Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. 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

Combative and NOTHERE editor

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

---

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

The above was recently partially blocked by BD2412 for edit warring on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Since that happened, they have only been combative towards other users who attempted to warn them of this (including complaining/borderline harassing to admins, including BD and 331dot, who declined their appeal) and their attitude has been overall dismissive of all advice and warnings, describing them as "irrelevant", "meaningless", "BS", so on so forth. They're clearly not interested in collaborating, much less in actually building an encyclopedia (as opposed to merely shouting from the top of their soapbox), as obvious from their disinterest in actually being even remotely polite and civil, and I reckon there's not much reason to expect a radical improvement in a few day's time. Somebody uninvolved and with a spare mop would be welcome here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with everything RandomCanadian has said above. BrandonTRA's entire purpose here appears to be the insertion of poorly supported content into a single rather sensitive article. Their response to opposition to the addition of this material has been denigration of the multiple editors pointing out its flaws, improper templating of user talk pages with warnings, ([1], [2]), and otherwise making unhelpful user talk page posts ([3]). I gave them a minimal block under the circumstances – limited to one article, for one week – but they seem inclined to learn nothing from it. I've seen enough to expect that they never will. BD2412 T 21:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this the same editor as BrandonTR? The tone is certainly the same. BrandonTR has been a belligerent and unhelpful SPA on JFK assassination articles for over a decade. Here's an ANI complaint I made about him in 2013: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive804#Long_term_incivility_from_User:BrandonTR. Gamaliel (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Certainly seems like it could be a sock situation. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I consider myself uninvolved with a spare mop, and already issued a warning to leave 331 alone yesterday, and another warning today, before this report. They have not mentioned 331 since then, just some venting and bluster on their talk page. I'm assuming they got the message. The only edit they've made since then outside their talk page is this. A 7/10 on the obnoxiousness meter, but yours might be calibrated differently, particularly if there's a long history of unprovoked stuff like that. I've got their talk page watchlisted and was planning to block indef if they kept it up, but thought I'd give a final warning a chance. If another admin wants to short-circuit that approach, don't feel like you need to get my OK. In particular, I was unaware of the existence of BrandonTR; if they've been doing this a long time, with previous warnings not on the new account's talk page, then I'm much less inclined to wait to see if the behavior changes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• As an erstwhile target of this user's harassment, I would like to say that their editing on the JFK article is combative at best, harassing at worst. I would describe their attitude as "flippant" and "dismissive of the perspectives of others as always in bad faith."
  Here are some choice diffs: [4] ([5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
  If the original BrandonTR account is the same person, then this is a decade-long pattern that has not improved in the slightest. And in my opinion merits a WP:NOTHERE indef. If these are not the same person, then I think a TBAN would probably be more appropriate. Just my 2 cents. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  If these are not the same person, then the new editor has chosen a username almost identical to that of the old editor, in order to edit the same article in the same style, which is problematic conduct in and of itself. BD2412 T 03:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes I would personally call it astronomically unlikely. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• In my books, anyone oblivious enough to attack multiple editors and admins while he's under a block is someone who can't be trusted to make constructive and competent edits. Ravenswing 17:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• They are blatantly the same person. Quacking loudly. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Just posting here to say the editor has simply stopped editing the offending articles and removed all the comments pointed out here, but has not responded to this thread or described any intention to change their pattern of behavior. I am doubtful that the behavior would not simply recur in some time, when we have all forgotten about it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Propose indef block

I am proposing an indefinite block per WP:NOTTHERE. ––FormalDude ^talk 05:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Support as this is a WP:SPA who is interested most of all in pushing their POV. And they do so in such a way that makes collaborative editing all but impossible. They are very much WP:NOTHERE. They've thumbed their nose at this thread, saying "That's nice" when notified [13]. I cannot think of a clearer case of NOTHERE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Support:  Looks like a duck to me. Rest assured, I read the whole thread. /gen Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 13:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment I'm ambivalent about a block vs. a final warning right now, and won't vote, but 2 clarifications: (1) after this thread started, they removed their most recent snark in several places, which I suppose is a step in the right direction, and (2) we shouldn't be talking "duck test" or anything sockpuppetry-related as a reason to block; the accounts didn't overlap, and the naming scheme doesn't indicate an intent to deceive. This is the kind of thing people do when they lose their passwords. I agree their long term behavior absolutely needs to change immediately and substantially, if it isn't already too late. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the "duck test" is relevant here not in terms of sockpuppetry accusations, but in this being a much more seasoned editor than their account history would indicate, and therefore someone who should know better than to engage in the conduct complained of. BD2412 T 21:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair, reasonable point. If that's what's intended, I've no objection to considering that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Support as well. Ravenswing 21:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support For a decade of tendentious disruptive editing on the same topic, should've been blocked a long time ago. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support, per all above. BD2412 T 22:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Obviously not here to be constructive. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: In the 10+ years that this user has been around (I'm counting the history of BrandonTR and BrandonTRA as the same person), they have only been blocked once, for 48 hours. I don't think we should jump straight to an indef block. This seems premature to me. -- Mike 🗩 15:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  I would tell you that blocks are usually not meant to be punitive, they are meant to be preventative of disruptive behavior. If we can reasonably determine that this editor will be disruptive again, and has very little interest in being constructive, then the block is probably justified. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Time to escort the editor off the property. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Still having issues with User:Mztourist

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

I have brought up this issue multiple times before and it hasn't been settled and continues to be a problem. One user, Mztourist has been intentionally targeting me as well as being constantly uncivil. One failed AFD attempt after another, and now I have been the victim of tag bombing. Could understand an article here or there, he literally tagged 20 articles inside of 10-15 minutes. Mztourist's goal is to be disruptive, he has made it is personal goal to delete as many articles I have created as possible. The last AFD he even deleted citations and then claimed it should be deleted because of the lack of citations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley C. Norton. Because of past issues I now refrain from editing any article he is involved with or AFD any article he has created to avoid contact, only to have him continually target me. I have attempted to have a no contact agreement in the past, something I still support to remedy the problem. Jamesallain85 (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You've provided one link to an AfD from 2 months ago, which did not involve any obvious impropriety. If you want anyone to take this complaint seriously, you should provide evidence of inappropriate behavior, not just unsupported attempts at mind-reading. See Wikipedia:Simplest_diff_guide for explanation if you don't know how to produce diffs. --JBL (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Here is a diff that I think is worthy of noting. – ².O.^Boxing 20:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm especially curious about this statement ("he literally tagged 20 articles inside of 10-15 minutes") and if the OP could provide diffs for this because I don't see that looking at Mztourist's contributions. We haven't always agreed but I don't think it's right to infer someone's goal as being disruptive without providing proof of that. How do you know what his personal goal is? I look back at the your contribs going back to September and I see possibly three articles brought up before AfD and two out of the three were a "keep" or "no consensus" result. Every other AfD you have participated in was started by someone else. I'm not doubting how a person feels and, based solely on what I read above, the OP clearly feels like Mztourist is targeting them but the community can't act on a feeling, however sympathetic we may be. JBL is right and we have to be fair to Mztourist too, thus the need for diffs. --ARoseWolf 21:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think if the article was deleted or not is the issue. It is the intention, Timothy J. Edens was nominated twice by Mztourist after it had already been nominated before. Then he deleted references to attempt to get Stanley Norton deleted. Then when the current AFD McGregor started to look like it wasn't going to be deleted, he tagged 20 articles saying "This page should be expanded with reliable sources or deleted." I wasn't informed on my page of any of those tags. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given the personal attacks leveled by Jamesallain85 in that AfD, I'd say WP:BOOMERANG block is in order. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The response I just wrote was deleted, so I have to start again. Look at his edits starting December 6th, every tagged article was created by me. As for my comment, it was a serious question, did you read the conversation to that point? I am accused of not citing an article enough, I improve the article and am accused of ref-bombing. In the past I AFDd and article of his which literally had no citations and was accused of revenge AFDing. Am I just supposed to take this lying down, because it doesn't matter what I do I am wrong. If I improve an article its wrong, if I don't it's wrong. If I point out an article needs improvement its wrong. My wife makes an edit with the same IP, I get blocked. I get targeted by a user, and I get blocked. Mztourist is not being civil, I have actually stopped editing any article he is involved with and will not AFD any of his articles because I am trying to avoid him, but he continues to harass me.Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

For a list of the AFDs I am referring to, they are all listed on my talk page. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps explain Special:Diff/1059147105 and Special:Diff/1059146759 or is there policy the rest of us are unaware of that allows you to remove others Talk Page comments because you don't like them?? Slywriter (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I started to mark them as vandalism, then I just came here to bring up the issue. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, if I went right now and tagged every page that needed improvement that Mztourist has, that would be OK. I feel like there is some bias here against me. I have tried to take care of the issue I am having in the past, again it was ignored. His demeanor is unprofessional and results in hostility. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

If you feel any article needs improvement then you can tag it no matter who originated it. We don't own articles here. Anything any of us has created or offered as time to the encyclopedia, while appreciated as it should be, is owned by the encyclopedia and controlled by consensus within the community. Please don't insinuate bias against you. I'm sorry you feel that way and I completely understand and validate the fact you do genuinely feel that way but accusing others here of bias isn't going to go favorably. You said 20 articles in 10-15 minutes. I only see 16 total articles they contributed anything to for the entire day of December 6th. I didn't check whom created all 16 articles but they aren't yours even if you created them and contributed heavily to them any more than they are owned by any other editor here. It doesn't warrant the aspersions I see in some of the diffs. The one on autism was highly inappropriate. I have a nephew with severe autism and it's nothing to speak of lightly. --ARoseWolf 21:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support boomerang of any kind. Another combative AFD participant. "Are you autistic? ... You are living in your own little world" [14] is beyond the pale. Let's remove editors who act this way from AfD (if not the website). Levivich 21:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Anyone that read the entire conversation would notice this is not a new issue. I have attempted in every way to distance myself from Mztourist, he is the one that continues to initiate interactions and make accusations. It's been more than a year, what do I have to do. That comment was made after I noticed the massive list of articles he tagged. I apologize, it was made in the heat of the moment over a long and ongoing issue. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Every time I have tagged or AFDd an article I have been accused of revenge, in every instance. I realize I do not own any articles, what I have issue with in one individual who over the course of a year has systematically targeted articles I created. It has been ongoing since August of 2020. I am constantly accused of having poor references because they are from books or from archives instead of online content that he can scrutinize. If I AFD an article I am accused of revenge. If I improve an article I am accused of ref-bombing. If I don't improve an article I am accused of writing poor articles. Every action I take is reflected as negative. I feel like I am constantly been bullied, and it isn't that other editors haven't noticed, but the issues continue. This has been an ongoing issue for more than a year, I have attempted to arbitrate it several times with no success. I don't care if a hundred other editors AFD all of my articles, I just don't want to be harassed every time I logon to wikipedia by the same person with the same negativity trying to destroy my contributions. I am sorry if my comment wasn't appropriate, but I am at a breaking point. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support boomerang as per Levivich, with edits like this they can go find another past time. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I would voluntarily take a year ban if it meant when I came back I wouldn't be harassed by Mztourist. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that not a single person as acknowledged the escalation that led up to this. No one is looking at the issue or how it came to be.Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Unless you're going to provide diffs to back up your claims, I would suggest you stop. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't even know how to provide diffs, I have provided the discussions. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have done a singularly crap job of presenting a case against Mztourist, and meanwhile your own behavior has been repeatedly and obviously problematic. It is not at all surprising that someone who behaves in straightforwardly unacceptable ways (deleting appropriate-looking talk-page comments, writing "are you autistic?", making obvious revenge deletion nominations) and alleging wrongdoing without providing any evidence at all is not getting a friendly reception. (Personally I think it is conceivable that there is merit to your complaint -- but I'm not going to waste my time building a case for you, particularly when your behavior is much more obviously problematic.)

