No, long-term editing as an IP does not grant superhuman powers that allow you to "know" the motivations of another editor. That is textbook bad-faith assumption. Grandpallama (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh gie's peace, I didn't either mention either knowledge or motivation. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This reading is, of course, very one-sided. I won't get into the nuances of the content dispute again, except to say that 1) During the talk page discussion I happily conceded that the first source was wrong (the IP neglects to mention that the "proto-fascist" label actually had two other sources attached to it, which they failed to address) and therefore could change, and I'm glad we found a good compromise for it; 2) contrary to what they say, I explained in careful detail how BRD and QUO work, but it is they who seems to have misunderstood them entirely to continue edit warring; 3) I find it rather ironic they accuses me of wanting to get the last word when I directly asked them to WP:DROPIT more than once, and so when they didn't I hatted the discussion to do it for them, which they undid (even though the discussion had ended). Furthermore, in their attempt to get the last word they even restored his uncivil comments, which I think demonstrates their rather poor attitude in this situation.
    This could have ended very easily once the content dispute was over, but instead this IP seems insistent on wanting to WP:WIN the argument and engage in personal attacks. I really wish the'd have just let it end when we achieved a consensus, but they seems intent on continuing a pretty useless argument. — Czello 20:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Czello I'm not aware that the person behind the IP above has specified any gender preference. Please do not place emphasis on an editor while seeming to presume their gender. If they have indicated a gender preference, I apologise. Canterbury Tail talk 20:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair, changed to they/their — Czello 20:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Czello, for all intents and purposes, everything you replied with has already been edified. Just as is the case while I address 88.104.60.179, I think you should take a step back, acknowledge your mistakes and move forward beyond this dispute. Both of you misstepped in different ways, so this can be settled just with the both of you agreeing to work more collaboratively and kindly with one another in the future. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 21:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm happy to do so; the reason I started this report is because the IP doesn't seem willing to. However, I'm happy to be proven wrong on this: I've now re-hatted the conversation and removed the uncivil comment -- if the IP leaves it at this (as I think is best) then we can all go our separate ways and get on with our lives. — Czello 21:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it really necessary to remove their comment? Elli (talk | contribs) 21:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to undo my edit I won't revert; but given that I found it going against WP:CIVIL (not to mention it contributing nothing and largely being a bit disruptive), I feel justified in removing it and hatting the conversation. — Czello 21:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It very well might, but it's not egregious, and it's kinda rude to remove someone's comment, especially when you are already having a dispute with them. I think it'd be easier overall if you hatted the discussion while letting the comment stand. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that he couldn't resist doing that during an ACTIVE AN/I thread tells its own story. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I did is because there is a clear agreement above that you crossed a line. However, if you’re insistent on having the last word then go ahead and re-insert your comment — just do me a favour and leave it hatted. — Czello 21:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I did is ... However, if you’re insistent on having the last word ... This pairing calls for some self-reflection. --JBL (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it does not. Having active ANI threads about oneself does not stop one from anti-vandalism. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 09:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. To be honest I'm happy for an admin to close/hat this thread now; the IP has been reprimanded by several editors and I can't see this going any further. I think we can both go our separate ways and call this ended. (I actually tried to close the thread myself but apparently you're not allowed to close your own reports, which I was unaware of!) — Czello 10:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Attack page

    This page which I had created earlier was recreated to insult me. Can you delete it please because its content and also edit summary consists swear words. Also could you block the IP for violating WP:CIV. Thank you.--V. E. (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted by User:Liz at 16:30.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 16:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Nonsense being spammed across multiple pages by User:Bubwater

    I'm really a bit confused here, I'm not sure if this is intentional vandalism, CIR issues, or something else. They seem to be adding some story involving NFTs, scams, and harry potter (that I haven't quite worked out yet due to it being a bit incoherent) to every article they can find. Quick selection of diffs: Special:Diff/1024012470, Special:Diff/1024015815, Special:Diff/1024014668, etc. I think I've reverted all of it, but some help here regarding what the right course of action going forward for this user might be would be appreciated. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It is pretty incoherent, but going through the (actually quite long!) edit history, this looks like a near-SPA who edits about artist Hajime Sorayama and his legal dealings in the united states, particularly as regards to a company and website that seems to sell Sorayama prints in the US, "Artspace Company Y" / sorayama.net It looks to me like another company has been selling some Sorayama related NFT items in the US and there is some feuding between this new company and Artspace Company Y. I think it is a likely WP:COI with a side helping of CIR. - MrOllie (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indefinitely blocked this editor. I think 12 years of obsessive disruption is enough. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive user: Frank042316

    WP:BOOMERANG flew about and a 48-hour block for 3RR instituted by Bbb23. Daniel (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Edit war created at: University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Continues to post information he originally posted in November 2019, even without a Talk consensus. Seems like Edit wars are something he engages in normally as he has been warned on his talk page before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdman882 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Have you brought this to the edit warring noticeboard? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They were probably too busy making their fifth revert to the article. Or maybe they were too busy reverting Frank042316 a half-dozen times at User talk:Frank042316. Or maybe it was their long stream of personal insults on that talk page that kept them busy. --JBL (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    NPA-Oyond

    A few weeks ago there was a vandalism going on due to the wording "ethnic cleansing" on the article Turkish War of Independence which is now locked. Due to this and refusal of using denailist sources in the article I guess based on what he wrote, the user Oyond called the situation as a "bad intent from users" which I warned him to be a PA since it was a baseless accusation.[36] Then he called me a demagogue although I have warned him of NPA policy.[37] Best regards --V. E. (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear admins please review the whole conversation mentioned above in the discussion. I will not edit anything i said. Edit: however same thing cannot be said about other people. Right now there is strong purge in the discussion form on all of the issues i pointed out in the paragraph. Please review the history of the discussion. I want to contribute to this topic but it needs to be fair. I saved the screenshot, I can provide it if necessary Oyond (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor 67.235.210.179

    Per my comment. Daniel (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Looks like they have been vandalizing Wikipedia since February and have been warned over three times. Edits here. Wallnot (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Most recent edit is not vandalism. No action needed here for me. Daniel (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Non-admin closes by Buidhe

    In a little over a week, Buidhe (talk · contribs) has racked up five challenges of her RfC and RM closes on her talk page:

    Without getting into the specifics of each one, the frequency of these challenges on its own is a strong indicator that Buidhe is not following WP:NAC and WP:RMNAC, namely that discussions where the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial should be left to administrators. I also see two common threads to be found in the examples above. The first is Buidhe purporting to find a "clear" consensus in discussions with low participation and/or tight vote margins. The second is her not engaging with the argument that the close was incorrect: there is a quick response dismissing any fault, then silence, forcing the challenger to either drop it or go to move review etc. Indeed her response to the latest discussion seems to indicate that she does not think it is important to respond to those "dissatisfied" with her closes at all. This strikes me as Buidhe trying to have her cake and eat it too: if you're going to ignore the advice that non-admins should not make "close calls", fine, but you should then be prepared to be responsive and accountable for objections like an admin has to.