I don't even know how to provide diffs I provided a link with an explanation in the very first response to you in this thread! --JBL (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Here I am being accused of revenge for AFDing an article with a singe reference [15] Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Your AfD nominations are obviously revenge nominations: you have only ever nominated articles to AfD that were created by Mztourist, and you have only ever done it immediately following a moment when they nominated an article you created for deletion. --JBL (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Here he is bragging that he got an article deleted despite it passing all six requirements for the defunct WP:Soldier, [16] Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That is a totally inaccurate summary of their comment. You are digging a deeper hole for yourself. --JBL (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Er, no he isn't. He's saying that an article can (and should) be deleted even if it meets one of the six requirements, if it doesn't meet WP:GNG. And he's correct. In fact GNG trumps all of the requirements, technically. Claiming they're saying something they're clearly not isn't helping you at all here. Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Here another editor essentially states Mztourist is could be revenge AFDing me because of an ongoing dispute from June of 2021 [17] Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Not really. They say there might be a dispute. Please stop doing this. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Here is another editor acknowledging that Mztourist holds a hostile position to citations that he can not personally view online [18] Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Interestingly enough, back in June, Mztourist filed an ANI against Jamesallain85 with much the same complaints and shrill language -- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070#Mztourist's_concerns_about_User:Jamesallain85 -- and some likewise shaky grounds. A mutual interaction ban was mooted then but failed to gain much traction. Obviously, there's a great deal of mutual antipathy on both sides. It's plain that whether or not they're capable of playing together nicely, they're deeply unwilling to do so, and it seems to me that this would be soonest resolved by both of them being enjoined from interacting with one another now. (Whoops, and there's this one from September: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1079#Ongoing_Target_of_Overzealous_Editor Ravenswing 23:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• I disagree. It's fairly clear that Jamesallain85 is certainly displaying some elements of WP:CIR here. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• If so, it doesn't need to be Mztourist to play traffic cop. Nor should JA85 be AfDing articles Mztourist created, at this point. Ravenswing 23:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I haven't AFDd any articles recently, the last one I did was because it had a single reference, once it was more clearly referenced I close the AFD myself. Despite that I have a continues line of AFDs, only from Mztourist. When one is finished, the next one is coming soon, and as I improve them he only becomes more hostile trying to delete them. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm talking about in this report, where they're assigning motives to other editor's comments that they clearly never intended, even before the AfD nonsense. And frankly I'm still tempted to block them for the "autistic" comment. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Mztourist has been here several times before, and is certainly skating on thin ice. But he's never commented something that broke me out of my long time lurking relative silence. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• And that comment definitely deserves a block. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• I assumed good faith until it became systematic. In the last year only one editor has tagged and AFDd articled I created, and despite any improvements I have made to all of those articles, he fights to the bitter end to delete. When it becomes obvious then I loose assumption of good faith. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I will happily take a block, I deserve it. I commented in the heat of the moment after I have been trying to improve McGregor, loading myself up to improve the article, only to have him stack a pile of tags that threaten to delete more articles. I apologize for the comment and will willfully take any disciplinary action, but I want the issue to be stopped in the future so it doesn't come to such matters again. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Mztourist files AfDs on a number of articles, and a look at his history indicates that they're almost all military bios. This seems to be his gig. His match rate at AfD is frankly mediocre (62% of filings), but I just looked at the last 25 he filed. Not only do I not see any obvious signs that he's uniquely targeting you, but you have participated in a number of them without there being obvious signs that the AfDs concern your own articles. If you want to disengage with Mztourist as badly as all of that, you are doing a poor job of doing so. Ravenswing 23:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• When it comes to commenting on AFDs, I do not look who initiated the AFD. In face many times if I am on the fence I choose to refrain from comment. While true he AFDs more than just my articles, he is the only one AFDing my articles. Is that normal? Why was I accused automatically of revenge when I AFDd one of his articles? I have stopped interacting with any articles that he created, but I should have a voice when it comes to AFDs without being targeted. I am far from the only person that has had issues with Mztourist, I have said I take responsibility for what I said. But it still doesn't solve the issue at hand, why must I sit back and refrain from tagging or AFDing articles he created only to have him continuously do it to me? Why am I constantly being accused of revenge and nobody cares about his actions or demeanor? Compare Mztourists AFD match rate to his match rate with articles I created, he only achieved one merger. Every other article was voted to keep or no consensus, if he wasn't targeting me his rate with my articles should be at least similar. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Gee, I dunno. Maybe we come to that conclusion because Mztourist has filed 120 AfDs, a handful of them being of articles you've created. By contrast, every single AfD you have ever filed [19][20][21] has not only been on articles Mztourist created, but each and every one of them closed as overwhelming Keeps, with only one single vote to delete between them other than your own. Kinda fails the duck test. Ravenswing 23:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Considering I closed them myself or asked for them to be closed after they had met WP:BIO, I think it is comparing apples and oranges. The articles I AFDd, except one I did by accident, were all source with one or two sources at the time I AFDd them. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Nice try, but no. You closed none of them (nor would it be permitted under WP:Deletion policy for you to do so, and you only changed your mind on just one at the last bitter end. That's the one in which you outright called Mztourist an asshole. Ravenswing 23:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• I could go back and find the instances where I asked to have it closed in the AFD discussion (at least two occasions) but it would be a waste of my time anyway ([22]). I can tell you there is one thing I didn't do, delete his references and then AFD the article he created on the basis of lack of references, but I am sure that doesn't matter either. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• It would certainly be a waste of your time, because other than the single one I read ten minutes ago and already mentioned, you didn't do it. By the bye, do you really find that this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of arguing every point to death with everyone -- it certainly shows forth in these AfDs -- is getting people to see things your way, instead of cementing opinions as to your own behavior? Ravenswing 00:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I guess this will be like every other time I came here to settle my dispute and absolutely nothing will be addressed about the actual dispute. If I had acted in the same manner as Mztourist and deleted his references and then AFDd his article how do you think the conversation would have been handled then? There is a double standard here, and a clear bias. Why hasn't that been addressed? Why is it ignored every time I have brought it up? As far as bringing up every point, that is what I was just asked to do, here again I am being penalized for something I was asked to do. Jamesallain85 (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Here is the second retraction that doesn't exist [23] Jamesallain85 (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to show here. The AFD in that template is a red link and I looked in your history around the time and don't see any creation of an AFD page on the article. AFDs aren't generally deleted just closed. So it looks like you started the AFD process by adding the template. But later I guess you changed your mind so you undid the addition of the template and didn't open the AFD. While this is sort of a retraction, it's a lot less positive then you seem to think. It's not like after opening the AFD someone pointed something out that you completely missed. Instead whatever caused you to change your mind happened before you properly opened the AFD. Which means you really should have done whatever it was that made you change your mind before you added the template. Yes it's good that you didn't actually open the AFD once you somehow came to the realisation the article didn't merit deletion but that's a fairly minor positive, it's the only real basic level of what we expect from editors. Frankly I'm not sure why you're adding the template nearly 1 hour and 30 minutes before you plan to open the AFD anyway (well that's how long it took you to remove it). AFAIK most editors start the AFD first then only add the templates as it doesn't leave others confused about why the article is linking to an AFD that doesn't exist. Or if they are going to add the templates first, have their AFD prepared so it only takes 10 minutes or something to start the AFD. Nil Einne (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Jamesallain85: When you make atrocious comments like the autism one, you shouldn't be surprised if we don't give a damn about some alleged minor wrondoing of the other party. Even more so when your response here about your atrocious comment is so poor. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support boomerang Frankly the autism comment is enough for me. If they had shown some recognition of how bad their comment was, perhaps we could let it be, but they've shown no such recognition instead seem to think whatever lead up to it makes it not so bad. And if that wasn't enough, they seem to have no answer to the suggestion their AFDs were in revenge. Further they evidence they've presented against Mztourist so far (although I admit I haven't looked at all of it in part since it's presented throughout this discussion) doesn't seem to shown significant wrong doing. E.g. yes it is wrong if Mztourist did stuff because they didn't understand that offline sources are perfectly fine but that's the sort of mistake that happens and if the editor learns from it and takes step to fix their errors as far as possible, isn't something we would likely block them over. Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support Boomerang obviously. Jamesallain85 created a whole lot of minimally-referenced 1-3 sentence stub bio pages in December 2019 and January 2020 e.g. Wilhelm L. Friedell, Thomas Withers, John Addison Scott, William V. O'Regan, William Lovett Anderson which I have progressively tagged, PRODed and/or AFDed, as I have with pages created by other Users. Jamesallain85 has taken great offense at this and in addition to expanding the AFDed pages (poorly in my opinion) has abused me, REVENGE AFDed some of my pages and brought various complaints here. The only person being uncivil here is Jamesallain85 with his insults like the appalling autism comment. In addition he has absolutely no right to delete my comments on article Talk pages just because he doesn't like them, examples here: [24] and [25] Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment @Jamesallain85: the autism comment is a sticking point, people can't see beyond it. Recommend a couple options. 1) strike the comment and leave a sincere apology here (we have autistic users on Wikipedia). 2) request WP:OVERSIGHT to delete it entirely from the record as a gross violation of civil and hurtful to others (and an apology here to be clear not just hiding a mistake). I think you do good work and hope you can continue improving Wikipedia. -- GreenC 06:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Hm. People are "supporting boomerang" without any actual definition of what they're supporting. So here's a proposal: Jamesallain85 is interaction banned from Mztourist, defined broadly, and including AfDs. (No objection, of course, should an admin hammer him over his repeated incivilities and his reverting Mztourist's talk page comments.) In the interests of keeping the peace, Mztourist is enjoined from filing AfDs or PRODs on article creations of Jamesallain85; if JA85's article creations are substandard, someone else can file on them. Ravenswing 07:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Jamesallain85's pages have been substandard for over 2 years without anyone doing anything about them and they are only improved (poorly IMO) if they go to AFD. I don't see why I should be enjoined from PRODing or AFDing them due to Jamesallain85's uncivil responses. Mztourist (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Because you've been uncivil and abrasive too in dealing with him, and the easiest way to refute the notion that you have a personal crusade against him is not to have one. If his article creations are substandard -- and, for the record, stub creation on Wikipedia is not illegal -- other editors can deal with them. If they don't choose to deal with them, then perhaps the creations aren't so egregious as all of that. Honestly, you do have a success rate at AfD filings of little better than random chance. Ravenswing 08:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Ravenswing That's very unfair. I think their AfD record is pretty good. Only 26 Keeps from 119 noms (62 delete, 12 redirect, 4 merge, 15 N/C) is a solid performance, especially when you consider that (a) a number of the military articles were improved after the AfDs began with offline sources that Mzt would not have had access to, and (b) a number of them were Keep-spammed by the Article Rescue Squadron. Black Kite (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

(shrugs) Hell, I've been keep-spammed by ARS (what AfD regular over the last decade hasn't been, at one point or another?), and I've got 35 keeps off of nearly 500 noms. I'm aware that sentiment is trending towards painting JA85 as the bad guy, and not without cause, but c'mon. Ravenswing 08:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support Boomerang - Jamesallain85's comments are beyond the pale. Might also require them to have to go through AfC for article creation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• "I am constantly accused of having poor references because they are from books or from archives instead of online content that he can scrutinize." Adding this here at the bottom so its easier for @Jamesallain85: to find: If Mztourist is telling you that they personally have to be able to review and scrutinize every source or it isn't reliable then they are wrong. Rather than getting defensive and becoming uncivil you could always point them to policy. WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE comes to mind as examples of policy or supplemental explanations. A source does not have to be online nor does it have to be easily accessible to be considered reliable. In some cases the only copy of a source may be found in a local university library. It can still be reliable. We generally accept offline sources when they are properly delineated. You can't just put down a book name and author nor can you say from page 1-999. Be specific. If you have read the source or possibly researched/own a copy of it then you should be able to add enough information to make us believe the source is credible. But to the point, no, a source does not not have to be online and does not have to be free to the public for access in order to be considered reliable. --ARoseWolf 14:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I know of WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE, and am forced to remind Mztourist of there existence constantly, and I am not the only one, please look over Mztourists comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander K. Tyree. What I absolutely cannot stand is not that some of the articles I have created have been AFDd, it is when myself and the community have provided overwhelming support for WP:GNG, it doesn't matter what the source is or how notable the person is with proof, he will aggressively deny it over and over. With Mztourist, there is no discussion, there is no compromise. This discussion here shows the same thing, he absolutely refuses to take even a shred of responsibility despite the obvious facts that he is aggressive and rude when conducting AFDs, which others have noticed. I source my articles, and I am improving, but my interaction with Mz has been so frustrating I have been ready to give up contributing all together because it isn't worth the frustration and anger it causes when I cannot have a civil discussion with the person attempting to delete everything I create because he just keeps repeating the same thing over and over even if it isn't the case. Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Not that I'm saying references have to be online and easily accessible, but there is a standard of "in-depth coverage" that should be followed and it's on the person who is providing the references to show proof that the standard is being met if they are the only person that has access to them. Which, unless I missed it, didn't seem like you were willing to do. In the meantime I don't really blame Mztourist for being skeptical of your references since you've repeatedly and openly been hostile toward him nominating your articles. It wouldn't really be much of a stretch that someone who thinks their work is under attack, revenge nominates articles for deletion and calls people autistic, would also use questionable references to get their articles kept. Not that I'm saying your doing that, but considering how you've acted I can understand where people might be hesitant to take your word about the references being adequate. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you didn't read the interactions between not only myself and Mz, but his interactions between Mz and others in the AFDs. When Mz first made those claims about paid archives, I actually took the time to clip, save, and add the copy of the article to the link so everyone could read the articles, it made absolutely zero difference, because he never actually has a conversation, he stands on his soap box yelling, and when you try to appease him, he just refuses to respond. Take the time to read [[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander K. Tyree]], it doesn't matter what we all do to appease him, he never stops yelling the same thing. He has not a single time admitted through all the AFDs, despite who has added them, ever conceded a new resource has helped the article at all. He stands there yelling to delete until the bitter end despite all of the articles except one, which was merged, being kept. The same here, he pushes the blame for our interactions 100% on me. You act like I have been making comments such as the autistic one from the beginning, that isn't true. That was made after more than a year of systematically being targeted again and again and Mz refusing to actually hold any time of meaningful discussion. If you would go back and look at the articles I AFDd of Mz, two of them had I believe a single reference and one and on references at all, the others were AFDd on the the same reasons he had AFDd another article based on WP:GNG. I was pointing out the hypocrisy that he was AFDing articles which were much better sourced while creating articles which had zero or almost zero sources. He became super defensive as well, despite being in the wrong. All of a sudden a single obituary was enough to support GNG. Jamesallain85 (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jamesallain85: You might not be aware of it, but the first person who called him out about the paid archive thing was Andrew Davidson, who is topic-banned from participating in AfDs for various reasons. Including repeatedly harassing nominators about arbitrary nonsense. Whereas, the other person who raised concerns, Cullen thought Alexander K. Tyree should be notable because they are a vet and teacher. As if that's some great accomplishment that makes the person instantly worty of notability or something. Which is just laughable. So I don't think other people having opinions against MZ in that AfD is the slam dunk in your favor that you think it is. Especially with Andrew. As far as MZ being super defensive, the first comment was an accusation that he might have nominated the article as revenge, which he was pretty none defensive about, and then you were pretty defensive in your follow up comment. Which MZ ignored. So I don't that's a slam dunk in your favor either. If anything it just shows that you were needlessly defensive about it from the start when MZ was actually pretty normal about the whole thing. Even after he was being accused of doing a revenge nomination. I'll give you that he was kind of defensive toward Andrew, but my guess is that it had more to do with the ongoing issues that led to Andrew being topic banned then it did anything to do with you or that specific AfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the level of synth and at times outright information fabrication that occurs in some of these articles, I completely understand MZ's skepticism about sources that can't be easily verified. It may be policy to allow paywalled sources, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's always good policy. Intothatdarkness 16:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Here was my attempt to appease [[26]], and like normal no response or even a verification. Because it makes no difference I stopped taking the extra time to try and appease because it is simply a waste of my time if they are just going to continue making the same comments. This was the state of the article I AFDd [[27]], I think some are so focused on my recent poor behaviour, but are failing to see the issue that has led up to this point. Look at the Proposed deletion of Robert B. Carney Jr. here [[28]]. It can attest to Mzs civility while I was trying to have a conversation on the issue. Jamesallain85 (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Why did you continue to post to that thread (in the last link) after they twice told you to stop posting to their talk page? That’s not very sensible and puts the claim of “trying to have a conversation” in a different light. DeCausa (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

In the discussion below a few points were made that I think deserve a response. The tone of a comment can be uncivil no matter how mild one may think it is. Saying someone can be "brash" and "abrupt" and that they need to "tone it down" is not a real admonishment nor does it curtail any act of incivility. The brashness and abruptness is incivility and will damage any ability for collaboration, especially with those that may share a different opinion from Mz. The unwillingness to admit or accept any fault is a cause for concern and it should not be ignored by the community. With all due respect to @Slywriter, we have a case where incivility has gone both ways, however mild as one may think one side is, and this is the venue for the community to discuss and admins to determine and enforce a consensus from that community discussion. This is the exact place and the perfect opportunity for this to happen. I stopped going to AfD's altogether because of the incivility that is so easily displayed and overlooked during the process no matter which side I fell on. Personally I loved the challenge of not only discussing but improving and seeing the improvement brought about because of AfD's despite the fact that AfD is not article improvement. I hated seeing articles deleted but Wikipedia has so many articles that are below sub-standard and filled with non-notable subjects. Mztourist does a great job of pointing these out and I have praised them in the past for doing so. We have agreed in some cases and disagreed in others. I believe both editors in this case could be and are amazing and can produce incredible things for this encyclopedia. When viewing this case in a vacuum, they are, however, both guilty of incivility, whether in tone or words themselves. These are just observations based on the conversations and examples provided. --ARoseWolf 14:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

AfD may not be article improvement, but it does serve this function almost by default due to many things that are beyond the scope of this discussion. One thing I have noticed, though, is that passive-aggressive incivility often gets a pass by the community. It's much easier to call out and sanction the brash person than it is to look deeper. I'm not disagreeing with your observations, or saying that this case is an example of passive-aggressive incivility, just adding an additional perspective. Intothatdarkness 17:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support boomerang. All else aside, I'm not seeing where Jamesallain85 has actually provided any evidence that articles he created are being targeted, which makes his prolonged campaign against Mztourist (both via revenge AFDs in the past and things like this filing) an extremely inappropriate response to the normal AFD process, as well as egregious WP:OWNing. --Aquillion (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Propose Interaction Ban

A lot of people seem unable to get past the autistic comment, which was frankly completely outrageous and was deserving of a block in it's own right. However, blocks are to prevent damage to the encyclopedia and not punitive, the problem being the comment seems to have provoked a classic ANI pile on and we're not getting to the root of the problem.

A couple of points need to be noted:

1. Above Mztourist basically acknowledges he's been targeting JA85's articles, describing them as "substandard".
2. The interaction between the two is not productive, both are uncivil and abrasive towards each other.
3. Mztourist's nominations are routinely being closed as keep.
4. JA85's stubs are being improved and expanded by the community.

On this basis an interaction ban seems appropriate. It stops the toxic interaction between the two editors and allows both to continue editing. I think ANI needs to do something to nip this in the bud before it ends up at arbcom. WCM_email 09:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This is misleading.

• "Mztourist's nominations are routinely being closed as keep". Only 26 of his 119 noms have been closed as keep.
• "Mztourist basically acknowledges he's been targeting JA85's articles, describing them as "substandard"." Mz has nominated over a hundred of these articles for AfD, some of which have been JA85's. Meanwhile, every single one that JA85 has nominated has been started by Mztourist. Who is targeting who here?
• Apart from a few snippy remarks I don't see that Mztourist is doing much wrong here, whereas Jamesallain85 is an editor who has borderline CIR issues, calls others "autistic" and has misrepresented others persistently, even in this thread. That's not equivalence in a million years, sorry. Black Kite (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually I meant that many of Mztourists nominations of JA85's articles are being routinely closed as keep. I feel that is accurate and not misleading. And it seems from the comment below I'm not the only one to notice. IMHO they're rubbing each other the wrong way and the best way to stop it is an interaction ban. That seems better than the arbcom case its heading for, neither would come out of that well. To add the comment from Mztourist that it's all the other parties fault does show a lack of awareness of the impact of their snarky comments. WCM_email 12:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support: as I mentioned above. Ravenswing 13:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support, as it seems that this is by no means a new issue. Both editors have accused other of vengefully nominating their articles for deletion. Both have, in fact, nominated the other's articles for deletion. There have been threads here from both of them about this already. Accusing people of being autistic is pretty rude — certainly, you should not be saying it about people you are arguing with on Wikipedia. I think that people are often allowed to slide on personal attacks, and this deserves some form of formal admonishment. However, Jamesallain is far from the only person who has been abrasive at AfD. In fact, in the discussion linked earlier in this thread (for Stanley C. Norton), I had an extremely long and unpleasant exchange with Mztourist after I added sources to the article, and I didn't even !vote on it. I think the most appropriate solution would simply be for both editors to stay out of each other's hair, and not interact on Wikipedia (perhaps simply avoiding nominating each other's articles for deletion altogether). jp×g 09:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• JPxG as you well know, I and others believe that you refbombed that page. Mztourist (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's fine — there's no rule saying everybody has to agree with each other, and I am perfectly happy with you saying you think some article is bad that I think is good — but it seems to me like the forcefulness with which your opinions are made is not entirely necessary in conveying your perspective. jp×g 13:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed -- having just looked at that page -- you did say so. Over and over and over again. Ravenswing 13:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It does seem to be a recurring issue with Mztourist, I noticed the same at this AFD when I started looking at the interaction between these two editors. Perhaps @Cullen328: or @Andrew Davidson: may care to comment but he does appear to somewhat harangue other editors about sourcing. I get the impression he really doesn't like sources that are not online. The questioning of good faith comments by other editors does rather suggest a lack of good faith. WCM_email 14:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson is topic-banned from AfD and will not be able to comment.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose completely misleading summary of my actions. The incivility comes entirely from JA85, not me. Mztourist (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support I have already withdrawn myself from AFDing more articles of Mztourists, and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome. I sincerely apologize for my comment, it was out of line, it was the result of building frustration, however that does not make it OK. The issue here has been on both sides, and I do not believe anything other than an interaction ban would rectify it, it has been ongoing more than a year. Wikipedia has more than one editor that is able to point out failures. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - While Mz can tone it down a bit, to equate the actions of both editors as equitable is not correct, imho.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose When someone edits in a narrow field, they are more likely to engage with the same small group of editors which can give the appearance that an editor is following them around. Also finding a sub-standard article and then reviewing the editors history for other sub-standard edits isn't hounding. And civility as a whole in AfD needs to be addressed by the community.Slywriter (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Mz is highly active in a narrow field, one that attracts some fairly passionate editors, as well as some who lack actual content knowledge but are intent on keeping anything that ever touches Wikipedia. Jamesallain85 seems to take criticism of content as a personal attack, and frames any response in that manner. While Mz can be abrupt, they certainly aren't comparable. Intothatdarkness 14:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I take it as a personal attack when it is worded as a personal attack ([29]) Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

As a response to your previous comment, this diff strikes me as downright mild. Dumuzid (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Something that friends of Mztourist might wish to consider, I've seen it time and again when incivility is excused, it becomes a habit and gets worse to the point where the community finally loses patience and yet again we mourn the blocking of an experienced editor. Real friends would tell him to stop. WCM_email 14:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a "friend" of Mz, and I take your point completely, but here I don't think that any perceived incivility by Mz is the problem - or it's certainly not the main problem by a long way. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster I am surprised by your rather barbed comments about me. Please advise when I've been uncivil in my dealings with JA85. Mztourist (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not taking a view at all on this dispute, other than to say that I don't feel WCM's comment is at all misplaced. I too have seen exactly this pattern in other editors who ended up being banned after years of people defending incivility on their part. FOARP (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Mz is skating on thin ice, and really needs to look at how they interact with others. But this issue is much more to do with JA. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

What is this issue you are speaking of, because the issue I brought here was the interaction. Read my response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Roy McGregor (admiral) and how it escalated. This has been a perpetual problem for more than a year and it will not change. Mz takes no responsibility, he has stated himself that the issue lies completely with me. That is not the attitude of someone that is willing to change. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Looking over things it appears that Jamesallain85 is mostly the aggressor and in the wrong here. So an interaction ban wouldn't really be the best way to deal with the issue IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support points made by the nom. -- GreenC 19:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel, and this is my own personal opinion, this proposal hurts Mz more than it would James, especially considering James has backed off already. Mz does do amazing and positive things for the encyclopedia in a very targeted field and that's coming from someone that doesn't share the exact same point of view. I realize something must be done but I don't feel this will affect both parties equally. --ARoseWolf 20:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Looked at in context Jamesallain85's MZ's nominations are the root of the problem. They seem to be deliberating attacking the reasonably aceptable work of another editor, using a mistaken idea of the rules for WP:RS. I can not tell if it CIR, or something else, but at the very leastthey need to be removed from AfD. If conflict continues, it might require further action. As for Mz JamesA, he was acting under what I consider rather extreme provocation. They still shouldn't have responded that way, so I suggest either an admonishment and warning, or a very short block--perhaps 24 hours. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose; no evidence of any wrongdoing on Mztourist's part that would rise to the level of justifing sanctions against them. Indicating that they feel that Jamesallain85 has largely created substandard articles now, in this discussion, is the opposite of an admission of hounding, since it says that they were nominated due to their low quality rather than who created them. It's not ideal civility but insufficient to justify sanctions (since it is still ultimately a comment on contributions and not the editor.) Having some nominations closed as keep is also not an indication of wrongdoing. If people want to argue that Mztourist is at fault for something, they need to present specific obviously-bad nominations, or enough borderline nominations to support the accusation of a pattern of harassment, or an actual admission that that's what they were doing rather than them just expressing a low opinion of the articles Jamesallain85 has created. I'm not seeing any of that here. --Aquillion (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - mostly what Aquillion said. I asked for diffs and so far the only diff I've seen of alleged wrongdoing by Mz is Special:Diff/1059105125, which was an insult and that should be avoided of course, but it isn't anywhere near enough to support any sanction. Levivich 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: Maybe I am just being a curmudgeon here, but this AN/I thread (which includes this proposal) seems like fairly solid evidence that the issues here are not likely to be resolved by the two parties coming to any sort of agreement. jp×g 23:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

User:JPxG it was a good faith proposal to address the underlying issue here, JA85s creation of numerous minimally referenced 1-3 sentence milbios that don't show notability, apparently relying on the now deprecated WP:SOLDIER. I would hope and expect that when a User has had several pages they created tagged, PRODed and/or AFDed they would stop and ask themself "am I creating pages about notable subjects or not?" then revisit and expand and improve pages they had created to prevent future PRODs and AFDs, however JA85 has shown no intention of doing that. Mztourist (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this a response to my comment? jp×g 13:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Mztourist (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Propose admonishment for Jamesallain85

I don't think the autistic comment can be allowed to pass without comment from the community. I propose Jamesallain85 is admonished for that comment with the warning that if any such comment is repeated it will result in an immediate and escalating series of blocks. Such blocks may be imposed by any admin without referral to ANI. WCM_email 09:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support. As I said in my comment above, it has no place in a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia, and we should not put up with it. jp×g 10:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Ban an admonishment is completely inadequate and will do no more than the warning given to him after this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070#Mztourist's_concerns_about_User:Jamesallain85 Mztourist (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Ravenswing 13:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support, as I feel this is a very weak response. But if this is the best that can be done, it's better than ignoring it and hoping it will go away. Intothatdarkness 13:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support per Intothatdarkness above. I find this sort of thing far more offensive than the standard sorts of statements involving four letter words. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support it's offensive and there is no place for such behavior.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Admonish is not enough, what epitaph would they have had to use to receive harsher censure? ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Two editors cannot get along, and it's not the first time an interpersonal conflict between the two has ended up at this noticeboard. An admonishment just reads like "we don't like what we're seeing, but we also don't know what to do about it / don't want to do anything about it." If this is all that's done, odds are this will end up at this noticeboard again at some point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Which it already has twice before this year, and will again, given the lack of stomach for something as simple as a mutual interaction ban. Ravenswing 17:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggested an interaction ban and the admonishment to deal with a comment that went too far. I'm disappointed that the community is divided over the interaction ban, particularly so when one editor is saying they are not the problem. It shows they have a lack of awareness that their conduct is also part of the problem and I feel they are being encouraged in that belief with editors stating one side was worse than the other. WCM_email 20:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Admonish it should be clear by the way Jamesallain85 has acted in this ANI complaint about their side of the disagreement that an admonishment alone probably won't deal with the issue and is therefore to weak of a sanction. Especially considering the whole autistic comment, but even without that there's enough on Jamesallain85's side to warrant more then a rebuke IMO. More so because there's already been ANI complaints about them that didn't seem to correct their behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support reasonable solution along with the iban. -- GreenC 19:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support I support admonishment even though James did apologize, which I personally accept as a member of the community. This is something that can't be overlooked and James needs to understand this type of comment is never okay and certainly not understandable under any circumstances. --ARoseWolf 20:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support as a first-line remedy per above and my reply in the next section. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE. James strikes me as someone who genuinely wants to improve the encyclopedia, but made a horrible, egregious decision. They seem to have gotten the message that such language is intolerable here and I doubt that they will repeat it. In light of this, I would support giving them a final warning with the understanding that using similar language again will result in an indefinite block. Mlb96 (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support - per above, this is probably too weak, but better than nothing. Levivich 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support this definitely too weak sanction as better than nothing. --JBL (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Propose one-way IBAN for Jamesallain85 and admonishment for Mztourist