    I haven't looked beyond the last week to see if this a recently-developed habit or a longer trend. Either way I think Buidhe's closes ought to be reviewed by uninvolved admins. – Joe (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Courtesy pings for those involved in the above discussions: @Rosbif73, Kashmiri, OyMosby, Vaticidalprophet, TaivoLinguist, Kwamikagami, and Nardog: – Joe (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a comment: the reason WP:BADNAC exists is that for deletion discussions, where a discussion is on the verge of keep or delete, the large number of non-admin eyes verses the relatively smaller number of admin eyes would bias the outcome to almost always be "keep" - since non-admins cannot close as "delete". Such is not the case in any of the linked RfCs, which are not XfDs, but content disputes. Buidhe is an experienced editor - and I'd rather hand her the mop than prevent her from closing such discussions - though as a technical user right, it shouldn't be relevant to her closing ability. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NAC and its subsection WP:BADNAC are an essay about XfD closes. None of the closes brought up here were made at XfD. The relevant essay-ish-thing (it's not strictly clear what tier it's actually in) at RM, if we are to treat essays with such importance, is WP:RMNAC, prominently bearing the line Indeed, many high-profile, controversial move requests have been closed as NACs, taken to WP:MRV, and affirmed there. RM is also essentially unworked by admins, giving it the significantly different NAC attitude to AfD seen at e.g. TfD. The community of active participants at RM, including its admins, are quite confident in Buidhe's closes (pinging Polyamorph, ProcrastinatingReader, and Wbm1058 due to their interest in such discussion) and hold her as its pre-eminent discussion closer. Buidhe's primary issue, as it is, is that her closes are followed by {{nac}}; I entirely concur with Elli that they shouldn't be. Vaticidalprophet 10:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) Buidhe is an experienced, excellent closer of discussions. This complaint reads like an attempt to forum shop because the move reviews are on course to endorse the RM closures. The solution to the issue raised is to make this red link blue. Iffy★Chat -- 10:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are two move reviews above. One I have absolutely no involvement in. The other I opened 30 minutes before this so it's probably a little early to call the result. I think it would be productive if we could focus on determining whether Buidhe's closes are correct, rather than making bare assertions of her good reputation amongst RMers, or casting aspersions about what ulterior motives I might have for making that request. – Joe (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I shouldn't have focused on the NAC aspect. I do agree that it's only the quality of the close that counts, not the closer's bits. The problem is that Buidhe does not seem to be making good closes. Five challenges in a week is an alarming rate for anyone. That said, WP:NAC is not just about deletion; it refers to just "discussions" and we have a separate policy specifically for deletion-related NACs (WP:NACD). WP:RMNAC also specifically says that NACs of RMs requires that the consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period. – Joe (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think there's anything to focus on here but the NAC aspect, realistically speaking. I think having that on her closes inspires challenges to them that wouldn't otherwise occur. (As for Black Kite's comments, she is indeed a highly prolific discussion-closer -- I keep planning out a close for (simple and uncontroversial) RMs to find she got there first.) Vaticidalprophet 10:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Indeed, WP:NAC is not only for XfDs - I'm specifically referring to The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator. My interpretation of why this is the case is as I listed above. There is nothing inherent to admins about a better closing ability, the concern here is bias. As for challenges - anyone can challenge a closure, and seeing one is is a nac makes one much more likely to do so. Are Buidhe's moves getting overturned? Not seeing evidence of that. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you've got five complaints in five days about your closes, this means;
    • (a) you're closing many dozens of discussions
    • (b) you're specifically closing contentious discussions where there is more likely to be a large number of disgruntled editors, or
    • (c) you're closing discussions badly.
    • I'm not convinced by the two I've looked at so far, btw. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've looked at them all. The first two I looked at, I would probably hve closed differently, but neither is completely out of range. The other three I would probably have closed similarly, if not the same, and the same applies. I've commented on some below. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All five of the listed closures provide not only the outcome but a brief and succinct explanation. This is good practice, and should be encouraged. Sometimes closes are tricky, and whether or not someone is an admin will not change that. Agree with many above that the number of raised discussions doesn't say much about the quality of closures, if they are overturned that would be another matter. CMD (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The examples above are from the last seven days, so it's too soon for any of them to have been overturned (unless Buidhe did so voluntarily, which is part of the issue here). However looking back just a bit further I found e.g. Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_January#Admiralty_(United_Kingdom), where there was a clear consensus that Buidhe's close was premature, found consensus where there was none (note the parallels to the complaints above), and should be overturned. – Joe (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • That particular close isn't really a cut-and-dry "bad nac". Buidhe closed the original move as (paraphrasing) "consensus exists that 'Admiralty (United Kingdom)' is not the primary topic for 'Admiralty'". Given that both commenters agreed, that's not an unreasonable close. She particularly said a further move clarifying the eventual location of the British admiralty may be filed if desired. Looking at the further discussion - while some people said it was closed too early (I disagree, seven days is the length of the process, and there was no active disagreement on the point Buidhe closed on), the next RM did lead to what she closed in favor of - that said article was not the primary topic of "Admiralty" - being kept. Should she have moved it to Admiralty (United Kingdom) instead of British Admiralty? Perhaps, but given that no one suggested it in the discussion, I feel like that would've been a more controversial close. If this is the most recent example of a bad Buidhe close, I don't think we have a problem here. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buidhe is, in my experience, one of the more experienced regular closers at RM. She's willing to close discussions that stay in the backlogs for a while, or are otherwise controversial and people don't want to touch. In the past, whenever I've reviewed one of Buidhe's closures, for example in the situation Vaticidal links, my opinion is that she closed the discussion correctly. First some general points: WP:NAC is just an essay and for good reasons. The closure of content discussions is not an administrative matter, and the community affirmed this here. WP:NACD is a guideline which applies to deletion discussions, because deletion (and some other areas, like conduct) are exclusively in the purview of administrators. Still, WP:NACD does not accurately describe practice at all XfD venues, for example it does not accurately describe practice at TfD. Another general note is that sometimes involved parties who are upset with the outcome (or believe the 'policy' wasn't 'weighted' correctly) like to appeal on the closer's talk by virtue of the 'WP:NAC'. I understand the temptation, having felt it before. This is to say that volume of complaints alone can't be considered a problem IMO Unfortunately, the reality one has to accept is that sometimes consensus just sucks. NACs can get a harder time over it than admins, and the solution for Buidhe is turning this blue.
      On this specific ANI: of the discussion Vaticidal links, I think it reflects more poorly on the involved parties than on buidhe. Of the discussions linked in the opening comment, I think the Elon Musk one was closed correctly, with almost 75% opposed to the perennial proposal on reasonable policy grounds. However, the Early European modern humans concern seems reasonable, and if it were me I'd unclose and relist. The DNSSEC concern seems to be a matter of semantics ("consensus for current title" vs "no consensus to move"). There is a distinction between the two, yes; the term buidhe used could be intentional, if Buidhe determined the discussion showed explicit consensus for the current title. But even if we assume it didn't then it's still a minor error, and admins make far more impactful errors than this and nobody bothers point them out or complain about them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC) e: 07:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I must echo the above sentiments that Buidhe run for adminship, and do it as soon as possible. Buidhe, my friend, you are disadvantaging yourself and this project by not running, as this ANI thread shows. So I will bold this: Buidhe should run for adminship. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am more concerned by the hounding of Buidhe and forum shopping exhibited both here and at WP:RM talk pages when closures don't go the way involved parties wanted them to go. Buidhe has far more experience than many admins in closing RM discussions so the idea that admin closures are better than NAC ones is wrong. Polyamorph (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked through all five discussions. There's not a single close that I thought was incorrect, and there's no reason to avoid NACs in these specific circumstances (XfD is different), especially when the closer is clearly competent. Would support closing this discussion with no action taken. SportingFlyer T·C 13:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NAC explicitly states that discussions should not be reopened just because the closer is not an administrator. I take that to mean broadly that only the quality of the close determines the quality of the close, not the status of the closer. So let's just look at the closures, shall we?
      • Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch language#Move to "Pennsylvania_Dutch"?: Personally, I would have relisted this, but Buidhe's close was well-reasoned and within discretion. The move review is informative here.
      • Talk:List of military disasters#RFC on Battle of Vukovar: There's at least one editor in here who is probably a VJ-Yugo sock (they haunt Balkans military topics) but Buidhe isn't expected to know that, and their comments probably didn't sway the discussion. I would have dismissed the main opposition argument that an event has to be described using the specific word "disaster", and not any of the supporters' noted reliably-sourced synonyms, in order to be included in the list, especially since the opposer who kept writing that comment clearly has poor grasp of English. But that's bordering on supervote territory. Otherwise I would have closed no-consensus rather than consensus against, but I can't call this a bad close.
      • Talk:Domain_Name_System_Security_Extensions#Requested_move_31_March_2021: This challenge is a good example of why counting the number of times an editor's closes are challenged is not good evidence whatsoever that the closes are bad, it's just evidence that our checks and balances work. The challenger's entire argument was that the head count in and of itself demands a no-consensus close, but that's not how closing discussions works at all. Consensus was clearly against the move and the close was excellent.
      • Talk:Upper Palaeolithic Europe#Requested move 9 May 2021: Personally I agree with Joe Roe here to the extent that the title should refer to the people and not the geography, but I did not participate in the discussion and he failed to convince a single other editor. I don't see how the discussion could be read any other way than "consensus to move". Joe hasn't really provided any valid rationale to overturn at move review, either, having commented only on the head count and closer's status.
      • Talk:Elon Musk#Should Musk be called an engineer?: How does one read a discussion with 22 opposes versus 6 supports as anything other than "consensus against"? The challenger again didn't cite any issue with the close other than the closer's status, and the fact that other challenges exist (which, as noted, is not evidence of anything).
    I've noted some criticisms of these closes, but don't consider any of them to be inappropriate, nor do I find Buidhe's responses to the challenges lacking what we would expect from WP:ADMINACCT. Accountability requires responding to valid concerns; it does not require responding to endless gaslighting from editors who disagree with you. Good work, Buidhe, and I would also support if you choose to run the gauntlet. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with ProcrastinatingReader. The simplest explanation here is that Buidhe is a prolific RM closer who shows an admirable willingness to tackle difficult discussions that have been languishing for a while in the backlog. If multiple of the cited RMs end up being overturned or relisted after making their way through MRV, then maybe there would be a case for asking them to cool down their closes. But until then, this feels premature. Colin M (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree with those stating Buidhe should be an admin, I don't like the idea that contentious RfCs or RMs should be closed by admins at all. Buidhe has more experience with RM than I have, why should she not work on difficult closes? —Kusma (t·c) 14:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two things 1) The NAC issue is a nonstarter for me. Only closures that require, or may require, the admin toolset (block, delete, protect) should have any restrictions on who can close them; for discussions where the outcome could be enacted by a non-admin closer, ANY closer will do, with no special preference to be given to admins. WP:NOBIGDEAL is apt here: Administrators were not intended to develop into a special subgroup. Rather, administrators should be a part of the community like other editors. Anyone can perform most maintenance and administration tasks on Wikipedia without the specific technical functions granted to administrators. (bold mine) 2) The five contested closures all fall within normal discretion, and none is particularly problematic. I'd go through and provide additional notes, but that would be redundant to the excellent analysis from Ivanvector's Squirrel above. I concur materially with every one of those results, and I found none of the challenged closures to be problematic. On the issue of Buidhe applying for adminship, I am going to buck the trend of the several earlier commenters and say that I find no reason to encourage them to apply. They are doing a find job as it is, and unless they want to be able to delete or block or protect, there's no compelling reason to get the toolset. I would support such an application, but if they don't want it, I feel no need to push them in that direction. Being an admin is only about access to tools, not about having more rights to have one's decisions respected. Buidhe is doing a commendable job, and I encourage them only to continue to trust their instincts and work in good faith to keep making Wikipedia better in their own way. --Jayron32 15:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Largely per Jayron32 and Ivanvector. These being NACs doesn't matter here. I would not recommend anyone (admin or not) make 5 controversial closes in a week, but several of these should not have been considered controversial. I would have relisted the Upper Palaeolithic Europe move discussion (the 3-1 vote being insufficient when several of Joe Roe's arguments had not been addressed). The other closes look fine; several of the objections seem no more substantial than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looked at the diffs provided (guess I'll never get that time back). I agree with those above (such as but not limited to: Jayron, the Squirrel, and power-enwiki (sorry, that key's not on my keyboard.:)). I guess my response would be .. IDK Thank you Buidhe for all your hard work. — Ched (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NAC is an essay. It does not enjoy global consensus. I'm not the only editor here who gives that essay zero weight. If you want to make the case that an editor is making too many bad closes, show us five overturned closes, not five challenges in progress. Joe shouldn't have started an MR and then also taken the closer to ANI; at the least, wait and see if you win your MR first. My thanks to buidhe for her volunteer work. I'd also support buidhe's nom, but I see no reason to suggest that buidhe running for admin is a "solution" to any "problem," because there is no problem. I know we want to encourage editors to run for admin but we shouldn't make editors feel obligated to do it, or feel bad for not doing it, or suggest that it's a step that the editor must take. The only valid reason for anyone to run for admin is if they want to; we should never treat it as an obligation. I'm all for enthusiastic support for a run, I'm just saying it's also just fine if she chooses not to. Levivich harass/hound 16:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure why I was pinged. I have no issue with @Buidhe:. Yes I came to them looking for somewhat of an explanation for their reasoning. I even reached out to a few Admins who aren’t involved in Balkan articles who are mainly admins or like Buihde very active and seasoned editors. Most of them felt that the closure decision was okay. One felt they would close the opposite. But the one agreeing with Bhuide’s take better explained the reasoning and I stated on her talk oage all is good and I agreed. I did not participate in “shopping” as some accused here. I find it ofd how it is frowned upon to have more eyes than one on a topic. Especially a highly contested one where even another admin voted to keep Vukovar. I don’t get the issue. Also I don’t understand why Bhuide is being reported here. Being I was pinged I wanted to make my stance clear. I stood in opposition on Bhuide’s stances on Balkan discussions of yhe past on sources but I know she does it out of good faith. At least I would hope. I don’t know them that well compared to others here. Cheers.OyMosby (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have relisted the Upper Palaeolithic Europe one, as there was very little participation and no-one had refuted Joe's argument (and the close looked a little supervote-y). The Elon Musk one suffered from a surfeit of terrible non-policy compliant Opposes, but I can understand how a closer (even if they're not counting votes) could look at it and assume the 22 v 6 were right, even if they weren't. The rest look OK to me. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Same situation with the Vukovar one, where it was 7 vs 4 despite the 7 being not able to refute the fact that a peer reviewed source states it to be a Military Catastrophe. A Serbian one no less. Yet some called it “revisionist” as an argument. Much like Upper Palaeolithic Europe, the opposition failed to defeat the source other than “I just don’t like it” but I respect the request for more than one source despite the subject not being mainstream and having that much research to begin with compared to the Iraq war for example. So if Palaeo is deemed relistable, so would the Military Disaster one I’d think. OyMosby (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, now that you've explained it I can see the problem there (and this is exactly why I wouldn't have closed that particular one, but waited for someone with more familiarity). Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no issue with Buidhe's closes other than them not being an admin, and I concur with others that they should consider an RFA soon.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • When it’s five different editors having the same issue, all of them, best I can tell, long standing contributors, I’m sorry but that strongly indicates that there is indeed a problem here. Don’t know how serious it is, but it does seem to be a pattern. Volunteer Marek 01:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That's nonsense. If you do a lot of closures then statistically there are always going to be some fraction of users who are unhappy. So that's your pattern. Polyamorph (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      As I and others have said, the frequency of challenges is not necessarily indicative of a problem with the closes. One of the challenges in this case was an editor upset that Buidhe didn't count votes, and another was based only on the fact that there were other challenges. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but it's not nonsense. If five different and unrelated long time editors in good standing complain about the same kind of behavior within a week that's not just a "statistical anomaly". How many closures overall did Buidhe do in this same period? What percentage is this? Perhaps doing a ton of non-admin closures is a bad idea in the first place as the more you do the sloppier you get? You can't hand wave away what seems like a legitimate problem which is being brought up here. Volunteer Marek 17:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeirjk

    Done.

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

    Please remove WP:TPA at User talk:Jeirjk. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --qedk (t 愛 c) 10:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)~[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Antisemitic personal attack casting aspersions of schizophrenia. RD2? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    RD2-ed. —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing by BrazilianNormalGuy

    Despite being told multiple times and being warned[41][42] to stop, BrazilianNormalGuy continues to be disruptive by re-adding undue and unsourced material to Police rank.[43][44][45] Skjoldbro (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Also personal attack. Given the 5 reverts in May (against multiple users), so far, this would be a fairly straightforward edit warring block at WP:AN3, but BrazilianNormalGuy hasn't been warned yet for edit warring (will place warning now). There was previous edit warring with the account and previously an IP (also charging "vandalism") on the same content in January and February.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 10:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    He commits vandalism and I'm on the wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrazilianNormalGuy (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @BrazilianNormalGuy: That's a serious allegation. Which edits are you asserting are so bad faith and disruptive that they are vandalism? —C.Fred (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Terjen

    Shortly after being unblocked by User:Dennis Brown, here are some of Terjen's constructive contributions: obvious needling followed by further needling and this dishonest bs; their contribution here is similar. Clearly unblocking was a mistake, as AmPol does not need this kind of shit-stirring. --JBL (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Terjen seems to be a bit of a bull in the china shop but I'm not sure these Talk page comments are so outrageous they're not something that can't be corrected by guidance and counseling. I'm personally of the opinion we need a much wider pattern of behavior before we can say that being mildly passive aggressive on user Talk pages is causing disruption, particularly since it's always within the remit of individual users to restrict other users from their own Talk pages if they find them annoying. The block appears to have been for edits to mainspace so I'm not sure this constitutes a direct continuation of the original problem. That said, it's good JBL noted these issues as no chance of voluntary correction would be possible without wider awareness of an emerging issue. Anyway, just my passing thoughts after looking at this. I defer to others to take or decline action. Chetsford (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Chetsford, an editor has to be open to guidance and counseling before they'll help. I'm not sure that's what I'm seeing. —valereee (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, that's very true. Though, in general, I think if impacted editors simply request offending editors to stop posting to their Talk page per WP:NOBAN we can usually tie these problems up without requiring the application of any editing restrictions. My personal view is that blocks should be used only when every conceivable other alternative has been tried and failed. In the case of these annoying comments to a Talk page, I'm not sure that level of exhaustion has been reached yet in the absence of a NOBAN request. That said, I defer to your and others' judgment. Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Terjen is WP:NOTHERE

    I was just on my way here to launch my own ANI regarding Terjen.

    They appealed the block and claimed to have corrected their behavior - admin Dennis Brown accepted them at their word and unblocked them. Terjen then went straight back into more or less the same behavior, simply being more discrete ie: WP:SEALION. going to starship.paint and basically demanding that the now closed discussion that lead tot he block be re-opened https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starship.paint#Request_for_reopening_discussion

    To summarise, we appear to have a disruptive and tendentious editor who is gaming us and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I think an indef block is the correct response at this time, they have deliberately disrupted, expressed knowledge of what they are doing (and kept doing it anyway), acted in a blatantly battleground manner, attacked other editors tried to game wikipedia etc. If not indefed, they should be blocked from contemporary American Politics (aka AP2). Bacondrum 22:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Point of Order I told Terjen I wasn't going to mention anything weird going on here this time, but Bacondrum subsequently made it extra weird by whatever sort of "game" it is where you repeatedly alternate between good cop and bad cop, drag a guy to AN/I on suspicion of being disruptive and cryptic [46], suddenly revert to friendly and apologetic again, withdraw the complaint (simultaneously edit-conflicting the defense) [47][48], then wish one all the best [49], before abruptly telling the same to fuck off [50]. I move to declare his testimony here incredible. Can't paste diffs, sorry, technical issues. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs added above, by myself, because InedibleHulk can't. starship.paint (exalt) 02:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the first or the last to think InedibleHulk's comments and edit summaries were disruptive, I acknowledged I was wrong and withdrew the complaint, made an apology and got this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABacondrum&type=revision&diff=1024245200&oldid=1024244947 some rude cryptic comment about who he does and doesn't like and I told him to "fuck off then", which is fair enough all things considered. This is all illustrates the point that InedibleHulk "colourful" comments and edit summaries are in fact disruptive. Bacondrum 02:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't rude or cryptic, it was plain Canadian English, with the only allusion I suspected you might need an assist with conveniently Wikilinked. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bacondrum: - I perfectly understood the comment, well, because it was a pro-wrestling reference, he's saying you were going back and forth (which was also stated in the comment). It wasn't rude. He did clearly write: I don't like you and don't dislike you. You don't have a leg to stand on regarding rudeness when you're saying "fuck off then", which is fair enough all things considered. starship.paint (exalt) 03:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, getting told to fuck off was the least of my problems with Bacon, just naturally happened to be the last one. I don't want him to lose any privileges here. Just casting doubt on his claims. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry I lost my cool and told old mate to fuck off, this whole discourse is a bit of a joke really - seemed to me that he was being rude or antagonistic, but I can never tell what is meant by his oddball comments. I'm not engaging with this discussion anymore, I have better things to do. Bacondrum 04:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I can fuck off and leave with you just one solid morsel of food for thought, never conflate a sea lion with a Canadian, whole realer true Northern politeness up here (think harbour seal, if any pinniped must be presumed at all). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Be my guest. Bacondrum 05:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Response by Terjen:

    Here are some of the contributions I made shortly after being unblocked earlier in the month:

    The complaint regards messages I posted to Erlend Kvitrud, a relatively new editor with only 85 edits. WP:DNB says we must "treat newcomers with kindness and patience" and reminds us that "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility". WP:CIVIL advises us to be careful with user warning templates, in particular to be "careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers ... Consider using a personal message instead of, or in addition to, the templated message."