It's clear, from my reading of the above, that there are concerns about giving a pass to Mztourist's civility, but that it does not rise to the level of a sanction. I believe that he should be formally warned against uncivil behavior in the future. However, since the locus of the problem is primarily Jamesallain85's behavior and his conflicts with Mztourist, there should be an IBAN applied to him interacting with Mztourist. That IBAN will also serve as a suitable sanction given the "autistic" comment that was made earlier.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Could someone who supports action against Mz for incivility please quote and diff some recent examples? Levivich 18:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose one-way IBANs are good options only in limited circumstances. Even in cases where a one-way IBAN is enacted the other party should treat it as two-way (at minimum, not intentionally put themselves in the way of the other editor). Specifically in this case I'd note that (based on user talk page notifications at [30]) it seems post-2020 Mztourist is the only one who has nominated Jamesallain85's articles for deletion. It doesn't really matter whether the rationales for deletion were solid or not, the point is that Mztourist repeatedly initiates interactions with Jamesallain85; I'm assuming that will continue in the future, in which case a one-way IBAN would just create agitation and not be an appropriate solution here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  I don't see enough evidence that Mztourist is deliberately targeting Jamesallain85's articles for deletion out of malice, at least not in the same way that JA85 retaliated shortly after this became a sticking point between the two of them. The proper response to having an article proposed for deletion, if you feel that the subject is notable and that the article is worth keeping, is to improve that article so that it stands muster. Retaliating against the filer is not the proper response. This is why the IBAN needs to be one-way, since up to this point apart from being short, Mztourist has not attempted to weaponize Wikipedia's processes against another user. WaltCip-(talk) 18:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: (nods to ProcrastinatingReader) I was thinking the same thing; what, Mztourist gets to tee off all he pleases on Jamesallain85's article creations, and JA85's not allowed to defend them? Oh dear me no. Ravenswing 18:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I think Jamesallain85's personal attack in this instance was understandable in view od the absurd nominations being made by Mztourist, who does not recognize the principle that paywalled sources are acceptable. The proper remedy is a topic ban for Mztourist against making AfD nominations, at least of Jamesallain85's articles. An admonishment for Mztourist JAwould be quite enough considering the provocation. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• You think that calling someone "autistic" was "understandable"? Good f***ing grief, this place is rapidly going down the toilet. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • +1 I suspect anyone who used "Jew" or "gay" as a negative because they were "provoked" would be indeffed on sight. Can someone explain how using "autistic" as a negative is better? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
    • "Understandable" does not mean that I think it was good behavior, but I would not, personally, give anyone an indef for the use of an insulting word, tho I would for frequently talking this way. The more serious forms of personal attack are concentrated attacks on someones work , it's attacking for the purpose of attacking the individual, not for enforcing a (misguided) understanding of RS. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Let me clarify my Jew/gay analogy. It's not just a personal attack. The implication of such an attack is that users who really are Jewish or gay or autistic are somehow unwelcome here. So it's a attack not just against the one user, but a large fraction of Wikipedians. People who are routinely discriminated against IRL, and might have thought of Wikipedia as a refuge. When we say it was "understandable", what message are we sending to those users? If Jamesallain85 had said "asshole" or another generic insult that would be different, because it's not targeting any group. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
      • (e/c) @DGG: What are you talking about? That last sentence is incoherent. Also, I assume you're not considering the effect using "autistic" as a slur has on, you know, people with autism. How does that rank on the seriousness scale for forms of personal attack? Also, there are more sanctions than "understandable" and "indef block", and in this section, indef block isn't even proposed. Also, to save on pings, in your comment in the previous section I'm fairly sure you've mixed up the two editors. Otherwise, great job though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Well, I can't speak on behalf of the entire autist community, but I don't feel particularly "targeted"; it's not like this is significantly worse than "imbecile" or "moron" or "idiot" (all of which would be clear personal attacks and worthy of sanctions/admonishment/etc on that basis). jp×g 00:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
          • If someone says, "You eat with chopsticks? What are you, Chinese?", that's an offensive slur, even though there is nothing wrong with being Chinese. It draws on a stereotype and implies that there is something wrong with being Chinese and eating with chopsticks. In the same way, the "are you autistic?" comment was offensive even though there is nothing wrong with being autistic, because it implied that if a person were autistic, that would explain why the person would "fail to grasp" things. That's tantamount to calling autistic people stupid, which is significantly worse than calling the editor you're arguing with an idiot, imbecile, or moron. It's one thing to get into an argument and call the other guy an idiot, it's quite another to get into an argument and call the other guy autistic. I think we can tolerate the former but not the latter. The former is an attack against the other editor, the latter is an attack against the other editors and autistic people. (And it's an attack even if no autistic person actually feels attacked...the success of the attack is irrelevant.) Levivich 06:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Why does one get a pass while the other does not? On a project which supposedly has civility in discussions as a primary focus of the project how does either promote collaboration. Do I believe James was inappropriate? Absolutely. His autistic comment was vile. I also feel Mz was inappropriate. We all know the connotations and stigmatizations associated with the perception of mental illnesses. Some of the first code words you always hear are the ones mentioned here. Getting triggered enough to call another human terrible things inferring mental illness is okay but asking them if they are autistic is different? An attack is an attack and neither should be tolerated. I do think DDG has a point in the discussion of targeted actions. I think we can say that Mz targeted James because Mz feels that James produces sub-standard work, however, Mz targeted articles on Wikipedia that he feels are sub-standard and that's actually encouraged. Remove James and replace them with someone else and Mz would do the same thing. So it's not personal against James, in that sense, and no editor here should become so attached to anything they write that they feel personally attacked when someone disagrees that it belongs here. Likewise, no editor should become triggered enough to call another editor names just because they disagree, no matter the provocation. This is a case of both editors not being civil, regardless of the words used and it shouldn't be tolerated because, as a community, it is one of our primary principles for a healthy and productive collaboration effort. --ARoseWolf 13:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

the last sentence means that he's attacking the articles to attack the editor; I don't see how it could be misunderstood. I fixed the names. . And I continue to think that emphasizing individual words as bright lines does rational handling of disputes a disservice: typically #1 pushes #2 repeatedly, until #2 says something we regard as inexcusable. But I've broken my rule not to comment more than twice in a single discussion, for which I apologize. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. -- GreenC 19:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose one-way IBAN, Support admonishment In the past we had much more serious offenders who were allowed to stop their offensive behavior and go free. Something like this: [18:26, December 7, 2021]; is certainly unacceptable but it doesn't require IBAN. Admonishment for both is more appropriate. Relative to Mztourist behavior, something like WP:DISENGAGE might be advised. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose one-way IBAN, Support admonishment I oppose any interaction ban at this time but support admonishment of both James and Mz. Diffs have been provided, along with the witness statements of others who have dealt with Mz that have labeled them "abrasive, "abrupt" and acknowledged they need to "tone it down" which are all indications of the tone of incivility that Mz certainly is not alone in exhibiting but is often the result of their discussions with those that have an opposing point of view, especially at AfD's. Because I feel both editors can do amazing things for the encyclopedia I stop short of any ban or block at this point and feel an admonishment would give both an opportunity to evaluate and take corrective steps to improve their tone when dealing with others in the community. --ARoseWolf 20:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose A one-way IBAN essentially means that Mztourist could nominate James's articles for deletion and James would not be allowed to defend his own articles. That strikes me as completely unfair. If there is to be an IBAN, it should be two-way. Mlb96 (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Support directly addresses the only behavioral problem here. --JBL (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support since I agree with JBL that it's the only thing that will address the behavioral problems here. As a side to that, the thing about how Jamesallain85 wouldn't be able to defend "their own articles" if there was a one way ban is a little ridiculous. The articles don't belong to Jamesallain85 and if said articles are truly notable then other people besides Jamesallain85 will be able to defend them as such. I'm assuming without the behavioral issues being a part of it. So this seems like a good option to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • You know what I meant, don't nitpick over semantics; "their own articles" as in "articles that they wrote," not "articles that they own." And it seems unfair to force them to put their faith in other users when it's their work on the chopping block. The notability guidelines are intentionally vague, but that also means that sometimes users come to different conclusions. The person whose work is up for deletion shouldn't be prevented from making arguments in their favor. Mlb96 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It's less to do with what you meant and more to do with the fact that Jamesallain85 clearly has some ownership issues when it comes to articles they have created. Which IMO is just being fed into with how things are being phrased. I'm not saying it's intentional on your part though. Outside of that, I agree that a person whose work is up for deletion shouldn't be prevented from making arguments in their favor, but that doesn't include calling nominators autistic. If he was just making normal arguments we wouldn't be here right now and I wouldn't really care about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the specifics here, I've been fairly successful at getting ArbCom to stop using "admonishment" and I'd like to just butt in here and explain why: we warn users all the time for any number of things, but somehow with more long-term problems we admonish them instead. I don't think that makes much sense and strongly prefer "formal warnings" to "admonishments". Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I would be inclined to agree with this. jp×g 00:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Mlb96 and ProcrastinatingReader; of particular concern to me is that in this situation both editors seem to have been behaving rather badly, so a one-way interaction ban would be quite lopsided (being, as it were, a reward for one party and a punishment for the other). Comments like this do not indicate that this is a situation where one person is just being aggressive for no reason. jp×g 00:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

What's wrong with Mztourist saying that Jamesallain85's time could be better spent writing detailed, properly referenced pages? Even if it's a tad defensive, it's rather weird to somehow equate that to Jamesallain85 calling Mztourist autistic. They aren't even on the same level. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "equating". Let me present you with the following scenario, and tell me what you think of it.

CEPHALUS: Thrasymachus, you are a gigantic goddamn idiot.

THRASYMACHUS: Cephalus, you are a gigantic goddamn idiot and you should go fuck yourself off a bridge.

Personally, I would posit that while Thrasymachus has clearly violated the bounds of civility, so too has Cephalus, and the greater indiscretion of Thrasymachus does not somehow vindicate or invalidate the fact that Cephalus has said something extremely impolite. In an environment where propriety was considered important, the conduct of Cephalus should not be permitted either. jp×g 04:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose one-way IBAN since that has no possible chance of working. You can't have one person allowed to talk about and try to delete the articles another created, and the other not able to say anything in response. Dream Focus 05:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN and oppose admonishment obviously. Whether a few Users consider me "abrasive" or "abrupt" that doesn't in any way rise to the level of JA85's personal attacks of saying I'm screaming, being petty, making myself look like an ass and calling me autistic just in the one thread. So its a bit hard to accept that me saying "If only one of those "better things to do" was actually writing detailed properly referenced pages..." is in the same league. Mztourist (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose A one way interaction ban is a charter for abuse, this has been a two way street with both editors rubbing each other the wrong one. There is blame on both sides here and only one side is insisting they've done nothing wrong. A one-way ban sends the wrong signal. WCM_email 20:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose one-way IBANs in general, and I don't think it'll cure the disruption in this instance. Oppose admonishing Mz as I don't see any evidence of anything worthy of admonishment (Special:Diff/1059105125 ain't it). Levivich 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

New proposal

User:Jamesallain85 first agrees to never again create a military biography stub and secondly agrees to within two months revisit and expand all the military biography stubs created by him with reliable sourcing, following which they are reviewed for notability by an impartial milhist User who will either pass the page or submit it to AFD. I will recuse myself from all involvement until after the Milhist review. Mztourist (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose This is completely unacceptable, it is perfectly acceptable to create stubs for other editors to later expand. WCM_email 20:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Please explain what is completely unacceptable about it? JA85 created 1-3 sentence bio stubs that haven't been expanded in 2 years. Mztourist (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I also find this to be a good example of how AfD is in fact a default article improvement system. Nothing else here seems to work, even if the improvements are at times of questionable value. Intothatdarkness 14:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Mztourist (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Mainly due to the burden it might place on Milhist. Ja85 seems to have OWN issues with stubs in any case. Intothatdarkness 23:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: Mztourist's lack of insight into the problem of questionable AfD noms does not appear to be improving and suggesting imposing restrictions that are stricter than policy mandates for new articles is neither justified nor helpful. Jamesallain85's autistic comment was definitely unacceptable / offensive and sanctionable, but this is a situation that leaves neither party looking good. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that an IP who has made a total of 34 edits should take such an interest in this issue... The root cause of the problem was that JA85 created 1-3 sentence bio stubs under the now deprecated SOLDIER 2 years ago which no-one has ever expanded and every time I AFD one of them JA85 comes complaining here to ANI. Mztourist (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• As a milhist coord, I should note that the project doesn’t have the special authority to review something like that. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment: This is exactly the type of attitude which as plagued me for more than a year. I would like to point out that Mz has a large number of subs on fire bases and landing zones in Vietnam, many poorly soured with a single source for many of them, without specific page numbers, the source is not available online to be reviewed. Essentially everything Mz is accusing me of he has done himself on a larger scale, but if I AFD a single article, despite these the shortcomings, it results in explosive accusations of revenge by Mz and nonstop AFD of more articles, he is a bully. My AFDs are not revenge, they were to point out the hypocrisy of Mz pushing standards on others which he doesn't hold himself. Here are just a few examples: Landing Zone Virgin, Firebase Mile High, Firebase Checkmate, Firebase Currahee, Landing Zone Uplift, Catecka Base Camp, Ninh Hòa Base, Firebase Birmingham, and many more. Mz talks down to and belittles fellow editors and thinks he is somehow above the standards that are supposed to guide us. Then when there is a disagreement, the fault lies 100% with his opponent. I am not the only editor to have experienced this. Despite his many contributions, his attitude makes wikipedia a hostile negative environment. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

All of those pages are longer than your 1-3 sentence stubs. They are all sourced to a reliable source and they all have specific page numbers. The source is divided into sections, 5 is the book section and the number after the dash is the page number. Each page contains encyclopaedic detail that establishes notability unlike your Navy bio pages. Just being an Admiral is not a pass on notability. Mztourist (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

You might wish to explain this page numbering convention somewhere in the sourcing tables, then, as it's not exactly conventional or readily obvious (or change to a format like Section 1, page X). And as far as explosive accusations...I've seen far more aggressive OWN behavior from JA85 than I have MZ. And I will mention yet again most of this wouldn't likely be a problem if there was a functional article improvement process apart from AfD. AfD isn't the proper venue for this, as it results in drama, an avalanche of poor or questionable sources and information, and articles being kept and then never improved again. Any process that allows an article to be kept by noting sources that are never added to the article is to my mind broken or at least in need of an alternative. Intothatdarkness 16:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Intothat I have gone through and clarified all the refs. Mztourist (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Intothatdarkness, I take your opinion with a grain of salt, as you have had a clear bias through not only this process, but the AFDs as well. As far as Mz's stubs, that book is the only single source for each of those articles and not available to be viewed, there is no support for GNG, and most of the articles I listed are also just a few sentences, all of the things you are accusing me of. I am sure you will argue somehow they are different, they aren't. Jamesallain85 (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything when it comes to article format, JA85. That you think I am is interesting. The only format comment I had was directed at MZ. Your OWN behavior has been commented on by others in this discussion. My remarks about AfD's current default function also extend well past any stubs you may have created. Those stubs are actually a fairly minor example of the issue. Intothatdarkness 18:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of AfD is not to improve articles, it is to delete them. Please read WP:BEFORE subsection C1, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Intothedarkness, have you ever voted "Keep" on a single AfD that wasn't written by Mz? I couldn't find one. Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Not that it matters in the slightest, but like others I don't tend to vote keep if an article looks solid and notable. Since Keep or No Consensus (which is in effect Keep) both result in the article being retained, there's really no reason to vote Keep just because. I don't keep a spreadsheet of my AfD votes. Intothatdarkness 18:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it does matter, because the articles of Mz that you voted to keep were way under par in comparison with many that you voted delete, from my point of view I think one could easily claim WP:MEAT in those instances. You literally vote delete on every AfD except those from a known colleague? What do you expect editors to think? Jamesallain85 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Jamesallain85 you seem to have unlimited time and energy to argue here and elsewhere, however you can't be bothered to revisit and improve any pages you created unless they're AFDed, that really speaks volumes about you and what you're HERE for. Mztourist (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I find that very ironic coming from you. All I want is to contribute and not have any arguments, instead I am constantly being drug into debates on AfDs which shouldn't even exist according to policy. Then after nominating you get your pals to vote delete on your AfD nominations to boost your score. I wish you would focus more on adding content instead of attempting to AfD everything on wikipedia. I can understand targeting cases such as the Tuskegee Airmen where egregious copyright was called into question, but your continues targeting me I cannot understand. Every time I think you are finished I will not have to interact with you, you just AfD another article I authored and I get drug back into debate. I am trying everything to wash my hands of you, hence the requested interaction ban. You do not hold any special position of authority over other editors, and you claiming that I am not Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia is flat wrong. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

As I said, you seem to have plenty of time for arguing. The simplest way to stop being "drug" into debates on AFD is for you to go to all the stubs you created and expand them with decent references and not create new stubs. I do not attempt "to AFD everything on wikipedia". The number of articles I have created and my total contributions are vastly more than yours. Mztourist (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Should I bow before you and your articles? This discussion has turned into exactly what I knew it would. Like normal you just ignore the discussion and turn back to your stub accusation, which I have pointed out you have the exact same issue. Why don't you repair your stubs first, then when everything you have created is perfect and you no longer have any stubs, start AfDing my stubs, at least then you wouldn't be a hypocrite. I have every right to contribute to wikipedia, and just because you have created vastly more articles and stubs, again doesn't give you any special rights. I think this discussion is proof enough itself we need an interaction ban. Jamesallain85 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub states: "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." and "State what a person is famous for". Unlike you, I don't create 1-3 sentence stubs, if I create a short page it is referenced to one or more reliable sources and notability is clearly established, whereas you act as though WP:SOLDIER still applies and just being an Admiral or winning a couple of Navy Crosses is a pass on notability, which it is not. Mztourist (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a lot of information included in the info boxes which you are neglecting to notice, which cover things like awards and commands, which do speak to notability. I can go back and add a couple more sentences, but I know that wouldn't satisfy you anyway, just like when I took the time to post the articles so they were visible through the paywall, you just ignored that fact and just kept fighting to delete. You know very well that per WP:ANYBIO section 1 "has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" has included multiple Navy Cross winners. Explain to me how Landing Zone Uplift passes GNG and Alexander K. Tyree which you fought so valiantly to delete doesn't? I would appreciate a serious and honest response, because it is issues like that which I cannot look past. Jamesallain85 (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If there is verifiable information in the Infobox then that should be in the body of the article, properly referenced. You say "I can go back and add a couple more sentences", please do more than that, expand all your stubs with as much verifiable information as you can find. It is a matter of debate whether multiple Navy Crosses satisfy #1 of ANYBIO, that category is usually for the Congressional Medal of Honor, Victoria Cross, Nobel Prize, Oscar, Grammy etc. Google Landing Zone Uplift and see how many hits you get compared to Tyree. Mztourist (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

JA85, your attempt to bully me out of AfD participation is noted. Intothatdarkness 14:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

When I Google Landing Zone Uplift and Alexander K. Tyree to be honest there were plenty of links for both. I would be more than happy to go back and expand my articles, but it seems most of the time I am able to devote to Wikipedia lately ends up dealing with AfDs discussions, not something I really enjoy. I have a lot more references on hand than when those articles were written, but it takes time to pull out information and get it documented. Also with concern to #1 of ANYBIO, Navy Crosses, Distinguished Service Crosses, Air Force Crosses, etc. are very often nominations for the Medal of Honor that were depreciated to these awards, which would pass ANYBIO #1 if they had multiple of these awards. I am not saying they should bring back WP:SOLDIER how it was previously, but it would be nice if there was a subsection for additional criteria that covered military biographies in notability like they do for so many other specialised biographical categories. On another note, I would like again truly apologise for my comment, it was out of line and the result of a lot of frustration. I really would like for us to put aside our differences and focus on contributing to Wikipedia. Jamesallain85 (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

From my understanding of things the special notability guidelines are only "indicators" that the required references will exist, not a guarantee that they do or even if a guarantee of notability. So even if there was special guidelines for the medals you'd still have to find and references to the articles or risk being AfDed anyway. There's never going an instance where you can just create un-referenced articles and expect them not to be nominated for deletion at some point by someone. Even if it's ultimately not Mztourist who does it. In the meantime making this a personal issue between you and Mztourist, instead of an issue of your articles being of sub-par quality, is just kicking the can down the road and you should improve your articles either way if there's a way to. Your responsibility to create content that passes the notability guidelines doesn't just get a pass because Mztourist created a few questionably notable articles either. The only reason it flies at all in this case is because Mztourist is the subject of this complaint. That won't be the case when someone inevitably nominates your articles later though. So you might as well just improve the ones you can now and move on. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

At the time those articles were created there were a different set of standards (WP:SOLDIER). The medals I have added are have always been referenced. I have no problem expanding the articles and will do so. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

By pointing out your AfD voting record? I am simply pointing to the facts, you are accountable for your own actions, and those actions have fairly clear motives. Jamesallain85 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• So you will continue to create minimally-referenced stubs and in turn demand that no one question them? That's not super reassuring either. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - "following which they are reviewed for notability by an impartial milhist User who will either pass the page or submit it to AFD" isn't something we can make happen via proposal. Also, this doesn't need bespoke babysitting sanctions. Editors should either edit non-disruptively or GTFO, IMO. Levivich 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• Mztourist, you can note my lack of edits from this IP address if you like. It does not alter my observation that neither you nor Jamesallain85 comes out of this discussion looking good, and frankly, your actions speak loudly in reinforcing my point. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You coming as an IP with 34 edits to this specific discussion on ANI to make comments about other Users will be treated with immense scepticism. The idea that me pointing this out somehow reinforces your point is preposterous. Your time would be better spent improving JA85's stubs or creating useful content.Mztourist (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The actions that I am referring to are displayed for all to see in this ANI thread, and I was thinking specifically of those in the last few days rather than your comment to me... but since you raise it, the implication that my edit count somehow makes me unable to recognise that the interaction between you and JA85 is creating a poor impression of you both, or unfit to share my perception, is indeed strange. You have noted elsewhere in this thread that you have made many contributions to WP, for which you deserve appreciation, but which is not a reason that your actions should not be scrutinised. Other editors will decide for themselves whether to give my view any weight, or whether their perceptions of how this thread portrays are similar to or different from mine. I encourage you to try to reflect on how you have handled this situation and to consider how you might appear to someone uninvolved in your dispute. I believe that most people share your goals of high quality article-space content but it does not follow that your approach and chosen methods are beyond reproach. You can emerge from this dispute stronger and more respected for having learned and grown from it... whether you choose to do that is entirely up to you. I hope you choose wisely. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with the IP: your behavior in this long thread has weakened my earlier sense that the problem here is located entirely with JA85. --JBL (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. EEng 04:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Ad hominem attack (NPA) incident at a talk page for a minor China-related article

I am reporting an incident of an ad hominem attack against me that was carried out by this IP user — IP user 139.47.34.245 — over at the talk page Talk:China–Lithuania relations.

The user in question only has two edits in total across their account's entire history. Their first ever edit was a reversion of a reversion that I had conducted over at the article China–Lithuania relations ([31]). Their second and final edit as of now was an incident of an ad hominem attack against myself, published on the corresponding talk page, Talk:China–Lithuania relations ([32]).

I initially contacted the user to inform them that I believed that they had conducted a personal attack against me [33]. So far, after a couple of days, they haven't yet responded to me (at least, not through that account). Notably, the user quoted some text from my user page into the talk page Talk:China–Lithuania relations in an attempt to prove that I was "biased" (as seen in ([34]). I deleted the quoted text (though, I left behind everything else that they had written) and left a "personal attack removed" notice ([35]).

A different IP user — IP user 195.135.49.168 — subsequently reverted my deletion of the personal attack over at the talk page, and a brief edit war ensued before I conceded to that user (their version remains) and began to seriously pursue a resolution to the dispute. This user was also contacted by me in the same manner as the first user ([36]). Lengthy negotiations have occurred between me and this user at their talk page since then. This user has refused to remove the personal attack, stating that its purpose is to "expose" me in terms of my apparent bias (seen in [37] and in [38]).

I do indeed suspect that these two users are the same person. It is difficult to figure out what exactly is going on due to the usage of IP accounts rather than registered accounts. Notably, the second user's edits over at the talk page Talk:China–Lithuania relations have essentially combined both their own comments and the other user's comments into a single mixed-up blob (as seen in [39]), so, unless these two users are not the same person, I can't fathom that either user would find such a situation acceptable (it's impossible to tell where one user's comment begins and the other user's comment ends).

My goal regarding this dispute is primarily to remove the personal attack material from the talk page Talk:China–Lithuania relations. I am not pursuing any specific actions against the two users who have been involved in this incident. I've already tried to resolve the dispute through negotiations with the other parties, but they are either non-responsive or refusing to co-operate, so I am now resorting to the incidents noticeboard, particularly because I want the personal attack material to be removed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if it's proper to just add my two cents here, since it's not about an ad hominem attack, but this IP user has been POV pushing and reverting edits without properly engaging in talk. See [40] and Talk:Lithuania–Taiwan relations. E.g. the user doesn't think South China Morning Post is RS and insists on deleting it as a reference even though I have provided them with a link to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Anyway, this is exhausting, and I am done for today. DrIdiot (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

One more: [41] IP user just inserts a random source that doesn't justify the claim when pressed? Edits are full of this stuff. Was hesitant at first but I would consider this disrputive editing at this point. DrIdiot (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, previous example probably not the best. Anyway, the talk page has a record of the discussion. DrIdiot (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I just want to point out something rather interesting (to say the least)... In my original ANI report above, which I wrote only around a day ago, I specifically said "The user in question only has two edits in total across their account's entire history.". This comment has aged like milk... After only one day, the user in question now possesses THIRTY-FIVE edits in total (several of them quite large, I might add). This is also disregarding the high likelihood that the two IP users mentioned above are actually the same person in real life; i.e. their edits should hypothetically be considered together as one unit. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The page has been temporarily protected by El C ([42]). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed, for the fourth time, the personal attack against me over at Talk:China–Lithuania relations. I've restored the "personal attack removed" ({{RPA}}) notice as well. As far as I'm concerned, this settles the dispute between me and the IP user (who operates multiple IP accounts) regarding their personal attack against me. Obviously, if this user has the audacity to restore their personal attack against me for the fourth time, then we will continue to have problems. As for the other issues that have been highlighted in this discussion, they are less of a concern for me, though I still think these issues need to be investigated by the administrators since some of them are quite serious allegations, although they are not related directly to me and my case here at ANI. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The two IP users involved are the same person