    Bacondrum had posted a warning template to this new editor stating "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia" but did not add a personal message.

    I added a friendly welcome message directed to Kviterud:

    A belated welcome to Wikipedia! Here is an introduction you may find instructive. Hipp hipp hurra! Terjen (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

    There are no reasons for Kviterud to find this message offensive, nor are Kviterud part of this complaint. I was puzzled by Starship.paint suggesting it to be "sarcasm and criticism", but realize it may have to do with a misunderstanding about the Hipp hipp hurra! expression: Kviterud apparently is Norwegian; The welcome message was posted on their Constitution day when this is a common exclamation. It is not a sarcastic "hurray".

    I am of course open to ideas and further discussions about how to better welcome new editors. I made another post to Kviterud emphasizing key processes to follow when editing AP2, much like I would have liked to receive myself when returning to edit AP2, so I could have avoided getting my first block earlier this month.

    Bacondrum has refused to articulate why they took the welcome message as a personal offense, and have failed to explain why the welcome message above violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. For them to feel the linked Wikipedia essay on hostile activists implied they are an activist, they must have thought they had been hostile. The warning template they posted hardly qualifies. However, following the link from the template leads to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory talk where Kviterud, despite announcing he is "new to this and still learning", is met with language like this from Bacondrum and others:

    • "Please sign your posts (using four tildes) just like everyone else does."
    • "NOTFORUM all this general discussion and opinion is disruptive. No one cares what you think of LaRouche or US standards."
    • "I am a dyed in the wool Marxist, so you're not exactly ingratiating yourself with other editors here."
    • "Literally nobody cares what you think is reasonable"
    • "Don’t expect other editors to do your work for you."
    • "This is all just your opinion. If you've come here to push your opinions or attack leftists then you are in the wrong place."
    • "Erlend Kvitrud, by going with what the sources say, I meant whether they describe him as right wing, not sitting around the dorm with our Libertarian friends and conducting our own research."
    • "Erlend Kvitrud Mate, this is not a forum. You are right to give up disrupting this talk page."

    Erlend Kvitrud leaves, saying "since your minds seem to be made up, I give up on this one."

    JBL participated in the discussion on the Talk page but did not intervene.

    Terjen (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Terjen: - "criticism" refers to the activist link (among other things), it has nothing to do with "Hipp hipp hurra". Exactly who were you implying to be activists, if you weren't referring to Bacondrum? starship.paint (exalt) 11:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Starship.paint, what is the point of asking someone to explain obvious, dishonest bullshitting? --JBL (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @JayBeeEll: - to offer a path of redemption. If we're not interested in at least trying to set things right, we might as well just indef and get it over with. starship.paint (exalt) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm all for redemption myself, but the response is indeed bullshit. If one feels someone else is being bitten, then a more proper response would be to leave a message on the talk page of the alleged biter, not to discredit them in a pretty sneaky way on the talk page of the bitten. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WpediatricEdit

    WpediatricEdit is continuously vandalising Wikipedia pages despite being warned several times by numerous editors in his talk page. I think he should be blocked once and for all as he is not contributing anything useful at all. UserNumber (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that WpediatricEdit just tried to delete this report. — Czello 13:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    UserNumber, you are obligated to inform the user about this thread. As they tried to blank the thread, though, they are clearly aware and there's no longer any need for a notification. --Yamla (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He just tried it again. Honestly should just be an indef at this point. — Czello 13:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For now, I've blocked them for 72 hours for blanking ANI reports. An indef block may be warranted for their other actions, but I'm not familiar enough with the topic area to determine if the article edits constitute disruption (though at a glance, it appears that several other longtime Wikipedia users seem to think so). I'm leaning toward favoring an indef block, but need to step away for a few hours and will leave for others to review. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Banner

    SITUATION UNDER CONTROL
    Discuss jot and tittle on Talk:Marc Van Ranst. (non-admin closure) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Coming here as advised by User:331dot.

    I don't propose to reiterate the entire dispute, but rather link you to my initial request for admin assistance.

    The summary form is the above editor has engaged in a truly stunning series of hostile edits... Because I asked them to explain why they preferred a comma over a semicolon. For real.

    At present, all is calm. The editor above has received a 24-hrs block from editing the article in question. I have as well, full disclosure there. While this course surprised me, I can't deny that it's a straightforward way to stop this bizarre series of disruptions; I, for one, have no intention of appealing that block.

    Nonetheless, the way this whole thing escalated over absolutely nothing does leave me wondering two things:

    1) Could I have done anything differently? I considered ignoring them, but didn't really want to allow their disruption to continue unabated and in all honesty never in my wildest dreams imagined they would escalate in the manner that they did. If I had known, perhaps I might have ignored them. I'm genuinely interested to hear what their reasons are; for example, some rule of grammar I don't know? That would be helpful info.

    2) Is anything else needed regarding the above user? I originally asked for a block, partly because when I checked their log I found they had previous blocks including references to WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. I'm now wondering if the partial block may be enough, enabling them to cool off and reflect, but equally don't want to wake up tomorrow to further harassment. If they would just give a basic explanation of their edits, that would go a long way in my mind.

    It might be too late but for what it's worth I apologise for my part in escalating it. I was trying to educate the user but I feel now the attempts were perhaps clumsy, and that likely didn't help. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Could I have done anything differently? Yes, you could have taken the discussion to the article talk page instead of revert warring. Starting a new section there and explaining that your change fixed a comma splice, inviting The Banner to explain why he disagreed, would have stopped the escalation. The article is not disfigured and useless because it contains an unnecessary comma splice for a few days while you discuss it, and it is not a situation that exempts you from WP:3RR. --bonadea contributions talk 16:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. That seems reasonable. Also thanks for naming the grammatical error at play here, that gives me something to read up on now. On reflection I think it would be fair to say I got overly distracted by their attitude with the result my response wasn't all that helpful. A learning experience for sure. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Your third sentence above has a comma splice. And you've got a sentence fragment at the end there. EEng 16:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC) You can thank me later.[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    In fact this case is another example of the aggressive behaviour mr/mrs IP showed. The Banner talk 18:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Banner: Thank you for engaging on the talk page, but please strike this comment aimed at User:Horse Eye's Back in response to their comment on your talk. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Filetime and Providence article images

    User:Filetime appears to believe that they have WP:OWNERSHIP of images in articles about Providence, Rhode Island. They have consistently reverted my changes to these articles, and, when challenged, have WP:CANVASSed editors they believe will support their position to the discussions, and have refused to compromise, although I have done so (see Talk:Brick Schoolhouse, for instance, in which I dropped my support for my own image in favor of another editor's, or Talk:Providence City Hall, in which once another editor had provided a new image for the infobox, I dropped support for my own.)

    The nub of the problem here is the Filetime seems to believe that any photograph which I have taken, or any image by anyone else that I have selected for use in any article, is automatically of "low quality", although their standard for that is variable: see for instance the discussion on Talk:Shepard Company Building in which they insist that an image (not by me) is unusable in the infobox because the resolution is too small, but when replaced by the highest resolution image in the category on Commons, one that I happened to take, rejected it as well because he didn't like the image's "quality". (Her again, when alternate images were suggested by another editor, I uploaded them from Flickr and added them to the article in place of my own.)

    Certainly, there are inevitably going to be disputes in good faith between editors over what images to use in articles, but it simply cannot be the case that every image I select is bad, and every image that Filetime prefers is good. Their inability to judge images as neutrally as possible (something that I try very hard to do, i.e. I never replace a current image with one of my own unless mine is appreciably an improvement; simply being newer or of better resolution is not sufficient to replace an image which serves its function -- such as use in an infobox -- better) and their digging in once they've made a decision are counter to collaboration between editors. Further, their continued violation of WP:CANVASS by pinging to discussions only selected editors, in the face of their being told directly that they should not do this, flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS. (The latest instance of this can be seen at Talk:Rhode Island State House.) Their apparent automatic rejection of my contributions is beginning to border on WP:HARASSMENT.

    I am not asking for Filetime to be topic banned from Providence articles, that would be unduly harsh, as well as counter-productive for the encyclopedia, since their contributions to those articles overall are quite useful and generally improve them, but some way needs to be found to stop Filetime from automatically rejecting any images I add to articles, and to get them to stop violating WP:CANVASS.

    Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to note that independent editors have repeatedly characterized @Beyond My Ken:'s constant replacing of high quality images in articles relating to Rhode Island as shoehorning. These images are of low visual quality and often reflect errors in photography and editing techniques (blurriness, poor white balance, distracting visual elements). Furthermore, discussions have consistently found that the images added by the editor are of lower quality than those previously included. These editors often note that the difference in quality is not ambiguous. In the case of Rhode Island State House, one independent editor wrote that deciding the previous image was of better quality was an "Easy choice, IMO." Reverting edits that consensus consistently finds to be un-constructive, low quality, and possible shoehorning has nothing to do with ownership. Filetime (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was one of the editors "canvassed" to the discussion at Talk:Rhode Island State House, and I'm not sure how notifying me would be canvasing, a policy which permits notifying editors "who have made substantial edits to the topic or article"? I have previously edited the images on this article, and User:Kzirkel, who was also invited to the discussion, has also made edits to the photos on this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Replacing images - especially the main image in the infobox - is one thing, and indeed one that I would agree with if the images were poorer. However, in the case of Congdon Street Baptist Church, you are just removing an additional image that BMK has inserted. Given that BMKs image is more recent, and not technically terrible, removing it does not seem to me to be a useful edit. Ditto removing an image completely here. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Canvassing again, this time on Roger Williams National Memorial [78], along with wholesale reversion of all the changes I made to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I happened to see Filetime's revert at Van Wickle Gates just now, in Recent changes, and I reverted, because a. I don't accept the edit summary (this wasn't a major formatting change) and b. because I think it is better to have captions for images than not. And it's the same images, of course, so there's nothing here about quality. And if, in another article, I compare BMK's version with Filetime's version, it seems pretty obvious to me that BMK's is better--just look at that terrible picture in the infobox. I think having a picture of a sign in the infobox is pretty silly, but in Filetime's version you can't even barely see that it's a sign. And Filetime's edit summaries are highly tendentious, as if they're itching for a fight. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, so Filetime can't be arsed to come by here and explain, but they did find the time to make this completely unexplained and unreasonable edit. They did leave an irrelevant note on the talk page--whatever. No, this editor is not being very collaborative here. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • ANI doesn't seem like a great place to hash out which version is better, but I disagree on the Roger Williams National Memorial. Being an article about a park, it makes sense to me to have a picture which displays the park rather than only the sign (and it's better not to have the multi-column cluster of images on the right). But it's certainly not the case that either is obviously better such that either party should be edit warring or going to battle over this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Haha, but "their" picture was a picture of nothing. At least the picture of the sign showed a sign! Drmies (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Regarding the picture of the sign: I also don't think that a picture of a sign is the best choice for the infobox, but after going through the relatively small number of images available on Commons, I understood why Filetime put his sign picture there -- there just weren't a lot of good choices. I replaced it with my picture of a sign for exactly the reason that Drmies points out, that at the size it is displayed at in the infobox, my image was at least readable as a sign, while Filetime's was not.
            This is actually a problem with many of Filetime's choices, that he refuses to understand that an image in an infobox has to function at the size it is presented at. An image which is not the best possible shot of a building can look just fine in an infobox at a small size, and a very good picture can look shitty when presented at sub-postage stamp size in a gallery. For Filetime, though, an image is intrinsically either good or bad, without any consideration about how it is being used, or at what size it is being presented. That does a disservice to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Misinterpretation of MOS - In this edit on Rhode Island State House, Filetime reverts my edits on the grounds that MOS calls for images to be right-aligned. This, of course, is not the case. As I point out in an edit summary MOS:IMAGELOCATION says "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left"; while Help:Pictures#Alternating left and right says "Perhaps the easiest way to handle multiple floating pictures is to alternate them left then right (or right then left); this way they do not come into contact with one another, and so cannot stack up in an unattractive way.". In point of fact -- as any editor who has worked in article layout knows -- stacking images on the right side can be very boring for the reader, so alternating sides (without squeezing text between images) provides visual variety to the article and makes it more enjoyable to read. I am only making this arguent here instead of on the article talk page, because, once again, this is Filetime rejecting edits primarily because I made them, not because he has the best interest of the article at heart. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - In regards to the gallery size disputes, and correct me if I'm wrong, shouldn't we still be following WP:IMGSIZE? I don't think there's any good reason to force image sizes for these galleries, just as there should not be fixed image sizes for thumbnails. Pbrks (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a reminder: The issue here is the capricious and automatic deletion of an editor's good faith attempts to contribute to Wikipedia articles by an editor with an inflated sense of OWNERSHIP over an entire range of articles, amply shown by the diffs provided above. Further, the editor continually CANVASSes like-minded editors to discussions in order to prevail. In that situation, any apparent "consensus" reached is a WP:FALSECONSENSUS and is not binding, as it does not truly represent the sense of the community. This behavior needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was one of the people pinged by Filetime. I've never had an interaction with them prior to all of this and was only brought into it after Filetime asked for opinions at the photography workshop regarding different photos. Clearly, (at least in my case) this is not CANVASSing. Your edits may be in good faith, but that does not mean they are always better. In every scenario I have been involved with, I have found that the reverts that Filetime had made have been justified, as the photos that you took and replaced in those articles have been technically worse. Pbrks (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that is precisely CANVASSING - Filetime pinged you because he had a previous relationship with you. You should actually read WP:CANVASS sometime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I give up

    Not to get all WP:DIVA about it, but I've just noticed that Filetime's last dozen edits were all about undoing my contributions to his articles, and no one -- except, ironically, the two admins who have commented here -- seems to think that there's any behavioral problem with doing stuff like that. It's really just too much hassle for me to deal with this editor, so I'm going to scrub my plan to edit other Providence articles at this time. Maybe at some point in the future, when Filetime has finally been indef blocked -- because the behavior he's exhibiting now is not likely to stop, and will only get worse -- I can pick up that project again, but for the time being I'll put my energy into more productive areas.

    I've put away my copy of Guide to Providence Architecture, and I formally withdraw my complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Incidentally, I've posted images and edited articles about buildings and sites all other the country [79], and the editors of Providence are the first to have actively made me feel unwelcome. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ibn Daud

    Fresh off an attempted outing, User:Ibn Daud has accused me of making fervently ... anti-Semitic edits and then when asked for diffs of said edits replies with a link to an off-wiki harassment site. Me thinks a ban hammer is in order, but if unsupported accusations of anti-semitism and linking to webpages used to out editors isnt the ban worthy offense it used to be would be nice to know that. nableezy - 23:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There is also a 1RR violation at State of Palestine, but can take that to AE to be dealt with if need be. nableezy - 23:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are my preliminary thoughts, although I hope that other administrators and editors will also evaluate and comment. Editors with a pro-Palestinian or a pro-Israel POV are welcome to edit this encyclopedia, as long as they comply with our core content policies and key behavioral guidelines, have the necessary experience, and work toward consensus and NPOV. The fact that Nableezy has been active here as long as they have while editing in a highly contentious topic area is a testament (non-religious) to that editor's understanding of these policies and guidelines. Editors who choose to contribute anonymously are entitled to do so without snoops trying to dox them, and linking to off-Wiki hate sites targeting specific editors is not acceptable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Zero0000 has erased part of my talk page in which I point out that historically User:Nableezy has issued several false SPI’s to silence or remove pro-Israel editors. There are numerous examples of this. Nableezy, Zero0000, User:Nishidani, User:Selfstudier and many other Pro-Palestine, Anti-Zionist users are all savvy editors who have been able to maintain an anti-Israel status quo on Wikipedia for a long time. They have done this through a series of manipulative tactics and have been immensely successful in doing so. I see now that they are much too influential on this website for anything to be done about this. Perhaps at some point, one day, some administrators will look into and maybe even fix this, but for now, I see that it is impossible, for me to try to revert or combat their anti-Israel agenda. That “off-wiki harassment site”, though definitely, fervent and a little unprofessional is not wrong in describing and cataloging examples of the following user’s manipulative tactics, which they use to force their viewpoint on one of the internet’s largest websites. For this reason, Wikipedia has a somewhat subtle and even sometimes evidently clear Anti-Israel bias, which is read by millions of individuals across the world. It’s truly a remarkable accomplishment that has only been achieved through thousands of hours of tireless Anti-Israel editing by users such as Zero0000, Nishidani, Nableezy, Selfstudier User:Huldra, User:Onceinawhile ect. I know I’m probably going to be topic banned, which I’m honestly fine with, as I now realize that right now, there is no changing this unfortunate status quo. Perhaps this message may even be censored or deleted, in the name of WP:PA, which would really just prove my point. I don’t mean to personally attack anyone, but I am instead just bringing up a disappointing reality. All in all, I’ll stop trying to edit on Israel/Palestine-related topics, and go back to editing my topics in my usual realm of interests, which are without a doubt much less controversial. Ibn Daud (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nableezy was just recently brought to the drama boards for his posts, that you ignored it is fine. I would also ask that asking any new pro-Israel editor if they ever edited Wikipedia before is not CIVIL and yes, we do have an issue with false SPI being filed and anyone in certain timezones are immediately banned as socks because our team doesn't have the technical knowledge to investigate. Your post is clear as to why there is conflict on Wiki when you think it's one sided. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Linking to said harassment site on ANI is special. nableezy - 05:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ibn Daud, thank you for revealing that, unlike the other editors you revile, you have no intention of following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and are here only to do battle with your ideological opponents rather than to collaborate to produce neutral content that accurately summarizes all points of view. You have presented no evidence of "manipulative tactics" used by these editors to maintain an "anti-Israel status quo on Wikipedia for a long time", perhaps because Wikipedia's job is to report on the full range of what reliable sources say about these topics, as opposed to repeating what the Netanyahu government says at this particular moment in time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If its any consolation Ibn Daud you’re probably not looking at a topic ban but a more general WP:NOTHERE ban. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the outcome, I would suggest that this editor read up a little. There is vast shouting in the press, reliable mainstream organs, about 'pro-Palestinians' hogging the discourse and spewing hate. We have a recent book on the phenomenon by an undisputed expert with all of the required credentials. Kenneth Stern, The Conflict Over the Conflict,, University of Toronto Press ISBN 978-1-487-53610-7. If one hasn't time for the long read, the gist is excerpted in Ed Pilkington's article today: 'US campuses become a growing front in Israeli-Palestinian conflict,' The Guardian 21 May 2021. Despite the title, the statistics show the realities on the ground have a far lower profile than what hysteria about groups, like the fictitious wiki mafia Ibn Daud conjures up, ganging up suggest in press reports. 'The paradox of such attempts to restrict academic exploration of the Middle East crisis, Stern told the Guardian, was that it gave the impression that US universities were on fire with pro-Palestinian activism when in fact major confrontations were relatively rare. “People paint campuses as burning over this issue, and anti-Israel activity as ubiquitous, but the data doesn’t bear that out,” he said.' Idem here. The I/P area, so often called 'toxic' no man's land, is a much quieter area than it was a decade ago, and the general conversation is civil, and well-informed between editors. Nishidani (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, User talk:Cullen328. The fact that a problematic editor like Nableezy is still on Wikipedia is a testament to the fact that admins have made poor and biased decisions over and over again. You and other admins have damaged this project by banning and blocking editors with many good and valuable contributions, like User:Ibn Daud, just because they didn't always avoid conflict. That is poor judgement, and a loss for this project. Debresser (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have thought the last block for violating your topic ban would have sent the message home to stop doing that. nableezy - 13:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Debresser:, please self-revert. You know Nableezy is going to make a federal case about this when you both violate your topic ban and attack them, so why do it? To quote a wikipedian I respect greatly "That is poor judgement, and a loss for this project." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to point out that indefinitely blocking (not that a block should have been avoided) an editor that has created several articles [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] (these in 2021, see history of the user's sandbox going back to 2019 [85]), which are by the way not related to Palestine but rather to Jews in Belarus and Lithuania, for WP:NOTHERE looks excessive. I agree with Debresser that this is a loss for the project. Super Ψ Dro 14:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They have been "Indeffed for outing attempts." not for NOTHERE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, I assumed WP:NOTHERE was the reason as I noticed it more than the word "outing" (didn't know its meaning before) in this thread. Super Ψ Dro 15:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:World Beating

    This user is only deleting German Place names... So no constructive edits, just vandalism. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given them a somewhat stronger warning. Let's see if they heed that. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess this user don't care. This is the third time on Opole for example [86]. --Jonny84 (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    World Beating (talk · contribs) blocked temporarily. Hopefully they will begin to communicate. Tiderolls 13:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    user Dvgardens20

    Dvgardens20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Would appear to be a spam-only account. Every edit I've checked plugs Designer Vertical Gardens directly or indirectly. The last was to Dr Pepper Adakiko (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Revocation of CommanderWaterford's permissions

    On 18 May I granted CommanderWaterford the autopatrolled permission after they requested it at WP:PERM/A. After granting I was emailed by Premeditated Chaos who expressed concerns about CW's honesty about what was and was not their work. They linked various articles that had been translated from the Catalan or Spanish wikis without attribution. For example, en:Eva García Sáenz de Urturi is very similar to ca:Eva García Saenz de Urturi, though CW's edit summary was "Create New Article for Women in Red". I brought this up on their talk page and instead of adding {{translated page}} to each individual talk page, they wanted to know who told me about the issues. Additionally, instead of reading the {{translated page}} documentation, CW just copied and pasted it onto a few pages without specifying where the work came from, seemingly carelessly (given the edit summaries).

    At this point in time I was willing to let it slide, have them fix up the tags and resume our daily lives, but they then created an article on Tracey Reynolds that of its six lines, two were unattributed, unquoted, and unsourced copyright violations from the University of Greenwich. I removed their autopatrolled flag and left them a note on their talk page. I also noticed that they had the new page reviewer permission, which would imply they understood the various content policies, especially those with legal ramifications. I emailed Rosguill to make sure I wasn't going to step on their toes by removing the role, they greenlighted it, so I made the revocation. Since then, a few users, some of which were pinged by CW, have expressed that this may have been heavy handed. I disagree, but I'd like to know what the community thinks. If the consensus is that I was wrong in removing either of these permissions I'll have no qualms in restoring them. Until then, I staunchly believe CommanderWaterford is unsuitable for either of these permissions. Anarchyte (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think immediately removing autopatrolled when there are any copyvio concerns is the right call. CommanderWaterford, while generally an asset to Wikipedia, would be an even greater asset if they could reduce the volume of their work and increase the quality. I don't know whether CW's error rate in new page patrolling is too high, but they do a lot of work in both anti-vandalism and new page patrol, which is generally good but there are still many mistakes. CW, could you be a bit less hasty and spend more time per edit? —Kusma (t·c) 08:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Confirming I noted some concerns about unattributed translations in many of CW's articles from this year. Because Anarchyte had only just granted the permission and I am not overly active at WP:PERM, I emailed Anarchyte to give them a heads up rather than taking action myself on-wiki. Following Anarchyte's warning, I checked to make sure the pages had been tagged, since CW had appeared to agree to that on their talk page; I then discovered that hardly any of them had been, and, as Anarchyte mentions above, those that were tagged were incomplete. (For what it's worth I initially thought the edit summaries were some kind of vagueblogging personal attack before I learned that there is a user called AngryHarpy, so that can be safely disregarded). I gave Anarchyte a heads up about CW failing to tag while continuing to edit, and Anarchyte revoked the permissions, leading to CW making some rather heated comments on their own talk page.
      Unfortunately, when I looked closer today there are other unattributed translations in CW's history, particularly his GAs, Margery Wolf (either from the es.wiki or Catalan Wiki) and AMC AMX III (from the de.wiki, which is a Featured Article there). It's one thing to forget to tag a translation, or to use a template wrong. Even a half-assed "translated from de:AMC AMX III" in the edit summary will do in a pinch - god knows that's a route I've taken. But to take an article to GA giving the impression that you have researched and written the content yourself when in fact it's an unattributed translation of someone else's work strikes me as incredibly deceptive. (Not to mention informing your GA reviewer that you expect the article to pass immediately regardless of their concerns: Special:Diff/1023954229. That's frankly bullying behavior and we shouldn't allow it.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore NPP perm. Oppose block. No comment on autopatrolled or the copyright issues. CommanderWaterford is a top NPP reviewer (he is top 10 numerically for the 7 day, 30 day, and 90 day categories) and a top AFC reviewer (he is #1 for AFC accepts/declines in the last 30 days, with 1146 drafts processed). This guy lives and breathes new page patrol. I strongly believe that his NPP qualifications should be evaluated separately of these copyright issues. Revoking one of our top NPP reviewer's qualifications for something that is arguably not NPP related (the close paraphrasing and failing to tag translation issues occurred on pages he created, not on pages he NPP reviewed) seems excessive to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      We do not give, or leave, rights to people solely because they are "top 10 reviewers". Someone at NPP who does not respect copyright in his own work is going to need to explain why we should allow him to evaluate it in others' work. Izno (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW (as a non admin), I agree that revocation of autopatrolled given copyright concerns is absolutely the right thing to do. Large swathes of Margery Wolf appear to be foundational copyvio, which I will now clean up... Regarding the NPP perm - regardless of whether the issues relate to work at NPP, the central issue is trust, and understanding of policy, which at the moment doesn't appear to be evident. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict × 2) I'm saddened that it's come to this, as CommanderWaterford is an enthusiastic editor who clearly wants to be on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, Anarchyte was completely correct to revoke these rights, and it should have happened much earlier.