I have found some pretty damning evidence that the two IP users who have been abusing me (and have subsequently been vandalising the two articles China–Lithuania relations and Lithuania–Taiwan relations) are the same person. Just compare these two edit revisions. The first edit ([43]) was conducted by IP user 195.135.49.168 over at China–Lithuania relations whereas the second edit ([44]) was conducted by IP user 139.47.34.245 over at Lithuania–Taiwan relations. The contents of these two edits, despite having been conducted by two different IP users on two different articles, are clearly identical. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP was removing sourced information from China–Lithuania relations, as well as the personal attacks. I put China–Lithuania relations on two weeks' semi-protection. I'd suggest the same on other affected articles. Blocking the IPs for a time may be appropriate. But I'd feel more comfortable if other admins concurred on these actions, rather than doing it all myself - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I still intend to get the personal attack against me at that article removed... I removed it earlier myself and left an RPA notice, but the abuser (who is using two IP accounts) reinstated it. And when I tried to remove it again, this user began engaging in an edit war with me. I abandoned the edit war relatively quickly and left the article under the abuser's version, with the personal attack still present in the article. The entire point of opening up this ANI case was to get rid of the personal attack... it's been several days and no progress has been made in this regard. By the way, I have to comment here or else the case will get closed prematurely... no other admins have shown up yet. With that being said, thanks for taking your time to comment here. It does give my case some legitimacy, I would think. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Just an update, there appears to be a 3rd IP now, and this new IP has made an interesting threat here: Talk:Lithuania–Taiwan_relations#Full_revert_of_non-consensus,_unilateral,_non-NPOV_edit_by_previous_editor. Essentially, they are accusing me of pushing POV from a particular "side" and threatens to "expose" some wrongdoings(?) from that "side" if I do not stop pushing back against their edits. The rest of last night's Talk comments are a clear example of WP:BLUDGEON. DrIdiot (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I have also noticed the arrival of this third IP user (whom you've described above) — IP user 195.235.52.102 — editing the article Lithuania–Taiwan relations, who is most likely the same person as the person who operates the other two IP accounts. So, this person operates at least three IP accounts, and probably more than that. At this point, it seems that their usage of multiple IP accounts here could be intentional (i.e. Wikipedia:Sock). The person operating the multiple IP accounts has denied the allegation of their IP-hopping*, i.e. they are pretending that each IP account belongs to a different person in real life. By the way, all of these three accounts can be geographically traced to the Province of Barcelona in Spain. The person in question seems to be of Asian origin^✝, so I suppose that they might be an ex-pat operating out of Barcelona, or they could simply be using a VPN. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

_{*(Re: "Denying IP-hopping") — They have said ⇒ ...I would refrain from trying to "trace" other users... ([45]) – and – Oh yes, you also accused me of IP-hopping. Any evidence? Does that constitute a personal attack under Wikipedia's own definition? ([46]). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)}

_{^✝(Re: "Asian origin") — They have said ⇒ I am not a Christian but a Taoist and Buddhist... ([47]) – and – [I looked at] your ideologies. Not a single Asian ideology and no stances on Asian geopolitics ... to rectify your bias, studying Asian history and ideologies ... would counterbalance your ... militant, radical and verbally aggressive stances. May I suggest the (Taoist version of) the Middle Way ...? ([48]). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)}

Comment - on the 'IP-hopping' issue, note they didn't actually address whether or not they were the same person, only whether they were 'IP-hopping' (i.e. changing IPs deliberately to avoid evasion). Very few of us have static IPs anymore, and when you're an IP editor you generally have no idea what IP address your edits are going to show up as (nor have any control over it). A user actually attempting to sock-by-IP-hopping, and one that was tech savvy enough to IP-hop at will on WP (using unblocked IP addresses) would unlikely be careless enough to use IPs all from the same town. Short version: assume they're the same person, assume they're not pretending otherwise nor have any control over their IPs changing. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6CAD:7C51:CA86:3A6A (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed that the IP user managed to hop from IP no. 1 to IP no. 2 and then back to IP no. 1 again (whether intentionally or not). But then, they hopped over to IP no. 3. This has been disruptive... They've neglected to respond to my initial contact with them over on IP no. 1, for example, only responding to me on IP no. 2. They might not have even seen my original contact... which would have led to some confusion on their part, perhaps. I see no reason why this user shouldn't establish a registered user account. It would make all of our lives a lot easier. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

This would be completely consistent with (for example) someone editing from multiple devices or multiple locations. It is helpful to distinguish "things that are annoying about the world" from "things that someone is intentionally doing to be difficult" -- changing IP addresses (and the attendant difficulty of communication) in most cases is in the former category. --JBL (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be pointed out that IP-hopping is not my primary accusation here (which is why this ANI case is here and not on the sockpuppetry page). This ANI case is primarily about a personal attack that was thrown at me by IP no. 1 and then re-instated by IP no. 2 after I had removed it. Bear in mind that the user had not interacted with me before, so the first time I had met them, they were yelling out abuse at me. I've subsequently gone ahead and removed the personal attack again, several days later, and it hasn't been reinstated yet, perhaps due to inattention from the IP user. The IP user has been editing two pages, China–Lithuania relations and Lithuania–Taiwan relations. Both of these pages have subsequently been blocked by two different admins (I'm assuming that El C is an admin) due to the disruptive behaviour of the IP user, which includes citing a deprecated source, removing sourced material, and behaving generally disruptively, among other things. This ANI case has been appropriated by DrIdiot, who is mainly concerned with the removal of sourced content over at Lithuania–Taiwan relations. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Jargo is correct that my concern is mostly with that article. However, if you look into the talk page Talk:Lithuania-Taiwan relations you'll find many examples of the IP user... being generally disinterested in understanding sourcing policy (the justifications being mostly ad hoc), as well some strange threats (search for the text "If you continue with your one-sided trigger-reverts"). The discussion is hard to follow since the IP user generally does not sign off with 4~ on subthreads. In this case I don't consider it a personal attack... but feels a lot like WP:NOTHERE. Anyway, I agree the personal attack on Jargo (see [49]) is more egregious. DrIdiot (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

(Re: Personal attack) — What's worse than the IP user's initial act of throwing out a personal attack at me (which might be forgiven due to the benefit of the doubt) is the IP user's subsequent insistence on reinstating the personal attack after I had clearly explained why it was wrong. This indicates not only their disruptive tendencies (whether intentional or accidental) but also their intention to behave disruptively, which I think is a much more grievous wrongdoing. The user edit-warred with me in order to force the personal attack back into the talk page, which, in my opinion, is a terrible pattern of behaviour. The user had initially thrown the personal attack at me in order to "expose" me. This falls in line with their tendency to push conspiracy theories ([50]). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

This ANI case is about to die. It seems that the IP user has been inactive for several days. Still, I am keeping this case open since it hasn't really been resolved; it's just been frozen. I guess the IP user may have lost interest in Wikipedia after they were (temporarily) blocked from editing their two favourite articles. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

What exactly are you expecting to be done at this point? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Mainly expecting an investigation of the IP user or an extended block of the two pages. It depends on whether the IP user comes back. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I guess the case can be closed at this point. It's been a further three days and there's no sign of the IP user. In any case, I will not forget this case if they do indeed return at a later point. But I will still give them the benefit of the doubt at first if I ever encounter them again. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Continued harassment by disruptive Hong Kong IP

A thread was recently opened by Matthew hk about an IP-hopping editor who is persistently harassing and insulting other Hong Kong editors as well as adding uncited content (namely, obscure Hong Kong place names):

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1085#203.145.95.X harassment, personal attack and possible part of off site canvassing behaviours

However, no action was taken. Predictably the IP-hopping editor has gone straight back to their previous disruptive activity.

For one, as I mentioned in the previous thread, they are persistently stalking my edits. Yesterday, I made a significant expansion of the "Kowloon City Plaza" article. Immediately thereafter they peppered it with maintenance tags and added problematic content that has been discussed with them before (e.g. they keep adding obscure land lot numbers to Hong Kong articles). They have a long history of such harassment, with much more evidence presented in the previous thread. Citobun (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Since OhNoitsJamie (talk · contribs) has warned 203.145.95.X for personal attack or groundless accusation, you probably need the actual ip range and which articles with {{la}}. Matthew hk (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. Tuen Mun South extension's semi protection expired one day ago, and the IP is right back to pushing the same obscure place name there. Likewise at Kowloon City Plaza they are continually adding an obscure lot number. At Prince Edward, Hong Kong they are changing instances of the common "Mong Kok" place name to the obscure "Tong Mi". At Tung Chung East station they have changed "Tung Chung" to "Kei Tau Kok". What a headache. I am thinking of opening at page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse because this obscure-place name-pushing has been affecting Hong Kong articles for a long time.

Citobun (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm really surprised nothing is being done about this guy. This is getting dumb at this point. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 07:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Padgriffin: To be fair. From the edit log of City University of Hong Kong, seems there are more than one guy (203.145.95.X verse 1.64.48.231 verse 124.217.188.X which seems they have edit warring to each other). One of them (124.217.188.X) clearly linked to User:蟲蟲飛 (as evidence on participation on Afd), a globally locked user which linked to CCP. However, they enjoyed collateral damage by your can't tell the harassing is from the same person, just ip hopping using mobile service provider and home ISP, or multiple person that have the same harassing behaviour, as they refused to create accounts. For clearer documentation, i think user:Citobun really need to add the diff links to indicate which ip is actually harassing him recently, and which id keep adding narrow-interest info of land lease lot number , and which ip keep adding obsolete place name. Matthew hk (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the IP from Tuen Mun South extension for a year. I suggest that you make a page at WP:LTA.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, for example, this is yet another ip from HK using yet another mobile phone network CMHK (182.239.122.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)), which adding unsourced trivial Five Big Manmade Climbs" (五大人造爬上), in which does not even have google search result for "五大人造爬上" (Special:Diff/1060049801). I can't tell it is the same guy or not, but they (the ips from different range and ISP of HK) consistently adding unsourced content in non-constructive level. Matthew hk (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

And tracking the page history, the above 五大人造爬上 hoax was also added by 1.36.41.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (zh:special:Diff/69080201) and in ja-wiki (ja:special:Diff/87001909) so that we never able to know it is the same person or not. Or is it the same as 203.145.95.X, or the ip that harassed Citobun, that Citobun fails to add the exact diff and ip number to this thread?) Matthew hk (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

And as mentioned that this thread need proper documentation , Ymblanter blocked 42.200.166.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which clearly not from the same ip range from my last thread (and also not the ip range of my second last thread), so that i really can't tell they are the same person or a cult of toxic people. Matthew hk (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

And And tracking the page history, 42.200.166.X ip range did involved in ip hopping in the past. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China Unicom Hong Kong. Matthew hk (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there are multiple long-term disruptive IPs active on Hong Kong articles (especially those relating to the MTR and border crossings), but I believe that the editing centred on adding obscure place names, uncited geographic/naming trivia, and land lot numbers is one individual (the same person who is harassing me) as the editing patterns are quite consistent. I will soon make a page at WP:LTA as Ymblanter suggested. Citobun (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Update: I have created a page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hong Kong geography warrior. Citobun (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, regarding the question of whether it's one or multiple individuals – I was scrutinising the earlier discussion at WPHK. While IP addresses like 116.92.226.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 116.92.226.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) were pretending to be different people, it is clear from their editing that they are the same person. They were doing something similar over at Talk:MTR (two IPs were talking to each other pretending to be two different people, but they both have the same narrow editing interests, e.g. "New Kowloon" 1, 2). Although in relation to the Hong Kong border crossings dispute I do believe there are multiple anonymous individuals involved in that dispute. Citobun (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

They are still stalking my recent edits. Citobun (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Omg c'mon have you actually found out how common references to New Kowloon, the Victoria City or land lot numbers are on Wikipedia? Land lot numbers appear in news stories in the press here too. And no I don't think I ever edited the Tuen Mun southern extension article. 116.92.226.240 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I have observed a long-term tendency of Citobun to disregard entire edits whenever he or she deems something to be wrong. Since Tuen Mun South extension is protected I would use it as an example. In his or her edits[51][52] he or she has repeatedly disregarded changes to the capitalisation of the letter G, addition of the convert template, and disambiguation between the MTR and the MTRCL. This happens over many Hong Kong-related articles and it has been a long-term behavioural or editing style issue. It makes him or her a person particular difficult for other editors to work with. Even worse was that he or she never bothers to go to talk pages.

On the other hand he or she has kept asking for proof that the area was indeed referred to after Butterfly Beach. 42.200.166.13 had submitted references[53] and added some more[54] to fulfil him or her but he or she has never been satisfied. I have reviewed the references submitted and they do demonstrate that the neighbourhood is called after the beach, especially those added on 10 December. But he or she didn't bother to review the newly added sources. And he or she in fact does the same thing all along with many other Hong Kong-related edits - Dismisses whatever he or she doesn't know or doesn't like as obscure, and rejects all references. He or she is using his or her very own life experience to refute reliable sources. Perhaps he or she's too young to know what older people perceive about the geography, topography of this territory or life in this territory, perhaps he or she's living in a particular corner of this territory which hinders his or her knowledge of the rest of this territory in general, or maybe we have been all wrong and he or she's been right all along. No matter what from what I seen the way he or she puts it is discriminatory, antagonistic towards other editors. This isn't helpful to the Wikipedia project. 116.92.226.240 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Needless to say, this is the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hong Kong geography warrior. I don't want to get bogged down arguing about another one of your made-up names – but: if someone refers to the "World Trade Center area" in a general sense, referring to the vicinity of the World Trade Center in New York City, does it then mean that Lower Manhattan can be called "World Trade Center"? No, of course not. But that's the essence of your argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to push your personal agenda. Citobun (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Fellow administrators all you need to do at first is to verify whether what Citobun suggested was true. Land lot numbers are used extensively in Hong Kong.[55][56][57][58][59][60][61] They certainly aren't obscure. In older neighbourhoods stone markers aren't uncommon. And in fact there are mentioned in many Wikipedia articles, e.g. Cheung Kong Center, an entry which Citobun's associate Matthew hk had recently edited. ... but: if someone refers to the "World Trade Center area" in a general sense, referring to the vicinity of the World Trade Center in New York City, does it then mean that Lower Manhattan can be called "World Trade Center"? Names aren't made up by me but the locals, and we indeed gotta look at each individual cases. Locations as far as Sugar Street is still referred to by many as Daimaru even though it's a block away from where the department store used to be located. Tai Fat Hau isn't just a name used by the locals. It made its way to be the name of a local council constituency, even though the namesake company had gone many decades ago. Other similar examples may include Tit Kong, Ngo Keng, Tai Hang and A Kung Ngam. And despite his or her WTC example he or she has practically endorsed that same usage with something like "Tuen Mun Ferry Pier area" in his or her edits to Turn Mun southern extension. On the other hand references to New Kowloon (which he or she admitted to be not incorrect) and the Victoria City have been so extensive on Wikipedia that that's an implicit consensus among Wikipedia editors active in Hong Kong-related topics perhaps since the earliest days of Wikipedia. These are easily verifiable and administrators shouldn't hesitate verifying them yourselves. What he or she has been doing is to stick with his or her very own experience and understanding, enforce it in his edits, and use IP editors from Hong Kong (which he probably knows very well why so many Hongkongers don't edit from registered accounts) as scapegoats or human sheilds, that something he or she has succeeded so far. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@116.92.226.240:, you show up as ip hopper that block evaded? (from 42.200.166.13 ip). You literally borderline personal attack and admit you are involved in adding narrow-interested "official name" of some location (aka land lease lot no) that they never a common name and violate WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT on wikipedia is not a travel guide or a bin of trivial info. Matthew hk (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