    CommanderWaterford is a high-volume editor who, since the lifting of his indef by Girth Summit in January, has averaged 20,000 edits a month. It's difficult to express just how high this number is, and difficult to name comparisons, because xtools breaks for people with above 500,000 edits. Without using AWB, his monthly edit count is in the range expected for AWB power users. Oshwah, one of the most high-volume editors to not break the 500,000 mark and either the current or former most active Huggle user of all time, reached CommanderWaterford's average in only one month of his Wikipedia career. ComanderWaterford clearly considers his unusually high edit rate to be a sign of significant expertise and brushes off comments about serious unforced errors by referring to it, perhaps patronizingly. Other users, such as TonyBallioni, have been unconvinced that this is a reasonable justification. Indeed, CW's obsession with his edit count has been a part of this conversation -- CW insisted that Anarchyte, an admin and functionary, lacked the experience to revoke his rights due to his lower edit count.
    The edits CommanderWaterford makes demonstrate he either does not, or cannot, perform basic functions expected of Wikipedia editors such as assuming good faith, listening to advice, de-escalating disputes, apologising for mistakes, or double-checking his actions. When his edits are questioned, he refuses to admit the possibility of errors. For example, in late April, he began performing GAN reviews. Some of these reviews were brought up on WT:GAN as inappropriate quickfails. A wide variety of experienced GA writers and reviewers brought up that the reviews were based in serious misinterpretations of the GA criteria, which CommanderWaterford reacted to by denying wrongdoing and casting aspersions on the motives of other editors. This is not an isolated incident but rather an example of a longstanding pattern of escalating disputes while rejecting advice. In March, for instance, his reaction to El_C placing a DS alert about an area in which he had behaved inappropriately was so poor it resulted in the placement of a logged warning when El_C had clearly planned to make nothing of the sort coming in.
    In his interactions with other editors, CommanderWaterford is consistently snide, aggressive, and needlessly demeaning. He has in particular recently taken an apparent grudge against S Marshall at DRV where he accused Marshall of knowing nothing about the AfD process and demanded he follow rules that didn't actually exist. He is also rude and demanding to people in other capacities, such as demanding someone volunteering to review his GAN pass it immediately without further criticism.
    CommanderWaterford also holds a "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude towards editing with negative consequences for both himself and others. This is clear both in his general conduct as described above (the GAN situation, for instance, drew comparisons between his behaviour in GAN reviewing and that at AfC) and in the broader topic of what he interacts with; CommanderWaterford does not double-check his actions or look deeper at situations to see if he's missing something. I've seen this pop up on my own watchlist. I have Draft:Jimmy Keyrouz on my watchlist due to nominating a prior version of the article for speedy deletion; it was recreated by a disclosed paid editor making at least some attempt to work within those guidelines. The paid editor in question was informed he had added inappropriate POV content to the article, and accordingly removed it, making the common mistake amongst new editors of not using an edit summary. This was Huggle-reverted five minutes later by CommanderWaterford as 'unexplained content removal' with clearly no attempt to look at the edits (which were blatantly removing POV violations) or their context (that they were made by the article's primary contributor). I restored the edits when I saw it on my watchlist, but I can't imagine how it would feel to be told what you need to fix, fix it, and be reverted within minutes and sent a template warning for doing what you thought was the right thing. This is the behaviour that drives people off the site; while there's much less reason to shed tears about paid editors specifically, there is no reason to assume CommanderWaterford magically only makes poor reverts when the editors in question are paid. In fact, we know with certainty he doesn't, because this has repeatedly come up on his talk page. I doubt these are but a fraction of his shoot-first-ask-questions-later reverts, as they're only the ones that came up on his talk page, mostly those that happened to be made to experienced editors; one can only extrapolate to how many newbies have been mistreated. This is totally incompatible with holding those permissions.
    This attitude is not limited to reverts, but applies to all areas of the site in which CommanderWaterford works. He routinely fails to perform due diligence or assume good faith on behalf of his interlocutors. This can have particularly insensitive consequences. For instance, at WP:BLPN, he responded to someone announcing the death of a family member with an article by patronizingly telling them a Facebook link was unusuable as a reference, without following the link to see it was to an obituary on a scholarly website that another user added to the article as a source. The editor in question, Aloysius the Gaul, was clearly quite saddened and confused by CommanderWaterford's conduct.
    The shoot-first attitude also applies to deletion, and in particular to an idiosyncratic interpretation of deletion tagging. CommanderWaterford has made multiple G11s that clearly aren't and claimed A7s were "incomprehensibly" removed from articles that clearly contain a WP:CCS. I've offered, to no avail, to help him understand the A7 guidelines and where they do and don't apply. More broadly, offwiki conversation leaves me seriously concerned about CommanderWaterford's understanding of our deletion process and when CSD, PROD, and AfD are all indicated compared to one another. He seems to perceive it as an insult on him when a CSD or PROD tag is removed from an article, rather than a sign that while deletion might be indicated, it needs more eyes on it than either provide. He has a pattern of making "this was despeedied/deprodded for absolutely no reason" AfDs that are kept, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tigray Defence Forces, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reed Arvin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Häusser, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Greer (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenaverse, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Lichte (where he accuses me of WP:HOUND for...!voting on AfDs he made, in our very third interaction ever). This lack of understanding of deletion is totally inappropriate for an NPP, who need to understand deletion policy inside and out.
    CW's behaviour in these recent interactions about his user rights is particularly striking because it is exactly identical to the behaviour that got him indeffed. His block was exactly this -- threatening to take an admin to Arbcom for removing a privilege he used improperly. This is exactly what was described as "a 'please block me' approach to Wikipedia editing almost from the beginning". Indeed, his pattern of edits since January is functionally a violation of his unblock conditions, where Girth Summit made it clear the unblock was based in a commitment to stay away from Redwarn and similar high-speed editing tools that has obviously not been followed. CommanderWaterford has been informed in no uncertain terms that there are people who believe his continued pattern of behaviour justifies another block, and in no way has he responded or adjusted his actions. Vaticidalprophet 09:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For absolute clarity for people wanting to count bold words, yes, I absolutely support indef (and indeed would support a cban proposal). I don't think framing it as 'reinstating' the prior indef is quite accurate, considering it's been nearly half a year, but I think he's definitely abused the chance he was offered to become a productive member of the community. Vaticidalprophet 12:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment} 20,000 edits in a month? Wow. I average 5,000-6,000 doing almost exclusively maintenance work (see my repetitive WP:ESs), and think that pretty good going. I once topped 9,000; I wouldn't know how to get near 20,000. Narky Blert (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse AP/NPP revocation. I agree that CommanderWaterford does a lot of good work in NPP and AFC, and I appreciate that. However, a solid understanding of copyright is, in my view, absolutely related to AfC and NPP, given that copyright violations are one of the things reviewers should be looking for. The GA attribution concerns raised by PMC concern me beyond the copyright issue because I do agree that passing off someone else's work as your own is deceptive. --Blablubbs|talk 09:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reinstate indef block. Indef blocked less than a year ago for the same issues, unblocked 4 months ago, and clearly no improvement? A comment like this from today is completely unacceptable, and is ust one example (per Vaticidalprophet). Indef block, and unblock only with some very strict and clear conditions. Yes, they have done a lot of good work, but the list of problems is just too long, and the replies concerning. Fram (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm concerned that CommanderWaterford claims to have adopted three users (diff) and still advertises himself via userbox as an "experienced editor seeking to adopt new users". Setting aside the fact that he's obviously extremely in-experienced in many, many ways, I also do not believe that CommanderWaterford displays the necessary personal qualities for the mentor role.—S Marshall T/C 09:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responding to ping above - I haven't checked the articles in question. I'm saddened, but not really enormously surprised, to see this report. When I unblocked CW, I gave them some advice about improving their attitude towards other editors, and strongly suggested that they slow down with their edits, in the hopes that their obvious enthusiasm could be harnessed helpfully. It seems to me that they have slid back into some of the problematic attitudes that they exhibited prior to their last block: they put far too much store in their own edit count, believing themselves to be more knowledgeable and experienced than they are, and they react very badly to any suggestion that there is a problem with what they're doing. When they were blocked before, they were convinced it was imposed because Floq and TB had it in for them. See also the attitude on display in recent threads here with El C and here with PamD. Whenever someone points out problems with their editing, CW either assumes a failing either of competence or good faith on the other editors' behalf, or they brush off the suggestions with some crass boasts about their edit count. Now it's Anarchyte and PMC who they think have it in for them. I really wish CW would look at their own attitude here - that's what fundamentally needs to change. GirthSummit (blether) 11:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the only comment I will make on this witch hunt:
    Almost all of the previous Editors are at the same Discord Chat Channel.
    And if this - hopefully only "shouting minority" of which I had issues in the past - is "the community" then it is absolutely okay for me - an Editor with 85K Edits in less than half a year, 54 Articles created, mostly for W-I-R, thousands (!) of AfC Reviews, several dozens every day, 3 GAs and 2 current Nominations, to leave this project forever. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for others here, but I don't use Discord, I have had no issues with you in the past, and while your productivity may be an excuse for some of your errors, it is not an excuse for your attitude, your replies. It is your choice whether you are willing to change your approach, follow our policies, and listen to advice... But if not, then either a voluntary or forced leave from the project will indeed happen. Fram (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, both CommanderWaterford and Novem Linguae (the only person in the thread so far to oppose the revocation) are active on Discord, so it would be rather difficult for this revocation to be a unilateral conspiracy. Vaticidalprophet 11:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    wikt:don't let the door hit you on the way out - Cabayi (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    CommanderWaterford, this is not a witch hunt, and neither is this the PvP area of Wikipedia the MMORPG. Focus not on who opposes you, but what they say. If you are unable to acknowledge even the existence of the problem (which has nothing at all to do with you having achieved Demigod Level at editcount) then inviting you to leave will be the best way forward. People have been kindly pointing out mistakes you made, and you have been brushing them off or pointing to your edit count. We all make mistakes, but if you don't wish to accept yours and learn and improve, you're in the wrong place. —Kusma (t·c) 11:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse removal I have no opinion on whether to reinstate a block, but I can't support someone having NPP when the concerns about how they approach copyright are this great, specifically the copy/paste of a BLP bio without attribution and the combative attitude when the first issue was brought up (copying from other wikipedias without attribution, which isn't obvious and easily remedied). SportingFlyer T·C 11:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reinstate block I agree with Fram that the indefinite block should be reinstated. The user's attitude, as shown in the above diffs and in this very thread shows a complete absence of humility and is totally at odds with the requirements of a collaborative editing environment. Mackensen (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse removal of perms, oppose indef block I think CommanderWaterford should be given one last chance to be a productive editor without advanced permissions, but I would also suggest that they voluntarily cease adopting users.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support revocation / reinstate block CW muddies the discussion on their talk page, but WP:NPR explicitly states The user right can be revoked for [...] other misconduct, i.e. non-NPP-related edits. And considering that the problematic edits are not just questionable, but contravene one of our most basic, most important policies—one with legal implications—the revocation was a no-brainer. Vaticidal's comprehensive deconstruction is sufficiently convincing for me to support Fram's suggestion of reinstating the indefinate block: that would seem the most painless. (They are presumably still in breach of the WP:CLEANSTART policy also.)
      If there is no appetite among the community for reinstatement, then we should consider other options. A restriction, perhaps, on using semi/automated tools since a) these tools are clearly responsible for the editcountitis, and b) their unblocking on the grounds that CW would desist from using them (your commitment to stay away from [...] similar high-speed editing tools, to be exact). Incidentally, their unblock request was also premised on their (claimed) your openness to receiving constructive criticism should any issues re-emerge. I think the "openness" has been pretty clearly shown to be non-existant: instead, any criticism is met with a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach and WP:ASPERSIONS (editors' edit count, perceived experience, etc), and an overall WP:ICANTHEARYOU response. (Their absolutely fucking outrageous patronizing of PamD—one of the kindest and most generous editors I've ever encountered here—was only four months later.)
      Their response to this issue merely copperfastens the impression that CW thinks—ney knows—that they're better than others ("you will read very soon "Retired" on my UTP an a request at Arbcom.This is an absolutely unacceptable process [...] I am expecting within 24 hours re-instating my NPP permissions. If not I will definitely open a formal Arbcom review of this arbitrary, unbelievable process of a single sysop with not even having 1/3 of my edits being unsatisfied with my behaviour", and here just now, blame it on an off-wiki Discordant conspiracy.) ——Serial 11:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reinstate indef block & strip all permissions While trying to find my previous encounter with CW I also stumbled across PamD's​. Even the most cursory look uncovers encounters in which CW aggressively asserts the value of quantity over quality, the same pitfall which led to the indef block. CW unfortunately cannot be relied upon to show good judgement, and has not shown any accountability for their use of the permissions granted. Cabayi (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I offer no opinion on the permissions issue because I do not feel competent to make a call. I oppose the indefinite block on the simple basis that I do not believe that the behaviours exhibited are beyond redemption, despite some of them being unappetising. I do think the unappestising behaviours need to be solved, and can only suggest one last chance. I agree with Jackattack1597 that they should be asked no longer to adopt other uesers. I have tried on this and prior occasions on my talk page and on theirs to advise CW that immediate reactions to issues such as they are facing today is the least useful of all the courses of action they might take. I'm saddened that they have chosen a different route and thus ended up here, but believe it still to be a behaviour they can be guided away from. I can state clearly that they are very capable of collegial working, and that collegail working has been my usual experience with them. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse the removal of permissions and Reinstate the indefinite block. They were given their WP:ROPE. Their behavior since being unblocked has proved that unblocking them was the wrong decision. --Jayron32 12:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reinstate block. Per Vaticidalprophet and CommanderWaterford is very over. He is a very controversial editor who threatened to several editors. I'm one of them see my talk page for futhur information. His edit counts is amazing but policy is policy. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just noting here for reference that I've opened a Contributor Copyright Investigation request into CommanderWaterford given the clear history of copyright/unattributed inter-wiki copying issues. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Having mulled this over for some time, I support an indef block as well, in addition to my support of the right removals above. I don't believe that people shouldn't be allowed to make mistakes – I've made plenty and I will certainly continue to make more – and I wouldn't have supported an indefinite block on the grounds of the copyvios alone; what pushes me over the edge is CW's handling of this matter, which demonstrates both incivility and a refusal to reflect on their actions. Had this thread started as a result of CommanderWaterford asking Anarchyte to reconsider their decision, that would have been fine. Permission removals like this are obviously stressful, and appealing them is understandable. What is not acceptable is reacting to it in such a hostile manner and persistently refusing to listen. Anarchytes action was reasonable, explained; even if it had been overturned, CW's reaction, which included throwing around comments about edit count as if that conferred authority, and not-so-subtly accusing people of caballing and other improper conduct ([87][88]) reaction is not acceptable. Communication issues were what led to CW's last block, and this saga shows that they have not used the rope that was extended wisely. And for what it's worth, the last time the string "CommanderWaterford" can be found in the Discord archives is on the first of this month. --Blablubbs|talk 12:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No block although I am of the mind that he needs to step back, calm down, and work on the issues that have been pointed out to him. He has far too much on his plate, and that tends to make editors edgy, bold and aggressive because they are focused on moving forward - getting the work done - not being interrupted. They tend to forget that WP has no deadlines, and that we have other editors in the community who may disagree with some of the things he's doing; friendly collaboration is key to longevity on WP. Perhaps he felt unappreciated by Anarchyte which put him on the defensive, and if so, it was a bad reaction. I understand both sides, and I can't fault Anarchyte's actions as an administrator doing his job. Granted, there's no excuse for copyvio after being warned but I don't think CW was intentionally violating policy - he simply had too much on his plate and was in a hurry. We are in desperate need of good editors at NPP/AfC but not forceful ones who are unwilling to make allowances, slow down and follow PAGs or step back and reconsider their actions with a more focused introspective when it's brought to their attention. He's relatively new, and simply needs to learn WP etiquette, and how the community operates. I hope he accepts what happened as a valuable lesson that will help him improve his editing skills. Experience teaches us that when an editor fights back, it does not end well, although we do extend some leniency directly following an admin action, and the editor either learns to fit in, or moves on. I'm hoping the removal of his user rights will give him a chance to rethink his behavior, modify it and then if he has a mind to, he can reapply. He certainly does not deserve a block at this point in time. Atsme 💬 📧 12:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    His FB friends or fans always defending and talking like this "CommanderWaterford is a top NPP reviewer...blah blah" So what? Being a top NPP reviewer is very special on Wikipedia?. Taung Tan (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Taung Tan, this kind of comment is not helpful. Please don't deride other editors as fans or FB friends. Let their arguments, and yours, speak for themselves. GirthSummit (blether) 13:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove all permissions and indef block The lack of proper communication and lack of remorse show that the user is going to continue causing damage to the project and discourage good faith users. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • reinstate indef block i'm with Fram and everyone else on this one. Not only is this a legal problem (copyvios, lack of attribution) it was seemingly intentionally deceptive as pointed out earlier with the WIR creations. Enough is enough. YODADICAE👽 15:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And as a point, when CW was previously blocked, they were more or less given the opportunity upon unblock to fix their past indiscretions and yet this sits, without attribution to the dewiki article. Or this unattributed copy from eswiki YODADICAE👽 15:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And this unattributed machine translation from dewiki. YODADICAE👽 15:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm quite disappointed to see this end up at ANI. Assuming good faith, copyright is clearly a competence issue - and someone with significant competence issues should not be a new page patroller, regardless of how "productive" they are. As for an indefinite block, I'd support unless the user takes responsibility for their severe issues, apologizes, and accepts what they have done wrong. As it seems like they are unwilling or unable to do that, well... I'm not confident in their ability to improve. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support removal of permissions as holding them is incompatible with their shoot first, ask questions later style of editing. Support reimposing indef unless they drop the attitude they have shown in this thread thus far and make a cast-iron commitment to slow down.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose indef block — I hate being the one to more often than not play Devil's advocate, but in all sincerity let us ask ourselves this; what good does indef blocking CW serve the project? He is a productive editor and has shown his passion for the collaborative project time and time again. During his back and forth with Anarchyte I was going to e-mail him to tell him to shut up, acknowledge and take responsibility for his errors, promise to do better next time, apologize to Anarchyte and go about his business, because tbh Anarchyte is not one to be trifled with, but before I could send the mail to CW Anarchyte had already stripped him of both Autopatrol and NPR and things had already spiraled out of control. I believe he should be given the rope and not be ostracized. His attitude of recent has been a little off and I’m not sure why that is, but I’m going to have a discussion with him about that later on, but for now could we please not indef block him? Furthermore is it possible that he is a young editor? Some of his comments come off as childish in my opinion, and if he is indeed a minor then perhaps he is in need of mentoring and not banishing. I should also state that I do not use Discord and have zero conflict of interest with him. I believe he needs a good tutor, if I didn’t have Barkeep49 as a tutor I would never have been as productive as I am today. Celestina007 (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes you are being a devil's advocate :D and what I think is that we will benefit from the ban on this user as such ban will ensure that we won't tolerate copyright infringement and we won't give infinite chances to a user who is assuming bad faith and showing no willingness to improve. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that some editors are confusing quantity and quality here. There's nothing inherently good or bad in patrolling lots of new pages - it depends how well it is done. At the rate performed by CommanderWaterford it is impossible to do that job well, and the attitude displayed, not least in this discussion, that any criticism (or even advice) is a personal attack that must have been made for nefarious motives shows that this editor is incapable of learning from mistakes. I'm sorry to tell you this, CommanderWaterford, but we can, and I hope will, do without you. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse removal of permissions as clearly appropriate and necessary. The NPP permission removal was quite appropriate given CW's apparent inability to understand copyright and attribution policies, both of which are important in new page review; furthermore, a collegial attitude is important in that area and CW has clearly demonstrated a deficiency there. CW's attitude is arrogant and frankly baffling. A serious attitude adjustment is needed here, and until this happens I think an indef is unfortunately necessary. However I would like to emphasize to CW that "indefinite" does not mean "infinite", and with some serious reflection, taking on board of criticisms and concerns from your colleagues (yes, colleagues as in equals, regardless of edit count), and a genuine commitment to change your attitude and slow down, I hope we will welcome you back. Alternatively, you can continue to maintain that you are blameless here, and it is everyone else who is wrong, but I think that will be a loss for all parties involved. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly, considering we're here because he was good-faith unindeffed under the assumption he'd stick to a plan and agreement, I can't agree at all with "hopefully he'll come back someday" -- if an indef placed from this thread was unilaterally lifted, I don't think many of its participants would be happy. Vaticidalprophet 16:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "hopefully he'll come back someday" is more, I'm assuming, "hopefully he'll actually fix the issues that lead to the indef", not that he'll return to repeat them. I don't have any ill will towards him (though I could understand why some others might given that he's threatened to take them to ArbCom), my suggestion, and I think most others, of an indef isn't of personal dislike. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Vaticidalprophet: No, I also wouldn't expect an indef placed as a result of this thread to be lifted without community consultation. You'll note that I wrote "I hope we will welcome you back", and by that I mean I hope that, given a sincere appeal with specific commitments to change, the community is willing to give them a third chance. But third chances are, rightly, much harder to come by than second chances, and a very thoughtful appeal, likely after some time away from the project, would certainly be needed. I mostly wish to note that this is also not some kind of NOTHERE situation where I believe they were being intentionally disruptive to the project, or did not genuinely care about the project and its goals. This is an editor who has edited every single day this month, often for multiple hours a day, and many of their edits were constructive. I don't think this should be a "banish them from the project and throw away the key" situation, even though it is quite true that they have thrown the community's good faith back in our faces once already. I suspect this may well be a maturity issue, and they would not be the first gung-ho editor with somewhat misaligned goals to take some time away from the project to reflect, and to return to become a successful contributor. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support removal of both AP/NPR permissions, support reinstation of block Inability to apparently understand the basics of copyright, as well as they're shoot first, ask later attitude are both incompatibe with those permissions. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 16:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse advanced rights removal / Oppose block. The commander has appeared on my watchlists several times this past few months, always making good edits. Looking through their contribs, a good portion of their communications are helpful, friendly & well appreciated by the recipient. Not in the slightest convinced they even approach net negative. Granted, should try to improve in a few areas, before requesting back their extra permissions. 1) They should take more care in attributing their sources, in particular when translating from other Wikis. 2) They could benefit from slowing down a little 3) They should work on how they respond to criticism. Occasionally, folk who make unwarranted criticism might warrant a cyber-slap. But mostly when editors criticise, there is at least a grain of truth to it, and it's best seen as a learning opportunity that can help one improve. To give a specific example, the response to SMarshall's good & friendly advise linked to by VP was way OTT. Still, CW clearly has exceptional energy, and strong skills in some areas. We should want an editor like that to succeed here, and give them a few chances (& maybe escalating blocks) before a hard to get out of community indeff. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I commented upthread regarding permissions, but on reflection and having gone through a fair amount of CommanderWaterford's contributions for the CCI filing, I want to say that I support reinstating indef block. It is clear that CW cannot respond to advice or criticism in a collegial manner (e.g. lording it over others by saying "I have more edits than you", the bullying attitude at GAN), nor does he seem to have the self-reflective ability we'd expect of any Wikipedian (e.g. extremely f⁦ast page reviews with an unacceptably high error rate and an unwillingness to slow down). ƒirefly ( t · c ) 16:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I am not going into all comments here because first and foremost my only concern is that I want to apologize honestly for my inadequate response personally to Anarchyte and PMC as well and I mean it from the heart. I was kinda surprised and embarrassed by myself that I did not tagged the articles correctly for being translated, this should definitely not happen to an experienced editor, especially given autopatroll rights a couple of days before. I would have revoked the autopatroll rights perhaps as well although perhaps not that quick.

    So of course I am absolutely fine with removing autopatroll right but I am not fine with revoking NPP, of course. No one was able (and simply cannot) prove evidence at all that I am messing regularly copyvio issues while patrolling. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • No one was able (and simply cannot) prove evidence at all that I am messing regularly copyvio issues while patrolling. Unfortunately that's not true on the whole. There is a whole list at the CCI request of introduction of copyrighted content, or unattributed trans-wiki copying. This goes to show that you don't seem to have a good grasp of Wikipedia's copyright policy, a state which is incompatible with being a new page patroller. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    CommanderWaterford, I think you and I had a conversation along these lines once before, but I'll say it again: one of the problems with reviewing highly prolific editors' contribs is the sheer volume. I can't say whether there have been copyright issues with the pages that you've reviewed because there are so many of them: it would take many hours of work for me to check them all properly. That's why NPP is an advanced perm: it's only given to people who are trusted to check for themselves. It's come to light that there were issues with your own articles; how can people reviewing your demand that NPP be reinstated be confident that there are no similar issues amongst the reviews? How can you be confident yourself, since it appears that there were areas of the copyright policy that you were unfamiliar with? The prevailing wind above is to reinstate your previous block: it seems to me that your best chance of avoiding that is to change tack, accept that the permissions have been revoked, and commit to go much slower and respond better to criticism in future. GirthSummit (blether) 17:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit Thank you for your comment but as said before I will not accept a revoke of the NPP Permission. I went through a tough NPP School, I learned several days our NPP Policies and did thousands of NPP reviews and I am confident that Earwig will have a tremendous log where you can see how many times I checked (and tagged) it for Copyvios. From what or where exactly do you take evidence that "it appears that there were areas of the copyright policy that you were unfamiliar with" ? Regarding my own stubs, I forgot to insert the Translated Tags indeed, as said before and I feel really embarrassed not having done so (btw: the Policy says it has to be done, it does not say it has to be done at creating or the first edit but this just mentioned byside) . So to deduce that I don't have enough knowledge about copyright policies because I did not tag each and every of my translations is a bit far-fetched. Regarding a block we both know very well what this would mean. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The issues with the translation tags being added improperly are not major, in my opinion, and I could accept that you forgot to add the tags or did not realize they needed to be added for cross-wiki translations. But you are not addressing the list of direct copyright violations from sources described at CCI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @CommanderWaterford: Without risking repeating myself a thousand times, your newly created article on Tracey Reynolds had to be WP:RD1'd. If this doesn't demonstrate a core lack of understanding of our copyright policy, nothing does. Anarchyte (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GorillaWarfare @Girth Summit Did you check the Earwigs Copyvio Reports on those? Lets check:
    Margery Wolf was NPPed + had 2 CEs of CE Guild Members and a GA Review, all passed. "Maxence Melo Mubyazi" (one of my very first contribs, far before NPP Perm) does have 40% at Earwig and this mainly because of a direct quote in the last phrase. System Center Orchestrator: Earwig Copyvio reports "Violation unlikely". Lastly Olivia Safe, same result: "Violation unlikely".Tracey Renolds cannot say something, the diffs already had been deleted. It was a rather short stub and I copied one sentence from her uni website (if I remember correctly, this is not an excuse, I did create a lot of stubs the recent days).
    Our official copyright policy says "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material *despite appropriate warnings* may be blocked from editing" and "If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page." I had no warnings so far and I do not intentionally violate copyrights. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly I would be less concerned if this was an issue of someone regularly missing copyright issues in new pages they were reviewing. Repeatedly introducing ones of your own is a serious issue, and in my opinion it should disqualify someone from NPP until they have very solidly demonstrated an understanding of this site's policies, of which respect for copyright is one of the most important. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Well @GorillaWarfare, I already demonstrated it a thousand times so no need to repeat it. If you still think so, I have to accept this but that also would mean that you are free to disable my account immediately. Best, CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @CommanderWaterford: Is your argument here that because you have successfully reviewed a thousand new pages (or perhaps because you have made a thousand edits that didn't have copyright problems?), your own copyright issues do not demonstrate that you have issues with that policy? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually believe in the idea that someone can be a great reviewer of other people's content while struggling with their own. That it would be appropriate for them to hold NPR but not autopatrol. I was wondering if that was an argument I was going to make when I first read this ~7 hours ago. Unfortunately, I can't make that argument because of reasons that GorillaWarfare and GS make above and because the brusque way of dealing with people who challenge him is incompatible with NPR. I am opposed to an indef block at this point because in my experience when CW admits to a mistake - in this case the way he reacted to PMC and Anarchyte - he does change his behavior (ex: example - which also shows an issue with understanding copyright while doing NPP). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, but that just doesn't hold water. You say "when CW admits to a mistake" but the issue is that CW hardly ever does admit to a mistake even when it is blindingly obvious. Until an hour or two ago that editor was still pushing the opinion that this thread is all a conspiracy theory by enemies, rather than valid criticism. It was only when it became even more overwhelmingly obvious that there was danger of being blocked that that tune was changed. You appear to be suffering from the same confusion between quantity and quality that I identified above. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Palithanimala ref spamming

    Palithanimala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding lovidhu.com to various articles as a reference. It seems the website is a travel blog, therefore cannot be considered a WP:RS. Furthermore, the user is connected to the said website, therefore, it is sort of spamming. Once he added a WP:FRINGE theory and cited it from their website. The user is not responding well to previous messages. Kindly do the needful here, Regards.--Chanaka L (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    While it looks a lot like linkspamming, I haven't reached a conclusion about the references - they're not the usual sort of tourist board bloggy spam, and it's a part of the world that wouldn't have a lot of high-quality English references to work with. However, Palithanimala blanked this report and has been uncommunicative. I will leave them a note about that and look through their contributions. Acroterion (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on discussion on their talkpage, it's the editor's own website, and it seems to be ultimately sourced from a particular book, presumably written in Sinhala.I've advised them that they need to cite the book for content, and not launder it through their personal project. Acroterion (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply googled "1967 Sigiriya frescoes", and it yielded a number of reliable sources reporting the 1967 vandalism incident. Hope they add an English source. Thanks Acroterion for mediation. Cheers.--Chanaka L (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Their response to me isn't terribly encouraging, and their attitude toward you isn't any better. We'll see how they go. Acroterion (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not offended, I was once a clueless newbie. Just hope they come around and keep the promise they made to you.--Chanaka L (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    46.97.170.0/24

    Individual IPs:

    Range:

    User appears to be here for the sole purpose of bludgeoning, picking fights and pushing a particular POV.