And just checked , Ymblanter has blocked that ip (116.92.226.240) for 31 hours as well. Matthew hk (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

What? How could you come up with something as such? Please read carefully as far as possible. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not informed of the exact reason why I got blocked. But my changes to the Wu Kai Sha station article were reverted, for no reason. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You (116.92.226.240 and later 116.92.226.235) are blocked as a suspect of ip hopping from 42.200.166.13 as LTA (and i don't bother to check page history of which ip that rearrange my comments order, but assume it is you). Just create an acoount or don't do the same behaviour as the LTA to received the collateral damage. Matthew hk (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have fallen victim of what Citobun (mis)represented. He argues and edits against whatever kind of reference to New Kowloon for obscure reasons. But now that I got reported and reverted for removing a reference to New Kowloon. (@Scottywong: FYI.) 219.76.24.209 (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the damages are beginning to surface. He or she has made his or her way to mislead administrators. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@219.76.24.209: How and why am I getting roped into whatever this is? What do I have to do with any of this? Why are you pinging me to this conversation and posting cryptic requests on my talk page? —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• OhNoitsJamie has made a good faith assumption that the ip can able to use talk page and other ways to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but once again the ip bomb this thread with wall of text of no meaning and the same can't tell it is meatsock or ip hopping behaviour. And clearly canvassing Scottywong, which Scottywong don't even know what ip want for him. Matthew hk (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:, I am not sure why 219.76.24.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) show up as the ip (or the range) is not mentioned in this thread before, but may be he want to self confess for a block. Matthew hk (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think that a few rangeblocks would help quell things down. From the LTA page created, I calculated these ranges:

• 116.92.226.224/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 219.76.24.192/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 219.76.63.96/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 124.217.189.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 220.246.91.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 203.145.94.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

wizzito | say hello! 04:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Considering that this behavior started up again, I am still advocating for the rangeblocks here as needed. wizzito | say hello! 12:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I propose that we follow WP:DENY for this LTA and simply revert on sight. We’re long past the point of getting any successful conflict resolution with this user and their persistent IP-Hopping and tendency to invent (rather obvious) alter-egos to stack discussions has shown that attempting to engage with them has and will be completely unproductive. This user has already wasted enough of our time. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I’ve also noticed a pattern with this LTA’s editing style- they seem to have a tendency to first perform an unproblematic edit, then follows it up with another edit introducing a questionable place name or location into the article. Examples of this behavior can be seen on Java Road, Fat Kwong Street and Wanshan Archipelago. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 16:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP editor has also seemingly acknowledged their LTA “nickname”, as evidenced by this edit summary. DENY is definitely needed. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 16:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Instantnood?

I just realised this might be User:Instantnood – a user who was very active from 2005 before they were banned in 2007 for disruptive behaviour. Check out their edit history. Their editing patterns and interests are shockingly similar (similar subjects, adding the exact same obscure place names such as New Kowloon and Tai Wo Ping, same fixation on the terminology surrounding Hong Kong/Macau/Taiwan/China). And there have been a lot of suspected Instantnood sockpuppets over the past decade. Thoughts? Citobun (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh. Looking at Instantnood's MO, I'm not 100% sure that the IP is Instantnood- they've mostly just been pushing obscure place names and not attempting to promote Hong Kong nationalism in articles. There might be a connection but it's prolly not enough to make a solid link. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 17:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually the IP has been engaged in the same kind of country-terminology debates as Instantnood. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Citobun (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm... Might be worth further investigation, but I'd wait until we find a concrete link between the two. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Editor AlexBrn lacking neutral viewpoint

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

---

Editor Alexbrn is active in a lot of articles where Ivermectin is mentioned and has a biased view. In the latest talk under Paul Marik, after I had mentioned an UnHerd talk with a Wiki co-founder, he commented ad personam:

"If Qanon's your thing, fine; just don't expect it to get traction here. Wikipedia goes a different way, prizing accepted knowledge rather than crankery."

This is proof of his biased thinking and immoral speech, suggesting a user would be interested in Qanon after the user has linked to an UnHerd video. Alexbrn actively suppresses the reflection of different opinions in the medical world about the use of Ivermectin and other medicine against COVID in main articles and likes to get personal then on the talk pages. Otaku00 (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otaku00 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we need a whole long discussion before the boomerang block here, or can we just jump right to WP:NOTHERE to save time? --JBL (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I was betting with myself how long that would take.

[X] Unsigned post

[X] Ivermectin

[X] Complaining about someone saying "Wikipedia goes a different way, prizing accepted knowledge rather than crankery."

I guess we can leave the thread open for a while, but in the interest of reducing drama, maybe just block now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I missed one.

[X] Recent block for personal attacks in the topic area they're complaining about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

OP blocked indef: User_talk:Otaku00#Indefinite_block. El_C 13:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

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

• Perhaps their TPA should be revoked; they have made 21 edits to their talk page after being indeffed. dudhhr_Contribs 14:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• I would like to take this moment to remind everyone how useful the WP:LARRYEM link can be. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

User talk:2600:8800:1F03:9D00:20E8:34B7:3C24:F388

This ip has posted something to their talk page that is very offensive. This edit. Chip3004 (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hhhh! El_C 04:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally I read this as an exultation as if in orgasm. Yknow, basically the whole thing was just a misunderstood flirtation, and anon IP is soliciting OP for relations. If there's a "Wikipedia is not a dating site" essay, I haven't seen it!! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this really a matter for AN/I? I'd say an IP user posting "suck penis" to their talk page (and that being their only edit so far) isn't chronic or intractable. Just slap them with a templated warning. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 16:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Can Covid-19 misinformation (namely horse dewormer misinformation) get revdel'd from my Talk page?

About a month ago, after having, I think, conducted some minor cosmetic edits on the article Ivermectin, I received this message on my Talk page, erroneously aimed at me.

Now, I'd normally have just left it up - I'm not starting a discussion about the user in question who posted it here - but in hindsight, I wasn't comfortable with the fact that three articles referenced in this message were still on my Talk page; as such, I removed them.

My question is - is there any way to suppress the fact they were added and removed in the first place? I don't want the URLs in question to be even available for someone to look at, even through edit histories. I'm unsure that this would be viable criteria for revision deletion, but this isn't really a sensitive request as such, so I think I'm correct to ask here. Thanks!--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 16:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's revdelable. We are awash in Ivermectin idiocy everywhere, so I don't think we need to worry about someone linking to an old version of your talk page. Removing it was, of course, fine (it's your talk page), but I wouldn't revdel it if it were up to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: Are you sure that you linked the correct diff in your original post? The only URLs I see in the linked revision are to pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, which is operated by the United States National Institutes of Health (while I agree that the government is often untrustworthy, my understanding is that Wikipedia generally considers the NIH to be a credible source). jp×g 00:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

PubMed is just a database; most of the stuff in it is unreliable for our purposes (and some is the most awful crap). It's a common misconception that because something's "in PubMed" it somehow has an NIH imprimatur. Alexbrn (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG: - I have to admit to not having read the sources in question, but as Alexbrn says, it apparently doesn't always host reliable content. The text around it, which made a point out of Would You Like To See My Peer-Reviewed Studies Down Here In My Cellar Next To A Cask Of Amontillado Wine, seemed to indicate quackery if nothing else.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 11:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Pubmed is basically just Google Scholar for MEDLINE indexed articles. It also indexes plenty of journals about chiropractic and acupuncture and aromatherapy and hypnosis. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Not revision deletable. More importantly, you shouldn't edit anyone's comment to alter its meaning. (Exceptions would include BLP violations, copyright violations, etc., which is not the case here.) You should restore the comment, then you're free to delete the whole discussion, if you wish to do so. Politrukki (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Promotion from 112.209.98.110, 112.209.127.217, 112.209.161.220, 120.28.64.215

Heading added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ToBeFree (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

112.209.98.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 112.209.127.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) all of them are adding promotional (I don't know if it's promotional) and unrelated topics in many BLP and non-BLP articles, unreferenced also, clearly BLP violation. Their contributions are the same as the previous IPs I've reported in AIV that is now blocked (112.209.161.220 and 120.28.64.215). Any administrator!? I've warned them, but it is possible that they are not listening and they will do it again. —Ctrlwiki • talk • 09:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected those pages. El_C 14:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. —Ctrlwiki • talk • 14:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Libracarol original research

• Illegal removal of people from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Deportation of Afghan immigrants from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Deportation of Cambodian immigrants from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Deportation of Americans from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Aggravated felony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Luna Torres v. Lynch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Libracarol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

One of our law editors, Libracarol is creating and overhauling articles using mostly primary sources. This is resulting in issues with WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:POV, and WP:UNDUE. Please click some of the articles above and take a look at the citations sections to see what I mean.

In law articles, any kind of citation to a court case is WP:PRIMARY. There is strong consensus for this, supported by two discussions I will link in the next paragraph and also supported by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law)#Original texts. And of course, articles should be written using mostly secondary sources, not primary sources.

I have been taking this slow and steady, trying to persuade Libracarol to change their writing style. I achieved consensus at both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Citations with a lot of cases and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Legal articles: citing too many cases that their writing style is problematic and they need to change it. However they are not listening.

At the original research noticeboard, I asked them if they would accept our consensus and would be willing to clean up their articles, and they said no. Only admins can decide if I'm engaged in OR but you're not an admin. Please see their full statement here.

Looking at their talk page, there may also be a history of doing this. I see 123 talk page sections before December 2021 on the subject of original research, and 1 on NPOV.

This style of editing looks OK on the surface because it is so well cited, but in my opinion it is actually quite pernicious. It injects original research into articles, and it takes a skilled editor to clean it up. And cleanup can't really begin until the original editor stops defending their edits.

What should be done here? –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• I should add that it appears, from a limited spot-check performed at NORN, that Libracarol is making misleading claims (at best) or factual errors (at worst) when writing these articles. JBchrch talk 14:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae and his supporters claim that a written opinion by Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and accessible through Harvard Law School is a primary source and not a reliable secondary source. Me and at least two admins disagree. Novem Linguae and his supporters do not provide any reliable source to back their unsourced POV. Furthermore, he's falsely accusing me. I'm not creating articles, and I'm not engaged in editing of articles but just replying to others in noticeboards. The listed articles have existed for years with nobody changing them, except the first one which I created to cover illegal deportation of legal immigrants (non-Americans). He's reporting me back to back in a very quick way but yet says he's "taking this slow and steady". My talk page is irrelevant. I have not been editing since 2018, and my talk page has been inactive since then. I feel being bullied. WP:BULLY.--Libracarol (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"I'm not engaged in editing of articles" can't be what you meant to say since it's so easy to disprove. That you haven't edited since 2018, when these same issues were raised, and now they're being raised again upon your return to editing, is evidence of a problem: you haven't learned or adjusted to feedback. Levivich 15:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