    • "it is a well known fact that Hungary is, and to some degree always has been a hotbed of right wing populism and nationalist sentiments"[89]
    • "There is no "left" on wikipedia. But if right wingers want to win more edit wars, they should care more about objective facts."[90]
    • "look at the kind of people who make it their business to regugularly defend him. You will notice that all of them are either republican pundits, or alt-right/alt-lite influencers. "[91]
    • "This is what I meant when I said that Babylon Bee is no different from any other right wing disinfo site. Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Bounding into Comics, you name it, they're all the same."[92]
    • "Evidence? You mean aside from every single breadtuber that ever analyzed his ideologies in depth, and aside from the fact that all of Jordan Peterson's fans on youtube are members of or associated with the alt right? I souldn't need to prove what's common knowledge and easily verifyable."[93]
    • "I called Ben Shapiro a far right grifter, because that is what he is."[94]
    • "Also, no mention that her holocaust comments were interpreted as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany"[95]
    • "The point is that putting Peterson's words into the mouth of a skull faced nazi character makes them sound like a villain monologue. But Peterson apologists are too devoid of self awareness to realize that."[96]
    • "We're talking about a newspaper that FIRED a long time employee because he wasn't a trump bootlicker, and prohibited a reporter from covering the George Floyd protests on basis of skin color. I'd be very disappointed if I looked at Wikipedia's list of reliable sources and learned that it wasn't blacklisted like Breitbart, the Daily Wire or other right wing trumpist rags."[97] (He is talking about the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
    • "I only brought up Trump because like Peterson, he's a symptom of the same cancer that's destroying modern society. Yes, one had actual political power, and nearly destroyed the country. But people like Peterson are part of the reason there are people dumb enough to actually vote for trump. Their carreer's are uncomparable, but they represent the same toxic far right ideology."[98]
    • "The first paragraph of the section is nothing but right wing pundits flapping their mouths and spouting right wing punditry, and should be deleted entirely."[99]

    Also:

    • Deleting other user's talk page comments.[100] (The deleted comment was right-wing stupidity, but no worse than what 46.97.170.0/24 regularly posts.)
    • Removing sources because "they are agenda driven"[101]

    --Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Two things before I address the broader issue: Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control, so there's no point leaving a notification on one I'm no longer using - it's not likely I will be assigned that particular IP again. Second, I find the last two claims to be unfair. The talk page in question has had several similar comments removed by other users, on the grounds that they are off topic and have nothing to do with the subject. I apologize if I got the wrong impression that this is standard practice. Regarding the sources I removed from How_to_Be_an_Antiracist, other contributors CONFIRMED that I had the right idea. You can read it on the talk page.
    The vast majority of problem lines, quite honestly confuse me. I tried to avoid picking fights ever since last year's incidents. I'd be the first to admit fault if it turns out I wasn't always entirely successful in that regard, but many of my lines presented here don't seem to make sense. My comment on the Gina Carano talk page, regarding her holocaust comments expecially strikes me as out of place, because it's just a near word for word reference to content from the article itself. Some of the stronger opinions are no worse than what registered contributors, including some admins have said. I've read essays on wikipedia that use stronger language. The last ANI report was most certainly justified, seeing as I made baseless accusations of vandalism, and made some rather inappropriate comments. The only thing presented here that comes anywhere near that, when looket at in context, appears to be my comments on the Post-Gazette, which, looking back, definitely feels like something I should not have said. Maybe the trump comment too - that's was a pointless tangent, and the Ben Shapiro one is definitely a BLP violation. I'm going to redact these immediately. There's also that long off-topic argument on Jordan Peterson's talk page, that carried on far too long, but I was not the sole responsible party there, and it was not my intention to go off topic.
    That's three comments, that are inappropriate, maybe two where I used harsher language than I should have, and one that was probably put here by mistake, because it's a sentence fragment from the article - not my words. I'm not seeing the problem with the rest, however. I wasn't trying to pick fights. I received two warnings in april which I tried to discuss and clarify, but unfortunately I didn't get any responses. Still, it is true that wikipedia isn't a forum, and some of the discussions I involved myself in, did unfortunately go in that direction, which was not my intent. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) In my opinion, even if you are unfailingly polite towards other users, expressing your POV with phrases like "far right grifter", "trump bootlicker", "the same cancer that's destroying modern society" and "nearly destroyed the country" shows me that you are more interested in promoting your political ideology than in building an encyclopedia. I am actually sympathetic because I shore many of your opinions about certain recent politicians, but I mostly keep those opinions to myself because they are out of place here.
    The other problem I see is WP:BLUDGEONING. You don't just express your political opinions. You keep expressing your political opinions again and again even when it has become clear that the consensus is against you. What I am not seeing is any hint of compromise or cooperation.
    In my opinion, you should be topic banned from anything related to post-1992 politics of the United States, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The unregistered editor wrote: "Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control". No. That is under your control, in that you can register an account. It is only outside your control if you insist on not registering. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention one of the three users who supported your version felt the need to write that "Carano did not tweet anti-Semitism and transphobia" so no prizes for guessing what their agenda here is.[102]
    Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame. [103] redacted by another editor
    Link to open BLP/N thread
    I've only had extensive experience with this editor on the Gina Carano article, and in general it hasn't been very pleasant. They have no issue with making BLP violating comments on the talk page, or accusing editors of having an agenda. The two quotes above give, I think, a reasonable distillation of what discussions with them are like. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been watching this IP editor for a month or so (since they joined the Peterson article). I raised a concern with their talk page comments on their talk page here [[104]]. I share Guy Macon's concerns. I do think it is a positive sign that they have, after posting here, started removing some of their offending comments (example [[105]]). I also will say I don't see disruption of the article's themselves, just frustrating talk page behavior. My feeling is they are on a fence. If they recognize the issue and are willing to fix the problem I think any additional sanctions would be punitive. However, if they continue I would support some type of Tban. It might have to be an IP range block due to the lack of a named account. It also would be good if they created an account. The combination of aggressive comments and shifting IPs is a problem. Several of the talk pages have similar warnings. Springee (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with Springee above, I am willing to grant a very short length of WP:ROPE given that the user in question appears to be willing to redact their earlier offensive comments and commit to being better behaved moving forward. I'd have considered a ban had they not just done so, and would be willing to consider a formal ban of some sort if the shenanigans continue, however. --Jayron32 17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My initial tendency on this one was to also go for a warning given my assumption this was a new editor and WP is a different environment than most others. However, I'm not sure I agree anymore. Now that I've seen this behavior has gone on for a while and only seems to change when ANI gets involved. I would recommend reading the previous incident report and noting that IP was already on a short rope. I might also be a bit more supportive if the user was making constructive edits otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be the case either. This feels very much like a user who wants a forum and to POV push and thinks they can walk the line on behavior, backing off just shy of getting banned. I'd recommend a Tban as well, but can support a warning if we think that is more prudent. Just a note to future ANI administrators in case this comes up again. Squatch347 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Having just reviewed the earlier ANI, I'm going to suggest a short rope strategy that might not be technically possible. I would suggest range blocking the IP but offering the option to create an account that isn't blocked (is that possible?). If they mess up the account gets blocked and future IP edits can be blocked per EVADE. However, they still have ROPE so they can show that they were listening. Springee (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Guy Macon for the comprehensive report. I've also seen this IP tendentiously attack BLPs and other editors, so I wasn't surprised when someone reported them to WP:BLP/N. They eerily remind me of the sock who was harassing me when I first started editing. The IP has been warned more than enough times from plenty of experienced editors, so I don't think offering them anymore chances will do any good. I included some additional diffs in case anyone wants to take a peak. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional Diffs
    .
    • Calling a BLP a "white supremacist" in mainspace without a source [106]
    • "Volokh is a right wing hack. Of course he's going to read it in a way that makes his side and his people look good."[107]
    • " Gina is C-list actress with no talent, who got the role out of pitty by Favreau whom she put into a difficult situation, playing a replaceable supporting character"[108]
    • " The fact that Gina Carano's idiotic beliefs are shared by half of americans, is exactly why the rest of the world sees americans as stupid"[109]
    • " Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame." [110]
    • "Not only is Musk not a scientist, his dangerous lies about COVID-19 has proven that he's a science-denier."[111]
    • "None of these nameless idiots are notable enough to deserve even the slightest mention."[112]
    • "Sanger isn't anyone important. He's just some chud who had ties with wikipedias founders at one point, yet his fellow trumptards are using him like he was an authoritative source on all things wikipedia, when he's little more than a parasite, trying to use the works of pthers to become relevant.his opinion on wikipedia, couldn't matter any less."[113]
    • "Barr's opinion is of course bullshit"[114]
    • "Now, do you have anything meaningful to say or are you just going to talk out of your ass? Everybody with a brain knows what the Alternative Influencer Network means by Red Pill"[115]
    • " Read Mr Ernie's mosta on this talk page. His intention is very obviously to downplay the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh"[116]
    • "Unsigned comment by a trump supporter, not worthy oc consideration"[117]
    • "This is a fluff piece of a right wing pundit. The entire article is promotional in nature, and presents Sowell's views and ideologies without the slightest effort to present the objections of his critics. Considering how contentious his claims about politics, race and ethnicity are (there's even a mention of the race and IQ corellation, a well known white supremacist talking point), it's preposterous to pretend he never got any pushback from high profile academics. Nor is there any mention of his less popular views, such as his climate change denialism."[118]
    • " Mr Ernie has stated ON THIS VERY TALK PAGE, several paragraphs above that he does not believe the allegations against Kavanaugh and claims that they have been proven false. His edit attempted to trim down the section on the allegations, which would've diminished Wikipedia's coverage of them. It is obvious that he has an agenda here, and that his edit was in line with thay agenda"[119]
    • "This is wikipedia, not some alt right propaganda outlet. We don't cover irrelevant, politically motivated rumors. I don't understand how anyone could even consider this. On a sidenote, user: Mr Ernie has a history or making politically motivated edits to whitewash the GOP. Maybe some of the moderators should investigate him"[120]

    I oppose giving this IP more rope, based upon:

    1. The promises given in the previous ANI report and the rope they were given at that time.
    2. Their heartfelt belief that anything other than demonizing any person and any source that shows the slightest trace of conservatism is a NPOV violation that must be fought tooth and nail no matter what the consensus is. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to agree with Guy Macon here. They were given a chance in the previous AN/I thread and they've gone right back to the behaviour that got them reported in the first place. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    I am going to try and address as much of this as possible. I will say this first, I don't have any objections to a topic ban if it's decided that's necessary. The arguments for it do sound convincing. That being said, some of the claims here appear unfair to me.

    • To start off, many of the offending comments being brought up here, are from last year, and have already been a subject of an ANI. I have admitted to wrongdoing then, redacted many of the offending comments, and refrained from further activity on the site for the rest of the year. The comments I made then included actual potentially libellous statements on BLP subjects, personal attacks on other users, including unfair accusations of vandalism, and a couple of minor edits that could be considered vandalism. I do not think any of my recent comments are of that nature, or even close. I have tried to refrain from that behavior, keeping last year's ANI in mind. I don't see the point in bringing those up again.
    • Some of the specific accusations are simply wrong. I have been accused multiple times of calling Coleman Hughes an "alt right grifter", which I did not do. And due to unfortunate wording, my comment to clarify that I was referring to Ben Shapiro, not Hughes, was just used to incriminate me further. Dr Swag Lord brings that point up against me in the above BLP Noticeboard discussion (of which I received no notification for some reason), along with the claim that I also called Jordan Peterson a "nazi supervillain", which is also not true, as was pointed out to him. He began bringing up last years incidents after he and several others with BLP violation complaints against me were told that they don't have a strong case against me. He also seems to suspect me of being someone he had a previous conflict with - I don't know what the basis of this assumption is.
    • On the Jordan Peterson talk page, aside from the one comment I redacted, the only real objectionable thing I did is getting involved in a long thread derailment, when another user tried to debate the contents of two sources, arguing that they were using guilt by association. I understand that wikipedia is not a forum, and I shouldn't have gotten into that argument as far as I did, but I was not the sole responsible party.
    • The assessment that I find anything less than demonization of anyone even remotely associated with conservatism to be NPOV, and that I fight tooth and nail against consensus, strikes me as unfair. Especially seeing as my comments on the Thomas Sowell article seem to be the impetus - correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that my choice of words was far from neutral, but to say I was fighting tooth and nail against consensus, so the article would demonize the subject is an exxagerration. Thomas Sowell is a controversial figure, but his article doesn't reflect that at all. I have also argued that over a quarter of sources are primary and come from the subject himself. If I'm wrong about that, that's due to me misinterpreting WP:ABOUTSELF, not the desire to "demonize".
    • Similarly, on the Gina Carano talk page, where I've been the most active, and where the "tooth and nail" remark does apply, I wasn't fighting for the demonization of the subject but over the inclusion of information that was already in the existing sources. I objected to the use of a specific wording, which is only used by one source, and asked for the inclusion of relevant information that was in multiple sources, and was previously part of the article. The only comments I made about on the subject herself, had to do with her notability, and the relative notability of the social media controversy. My comments about users "pushing an agenda" was referring to contributors supporting the exclusion of information based on their own personal interpretation of primary sources, rather than what reliable sources say. This has been already covered in the BLP noticeboard discussion above. Morbidthoughts made correct observations about my comments without me having to defend myself, so I don't see why ScottishFinnishRaddish keep insisting that my only goal is to throw insults.
    • Regarding Squatch347's comments I think it's fair to point out that I have made constructive edits in the past. I know I used a lot of politically charged language, and sometimes go off into unnecessary tangents when giving my reasoning but a lot of the content I have removed have been justified. On How to Be and Antiracist, the consensus was ultimately on my side, and multiple attempts to restore my deletions have been reverted by registered users. I also nominated the article on Dan Fraga for deletion due to the self-promotional nature of it. I had a rather long and exhausting dispute on the Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials regarding the reliablility of some of the sources in the "academic commentary" section. I'm also involved in the discussion on the talk page of the upcoming The Little Mermaid film, regarding an alleged casting controversy, which I don't believe is notable enough to warrant mentioning. I also removed a guilt by association claim from Ibram X. Kendi and warned of incoming vandalism on that article and on Heidi Heitkamp. I know this is overshadowed by my annoying habit of getting into unnecessarily long arguments and using language that is oftentimes unwarranted, I just felt the need to point out that I did make constructive edits.

    Now, this is mostly my response to the nature of the claims made against me, not really to the core issue (i.e. frustrating talk page behavior), which I don't dispute. Like I said, if a topic ban is found to be appropriate, I'm not going to object to it. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not seeing where I've said your only goal is to throw insults. Do you have a diff or two of that? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this? They're not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support them. It's just complaints and insults about a BLP. from the BLPN discussion. It's possible I'm misunderstanding. Notice that the words "racist" and "bootlicker" are in quotation marks. Those are not my words, those are from comments made about the subject as reported by the sources. My argument was that she was being criticised rather than bullied. I was trying to argue for the same wording I brought up again recently but I ended up dropping it because not enough sources justify it. In the case of many other comments I made about Gina Carano personally, I was arguing about how much coverage the controversy should receive in proportion to the rest of the article. I do admit some of it did sound insulting, and not at all neutral, but Morbidthoughts managed to get my intentions without me having to say a single word. Anyway, I'll probably be out for the weekend. I'll see what the decision is when I get back. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs, as insane and nonsensical as they are, to be of any relevance, outside the usual far right echochambers.[121] was the diff I linked, which I was commenting on. You yourself said that the sources didn't touch on it and that she was not noteworthy for her political beliefs, then called her beliefs insane. I would say that that specific diff that I was describing was not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support the inclusion and that you were complaining about and insulting a BLP. It also wasn't a comment that your only goal was to throw insults, and to say so is disingenuous as there was clearly a diff attached. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I missed that. I can see why people would misunderstand that comment, but that wasn't referring to the controversy. It was referring specifically to her ties to Comicsgate, which indeed isn't covered by reliable sources. In the first couple of months when this was fresh news, I was expecting some kind of expose from the media, but it never happened. Point is, I was talking about an issue not directly related to the controversy as it was covered by reliable sources. So I wasn't admitting that the things I was arguing for weren't covered by reliable sources, I was talking about something else that I was initially hoping for eventually being included not being covered by reliable sources, if that makes sense. I know it's not obvious, and my wording certainly didn't help. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the problem, 46.97, is the use of rhetoric such as "as insane and nonsensical as they are" and "far right echo chamber". Your statement without those portions, The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs to be of any relevance. would have been a sufficient comment on the situation; the pejorative and disdainful rhetoric is actually distracting from what was otherwise a cogent and good point, and many people (including those of us who, in a less formal setting than Wikipedia like at a bar enjoying a few beverages together, would likely agree with your analysis) find such asides to be rude and distracting. Regardless of our opinions on the politics of others (such as other users, or the people of subjects we are writing about on Wikipedia and discussing), we're still expected to maintain a level of decorum and grant those people (and those around us) a certain level of dignity. Comments like "insane and nonsensical" have no place in such discussions at Wikipedia, and people tire of them when you keep using rhetoric like that. THAT is the crux of the problem. --Jayron32 13:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A relevant comment[122] from User:Nil Einne from the last time ANI was ashed to deal with this:

    "Needing to be brought to ANI before you recognise your fault is often not a good sign. Of course it does depend on what attempts were made to discuss this with first so I checked out your talk page and found [123] where you already agreed you got carried away. Which would be great if you hadn't caused major issues since then. But the unsupported wikipedia vandal claim is after that acknowledgement [124] and as Pudeo said you got challenged yet doubled down once [125]. The best solution by far would be if this doesn't happen again. If you keep finding yourself getting carried away or irrational, you need to find some way to deal with it that doesn't involve problem edits and then fixing them when people complain enough. Either take a break before posting, or stop editing in the subject areas where you're finding it difficult to control yourself."

    I don't think we can trust any further promises from 46.97.170.0/24 to stop the objectionable behavior and I do not believe that at this time 46.97.170.0/24 has the ability to contribute productively in the area of post-1992 politics of the United States. I say we should impose a topic ban and invite them to edit constructively in other areas with the usual offer to appeal the topic ban after six month of showing good behavior in other areas. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy Macon, I tend to agree with you, especially after seeing the attempts already made to address the issue with them and their responses above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One final thought (written for the average editor: admins know all of this already); we traditionally only block IPs for shortish periods because the ISP could assign the IP to someone else tomorrow. Blocks from editing certain pages can be longer; the odds of that second person using the same IP not only editing Wikipedia but editing the same page are very small. But in this case I am thinking that no actual block is needed. Just tell 46.97.170.0/24 that they are topic banned from post-1992 politics of the United States broadly construed, give them a clear explanation of what Wikipedia:Broadly construed means, and I think they will obey the restriction. This will also give them a good argument when and if they later request that the topic ban be lifted: "I spent X months without a topic ban violation". The ultimate goal is not to stop people from editing. The ultimate goal is to convert them to productive and valuable editors. Back in 2006 I was an extremely disruptive IP editor, but when a veteran editor calmly explained to me how Wikipedia is different from your average social media website, I learned how to be a good editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest including a BLP tban just in case. I also think if they agree to create an account we should give them a very small amount of rope. I would hope that Jayron32 (talk · contribs)'s later post was sufficient to illustrate the sort of talk page comments that are not helpful. Springee (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Have they ever caused any disruption on BLP pages or talk pages not related to post-1992 politics of the United States? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Most disruption has been focused on WP:AMPOL related BLP pages. But they also caused disruption on BLPs like Mark Waid [126], Joe Rogan[127], Elon Musk[128], Larry Sanger[129], and Jacob Gardner[130]. Joe Rogan may fall under AP2, but I don't think the other ones do. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a strong case. That Mark Waid edit, for example, was a serious BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that they have caught the WP:ANIFLU. Note to self: if you ever get into trouble at ANI just stop editing. It doesn't always work, but it often leads to the report being archived or closed with a "no recent activity" comment. Further note to self: Do not immediately restart the behavior. People notice that sort of thing. Either start misbehaving on a new page or wait a couple of months before starting up again on the same page.   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Call for close ( 46.97.170.0/24 )

    It is unlikely that further discussion will change the result of this discussion. May we have an uninvolved administrator evaluate the consensus, write up a summary, and close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we entertained the IP editor long enough. If someone calls a leading First Amendment scholar "a right wing hack" and so on, the editor is either trolling or incompetent to edit BLPs. Or at least the area of American Politics. Ban them and let them appeal if they learn to adhere to core policies and guidelines. Politrukki (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (...Sound of Crickets...) ---Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that there's little energy to close this because there's little in the way of any actionable proposals. Other than a few large walls of text between the primary complainant (yourself) and the defense made by 46.97... there isn't much in the way of a firm way forward. Some people have proposed a few half-hearted hints at sanction ideas, but it is difficult for an admin to enact any sanctions based on such vagaries and any lack of clear consensus among the uninvolved. If you want this resolved in some sort of active sanction, you're going to need to call the question and propose a concise, concrete way forward. --Jayron32 15:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My concrete proposal: A community-imposed topic ban from anything related to post-1992 politics of the United States, broadly construed, with the usual invitation to edit constructively in other areas with the usual offer of allowing an appeal the topic ban after six month of showing good behavior in other areas. I recommend no block or partial block at this time; let's see if they abide by the TB voluntarily.
    Dr.Swag Lord thinks the TB should be extended to all BLPs. I say we wait on that and see if there is a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Guy Macon's proposal (see my initial post for details). This would remove the topics that have cause the most problems for the IP and still all them to edit Wiki in other areas and, perhaps, pick up the norms. Squatch347 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated Disruptive Editing (Original Research)

    2409:4043:2D1F:FBBF:BAFA:74B7:C259:E08B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly making changes to airport related articles, even after letting them know that they need to link or cite sources. -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 15:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The Blocking of Sychonic

    No administrative action requested or required. OP was blocked for edit warring because they were edit warring; the rest is inappropriate WP:NOTFORUMing. GirthSummit (blether) 16:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    To those who may discern: This comment is in regard to my (as in the title "Sychonic") being blocked for questionable reasons, and since the topic is no longer on the list, I am adding this as an addendum to that incident topic, so as to communicate my thoughts on what I consider to be an unfair, but more importantly an unwise misapplication of the guidelines.

    Now that my cyber-exile has ended, I am here to explain my intention to apologize, to offer up contrition for the actions I have taken. The apology is not directed to anyone on this board of course, but rather to those I challenged in the past in defense of Wikipedia. Situations have arisen over the years related to the value of Wiki, often enough such that it was a consistent event. A question of fact would arise and, as is common, I looked up the answer. I would begin by saying: “Well, the Wiki page on this says …”, upon which I would be interrupted with a snort, or a guffaw, or some other form of derision that was accompanied by statements like “don’t give me Wiki, that’s amateur junk, you can’t trust anything on it.” These objectors ranged the gamut, from very progressive to staunch conservative, from highly educated to the never went to college, from folks my age to zoomers.

    My response had been consistently the same: “Oh give them a break, they’re doing the best they can,” and “you know, you can’t please everybody, it’s a tough job,” and “they don’t get paid for it, sometimes they get bad editors, but it’s not their fault, they can’t monitor every single page.”

    Well, those days are now at an end. My apologies must go out to the many with whom I disagreed, since it turns out they were right; the problem is not simply one of a difficult task and errors or bias arising from the errant editor on a mission to change the world using whatever means at his disposal. This experience has indeed educated me on the way things really do work here.

    The entire “incident” occurred due to the audit in Arizona, which in turn relates to how people, in general, view the results of the 2020 presidential election in the United States. I think it ought to be described in neutral terms, and that was called a “fringe” position, implying of course that anyone who questions the fairness of the election results is on the “fringe”. This is only the case if one works in Media environs and the Democrats who actually believe their own talking points. It is reported that at 70% of Republicans believe fraud was involved, 147 Members of Congress voted against certifying the results, and they represent around 100 million Americans. Whatever the merits of the case, and the issue is complex, this in itself demonstrates it is not a “fringe” position. It is only that if you, like many in the American Media, have contempt for the American people. I do not believe that should be the official stance of a respectable publication like Wikipedia. Again, objective neutrality is, and ought to be, the guiding star of the scholar.

    My edit was not a series of “reversions” – it was a series of restorations of an edit that I made that had itself been reverted. That seemed an important distinction since I was aware of the “three reversion rule” and wondered why my edits kept being reverted, over and over again. I monitored the talk page, and saw that it was empty upon my first edit, and thought no one had really seen how slightly biased the language was on it. I made a minor correction, I thought it innocuous. It was met with a reversion, accompanied with a bit of ridicule, if I recall. I tried another edit with somewhat more substantive material, again careful to preserve neutrality, and very sensitive to the concept of allowing the reader to determine for himself what the proper conclusion should be.

    This edit was again reverted, though this time with a seriously biased replacement text, new material that contained a good deal of tendentious language, all of it intended to direct the reader to the correct conclusion, that being the one the author desired. It used the term “right wing conspiracist” and “big lie” as if these are terms that should be thrown around casually in Wiki’s voice. I had always assumed they would not, that this was too low a rung to which one would descend. I’m not aware of any official institution by which a person can gain a degree in conspiracies, and thus be officially dubbed a “conspiracist” – it’s a rather foolish term.

    I described my case on the talk page, and set forth my reasons. My next attempt at posting to the “talk” page was blocked, apparently when an inside editor seeks to have someone erased from WikiWorld, it happens fast. I actually had other responsibilities and it lagged a day. It would not have mattered since it reiterated my basic belief in the necessity of keeping articles free of bias and opinion. This notion was met with responses of some virulence, essentially saying that some facts don’t need to be presented as simple facts, but rather need to be characterized in the proper way. I read this to mean that sometimes opinion takes precedence over neutrality.

    That is a decidedly irrationalist point of view and goes against everything a scholarly work should be. Now I know that “scholarship” is not what it once was, and over the past few decades once respected educational institutions have become politicized, but I had retained hope that Wikipedia was above, beyond that, and endeavored to claim that each of its articles was an attempt at a small-scale piece of traditional apolitical, objective scholarship.

    That was clearly an error on my part. I attempted to modify the article to reflect neutrality to a small section of a minor article about someone about whom I’d never heard. That small innocuous factual edit was replaced by one filled with grotesque politicization and which preferred by the powers that be. Further, my own attempts to protect objectivity and neutrality have been dubbed “disruptive” by those administering the site. This indicates that things may be beyond repair. When talking point rhetoric is preferred over objective description, then Wikipedia will continue to deteriorate and instead of being an alternate version of the Encyclopedia Britannica it will be an online USA Today, which always seems to be around but is only read for horoscopes, gossip, and football (the real kind).

    My editing is hardly of much importance, normally involving typos and grammar, sometimes I try to make an article, possibly written by someone using English as a second language, more comprehensible. My absence in editing will not be missed. What is surprising, and disappointing, is that those people whose lives appear to revolve around Wikipedia are themselves trivializing their own product. The individual who kept reverting my edits apparently has over 150,000 edits to his name. After doing some quick math, that means were he to have begun immediately after Wikipedia started up until this year, that would constitute around 20 edits a day, every day, rain or shine. My immediate reaction to that was “this guy needs to get a real life, like an ant farm or ballroom dancing or cataloguing the different sub-genres of hip hop and metal”, you know, something a bit more productive.

    Then I paused, and said: if you do what you love, then just because I think it is a complete waste of the brief time we have on this Earth is irrelevant. What is mystifying, though, is that those who live to edit articles on Wikipedia, and who have embraced this position that Wikipedia must reflect a certain bias, a political slant, are destroying their own beloved work, or at least its reputation. Wikipedia’s brand will continue to degrade if this is an attitude that remains pervasive.

    It is the self-immolation that is dispiriting. The arrogance and condescension, the weakness of spirit and the animus against those who see the world differently; all those things can be understood and forgiven as common human frailties, but the self-destructiveness of it persists as a mystery. Sych (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sychonic:: Sorry, what exactly do you need help with? --Jayron32 15:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sychonic: - It is reported that at 70% of Republicans believe fraud was involved - facts don't care about beliefs. Right now, the facts don't show any widespread fraud. It is a fringe position to assert that there is widespread fraud, regardless of how many Republicans believe it. starship.paint (exalt) 16:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WkpdEditor2

    Many of this users edit have something to do with altering/removing information to do with the number of ethnicities of a place (often in favour of Pashtun). This is clearly Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Here are some examples: [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136]

    After I warned him, this was his response;

    Ethnic make up of some provinces is completely worong I will contineu my struggle for improving and to become weki pedia more relible

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1024372680"