No bullying is going on here. On the other hand, your belittling editors has been noted[62]. Many editors have issues with your editing. Including me[63]. My concerns, are you putting references on a sentence that has nothing to do with what was written. (This is a longtime concern I have had with editing around WP. Here is a link[64] to a talk page discussion I had with administrator) For example this[65]. I'm referring to the re-addition of the Born in East LA mention. OR, bogus referencing and I have multiple occasions in this and another of your articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Based on a quick look, the first three articles are basically POV essays that were/are created or dominated by Libracarol. This work has been enabled by Libracarol's interpretation / interpretive application of primary sources, a key reason why such is not allowed. The first one is particularly creative, essentially arguing that US law is illegal and writing an article title accordingly. North8000 (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• As a general matter, there may be some failure here to distinguish between different types of court filings. Assertions contained in pleadings and briefs filed by parties represent one end of the spectrum, where we should be extremely dubious in relying on these materials for the truth of the matters asserted. That is one end of the spectrum. Unpublished decisions of trial courts are also at the less reliable end of the spectrum. At the other end of the spectrum are the written opinions of the United States Supreme Court, published by the Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. In the American system of shared powers and checks and balances, the published decisions of the Supreme Court are the law of the land. An encyclopedia should not discourage citation to, and reliance on, the actual opinions wherein the law is set forth. All that being said, an editor with a POV can abuse secondary authorities discussing Supreme Court opinions just as easily as they can the opinions themselves. The problem here is not IMO with the usage of Supreme Court opinions but with the POV. Cbl62 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  Agree. The Supreme Court opinions I cite are exclusively about giving a specific immigration statute (section of US law) its proper definition and coverage. The statute would be the primary law and the Court's published opinion would be the scholarly work used here as a secondary reliable source. The Court does not make laws, its sole task is to explain to the public what that section of law is and who it applies to (or not apply to).--Libracarol (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict, response is just to CBl62's post) I think that we agree, but just double checking. I never questioned that a SCOTUS decision is essentially the law of the land. My "US law is illegal" note refers to the editor invoking and interpreting rules from outside of the US to say that what is legal under US law is actually illegal based on those non-US standards. And of course, I agree that one can also mis-use secondary sources and that POV'ing is an issue here. But using primary sources outside the limits prescribed by policy provides much more latitude to this type of a POV problem and enables it.North8000 (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  If an editor is aggressively pushing a POV, that can be accomplished just as easily (probably more easily) by using secondary sources discussing SCOTUS opinions. My point is simply that the problem here is the POV, not the reliance on published SCOTUS opinions. Cbl62 (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  I never said US law is illegal. The article explicitly states that illegal deportation is illegal because the US law says so. Who on this planet would disagree with that? Is illegal deportation legal?--Libracarol (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  While court decisions may be "law of the land", they are primary sources, just like any laws passed by Congress. Any interpretation or synthesis from those sources require a secondary source, not a WP editor, which is the problem here with these articles. --Masem (t) 19:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Cbl62 (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Just because a court opinion is a primary source (or is treated as one on Wikipedia) doesn't mean it can never be used. There are some appropriate uses of SCOTUS opinions for example. But we can't write an entire article by stringing together dozens of case citations. And it's even worse when that's done to push a POV, by turning encyclopedia articles into advocacy essays. This is someone who is using Wikipedia to write law review articles arguing for a particular interpretation of law. Libracarol should publish their work in a law review instead of on Wikipedia. Levivich 16:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  The above-listed articles are based on commonly-known facts, such as dogs and cats have four legs, a human has two feet and two hands, Washington D.C. is the capital of the United States, etc. They do not even need a reference. I added the extra opinions of judges (legal scholars) in the event someone has any doubts.--Libracarol (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  If you think "Deportation of Afghan immigrants from the United States violates the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) and other laws,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] unless it is done rationally and in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).[8][9][10]", is a WP:BLUESKY statement that doesn't need to be cited, you don't understand WP:V and that's a WP:CIR issue. Levivich 16:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  In my opinion that's the best way. It's saying that they could be deported only as the law prescribes but not any other way. An "immigrant" is someone who has been admitted to the U.S. by the government and has permission to reside in the U.S. [66]--Libracarol (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  It should be noted here than the claim about deportations violating the UN Convention against Torture is erroneous. The CAT doesn't include a blanket prohibition on deportations to Afghanistan, as was discussed to at NORN. JBchrch talk 16:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  That's the problem. Most people don't know immigration laws. I wrote these articles so everyone can fully understand them. If one person gets illegally deported the US government could end up paying that person hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. [67] What benefit does the US get from this? That person will simply come back and buy a new home with no mortgage.--Libracarol (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  Per our standard disclaimers, just as we are not a reliable source for medical information, we are not a reliable source for legal information. And asserting that we should have these articles to help prevent readers from getting into legal trouble is not any part of our mission. If the legal aspects of immigration, etc are discussed in legal-expert secondary sources, we can summarize those, but we can't do that off the laws or court decisions themselves. --Masem (t) 19:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Per Levivich, quite happy to cite Libracarol after peer reviewed and RS published :)Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Levivich: If you look closer at reference #4 for that sentence, it doesn't verify it. So why is that reference there? There's plenty more of this in these articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Highly recommend that Libracarol stop creating or editing such articles, until this matter is cleared up. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you see me creating or editing them?--Libracarol (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Smart move. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• For purposes of this discussion, let's assume the citations are valid.   We are still left with violating NPOV, Synth, and civility.
  • On Civility, any expert who believes their sheepskin makes them the superior authority on a topic and states other editors can not comprehend the topic fails collaboration and civility. Special:Diff/1060783833 Special:Diff/1060829594 Special:Diff/1060804484. All of these are minor in tone but significant in showing the editor believes they are superior to the rest of us.
  • On Synth and NPOV, combining three sources to create ledes that state in absolute wikivoice "Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), illegal removal of people from the United States[1] violates the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) and other international law.[2][3]", when a review of the sources shows that the statement has several nuances specifically that illegal deportation only violates CAT if reasonable to believe someone is tortured (Illegal deportation to say Canada doesn't rise to this level) is violation of core policies and a major disservice to readers. Also violates lede follows body. Hard to diff but any editor can click the three sources in article and read the notes.
  • In short, the editor has for years gotten away with creating advocacy articles that promote their personal view of the subject and at this time refuses to bring the articles or their editing style into compliance with wikipedia policies and a WP:CIR ban should be considered unless they immediately take affirmative steps to fix their mess and promise to cease personal attacks and comply with wikipedia policies. Slywriter (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay has suggested above that I don't edit the articles. Only my opponent thinks I'm violating civility, and we're suppose to believe this opponent just because he says so. User:Alyo claimed he/she was a law student but now has changed it to being a lawyer. [68] Whatever I said in those diffs is not a personal attack on anyone because what if I'm a professor and a judge? Slywriter knows that most deportations are to Mexico [69] so why does he uses Canada as an example? Has any American ever been deported to Canada? I wish that could happen to me. Banning me from those articles would constitute injustice and abuse of discretion. I no longer have interest in those articles. The world already knows about illegal deportation without needing to read Wikipedia. Only a couple of people read those articles daily.--Libracarol (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Not only do I seriously doubt that you are a professor or a judge, but you could be Oliver Wendell Holmes rising from the dead and your style of editing would still be unacceptable. And yes, deportations to Canada do take place, which confirms that you may be overstating your expertise by a significant margin. JBchrch talk 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I was obviously talking about deportation of Americans to Canada. The most popular case about Canadian deported to Canada is Stone v. INS (1995). [70] This is a very latest case about Canadian deported to Canada. [71]--Libracarol (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I do hope it's not surprising to you that in the passage of time, a law student would eventually become a lawyer. That's sort of the end goal there. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Returning to the original question in the OP, "what should be done here?": the affected articles should be restored to last-good-version prior to the rewrites (unfortunately, there are a number of affected articles, and the restoration should be done with some care because of intervening possibly-good edits), and the editor should be indef blocked and they can make an unblock request demonstrating they understand and will comply with WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and other core content policies. I'm particularly concerned that this was an issue in 2018, after which a wiki-break was taken, only to return to the same problematic editing in 2021. I don't want to leave this issue unresolved for editors in 2024. Levivich 18:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest that Levivich be blocked for hounding and bullying. WP:HOUND; WP:BULLY. It has been blocked before. [72]--Libracarol (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  Please don't call fellow editors "it". And that block log clearly shows the blocking admin unblocked 2 hours later with apologies. —valereee (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't look at how long the block was. I used "it" because others have used it and I got tired of writing he/she. Some find "he/she" offensive.--Libracarol (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Libracarol, never use it for a human. If in doubt, use singular they. Also, sorry everyone, forgot to block Levivich indef. But there's still time! El_C 21:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't even use 'they', just use the editor's name. That way, nobody will complain. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Any complaints about they would be spurious. Being respectful doesn't mean we need to coddle anyone. El_C 21:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. In court filings I repeatedly use party's name but was afraid that editors here will become annoyed or something. So I will just stick to name only.--Libracarol (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You appear in an actual court and still you thought it is okay somehow? That's... wow. El_C 21:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's very common to call the U.S. Attorney General "it", including anyone under him.--Libracarol (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That seems doubtful. An Attorney General is a person. Their office is an it, their statements are an it, etc., but not they themselves, personally. El_C 21:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

He's the head of a department, so "it" is a better choice. If you were to use he or she, it could be a reference to one of his lawyers.--Libracarol (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If you're able to produce documentation to prove that, that would surprise me. El_C 23:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"It" is often used to refer to the office of a prosecutor. I have not seen it applied to people, including the head of that office. —valereee (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Also to a party that is a corporation or a class of people. It is absolutely appropriate to say "it" regardless who the president of the corporation is. The Attorney General does not go in person to courts. His lawyers do. In briefs we say "it" did this or "it" failed to do that.--Libracarol (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Libracarol, absolutely, but that does in no way mean we refer to the officeholder themselves, the human being, as "it". —valereee (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Libracarol, if you go to Preferences>Gadgets>Browsing>Navigation popups, enabling that will allow you to hover over an editor's name and see if they've specified pronouns. If they haven't, we generally recommend using they. —valereee (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

It's enabled, and thanks.--Libracarol (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I never bother with the singular 'they/them' pronoun. But, it's up to you. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Stealth political incorrectness, gg. El_C 23:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm beginning to think that a topic ban on law-related articles per WP:CIR might be in order. Despite multiple attempts to explain to them the basics of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY at multiple venues, through both on-wiki and off-wiki materials, Libracarol is still unresponsive and maintains their original position head-on [73]. They still maintain that they are an expert, despite outright mistakes, failures at understanding sourcing requirements, and a general pattern of incompetence. Add in the personal attacks, accusations, strawmanning and belittling of other editors, which are still ongoing [74]. They were offered a chance at cleaning up their articles, but didn't take it. Is there any other way out of this? JBchrch talk 22:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• The way out is simply tag the articles for law experts. I'll periodically update the "notes and references" section with latest Supreme Court opinions that are more directly on point. I'll also try to trim the articles, especially the "notes and references" sections. If we cite mostly outdated law reviews, the article would be misleading readers because the old opinions could have been reversed by the high court. This happens a lot in immigration matters. That's the reason relying on what the high court says is better, but I'm not against law reviews. They go better in the further reading section. I'll say this again. Supreme Court opinions are not primary but reliable secondary sources. "A secondary source is not the law. It's a commentary on the law...." [75] "Secondary sources are materials that discuss, explain, analyze, and critique the law...." [76] "Secondary sources often explain legal principles more thoroughly than a single case or statute, so using them can help you save time...." [77] If you read any Supreme Court opinion, that's exactly what it does.--Libracarol (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• If it is clear that, say SCOTUS overturns a prior decision, and we have articles that use sources that are based on that decision being non-overturned, it is not inappropriate to work in "Prior to its overturnin, this decision was considered by legal experts to..." as the historical nature of how such a decision work is still fine. That's using the non-opinion part of a decision for that purpose. But court opinions are by default primary sources. Just because we have justices that are intended to be experts in the law, we cannot use their decisions equal to a peer reviewed law paper. They may be secondary sources for older cases that are mentioned, but absolutely primary for the case they are resolving. --Masem (t) 23:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You insist on misreading the links that I provided to you at NORN. The first link from Yale Law School doesn't mention opinions and cases in its list of secondary sources. What does that tell you? The second link from NYU Law has a menu where you can select Legal Research - Primary Sources > U.S. Case Law, which leads to this, a page that explicitly mentions Supreme Court cases and opinions. The third link from Harvard Law School lists Case Law in its "Primary Sources" and links to this this video, which gives an example from a Supreme Court case. At this stage, your incompetence, or worse, is evident. JBchrch talk 23:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Me pointing out to the world that Luna Torres v. Lynch was wrongly decided makes me incompetent? NYU says "An introduction to the Law Library and Legal Research for students". What does Wikipedia has to do with that? We are not NYU students. Case law is the controlling law of a specific court and applies only in the jurisdiction of that court. We're simply saying that if a law journal or a book written by let's say a Justice of the Supreme Court can be a secondary reliable source then why can't a similar written work that is authored by Justices of the US Supreme Court be a secondary reliable source for Wiki purposes? Is it the publication company that's the problem?--Libracarol (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

How often do the Justices of the US Supreme Court write about topics which they are not involved in ruling on as a court? —C.Fred (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure but you can search it.--Libracarol (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Associate Justice William O. Douglas was a prolific writer on topics having little or nothing to do with the law, especially world travel, the wilderness and the environment. Cullen328 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Having looked at the articles and having read the discussion above, it appears clear to me that Libracarol does not understand the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, and refuses to listen to other editors trying to explain it to them. Whether they're a real legal expert or not, on Wikipedia knowing how to avoid original research is a key competence, and since Libracarol shows no interest at all in acquiring this competence, they should not be editing here any further. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Comment on content, not on the contributor." [78] How do we know you even read the articles?--Libracarol (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Libracarol: Unfortunately, we're at ANI, and we're here because the content you have contributed to articles is problematic, and the common denominator is the contributor. Thus, it is now absolutely appropriate to discuss whether you are a suitable editor for articles related to law, broadly construed. I'd like to engage in discussion, but if you really want to stifle it, I'll go ahead and !vote to enforce a topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a solution but all I see is sort of attacks. If there are problems with the articles let's just fix them and not worry about who I am. I'm not pro-immigrant or pro-government, just reporting what's going on in the world.--Libracarol (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

If it were just a few articles, we could do that. The problem is, you keep making the same mistakes over and over again, and it's gotten so bad that it was reported here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, the building is already built. You want me to demolish it?--Libracarol (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI is a user behavior noticeboard and is an exception. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. It seems Libracarol has backed down somewhat now, but just to be clear, yes, we want you to demolish the building you built. I'm sure a mentor involved in legal articles would be happy to give them a once-over if desired. I just want to comment on one thing: it would not be much of an improvement if Libracarol were to leave the content unadjusted in "his" existing articles and to write future articles in the exact same style, but remove the primary sources and source them exclusively to radical law professors and the like. Wikipedia should be giving the boring, mainstream view, and put bluntly it's pretty obvious that's not what's going on here, what with the claims that SCOTUS decisions are "clearly erroneous" and can thus safely be ignored. There's so much law & potential precedents out there it's easy to get trapped in wishful thinking about what the law might be (Original research), but we're looking for realistic estimates of what the law really will imply, or at least sources saying that nobody is really sure what a law means and could be up to future judicial interpretation. SnowFire (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal Topic or Indefinite ban for Libracarol

With all the problems discovered in this editor's work and their pretty much committing WP:IDHT when told how they have been, some form of action needs to be taken. Levivich[79] proposed an indefinite ban and JBchrch proposed[80] just a topic ban. So do you support a topic ban, indefinite ban, or no action at all.

• Support broad topic ban on any law-related article editing. Libracarol is clearly pushing a point of view in his law articles. They should be banned from editing them. Some action needs to be taken but I feel a indefinite ban would be too harsh. Let this editor contribute to WP in other areas if they want....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I got the point very clear. I'm bullied and not wanted here. Even the walls are telling me this.--Libracarol (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

If you were not wanted here, you would be indefinitely blocked, and we'd move along. Instead, editors are trying to find a way where you can still participate in a project while avoiding the area where your edits have seem to run severely afoul of Wikipedia's policies while you gain a better understanding of the policies. —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You're not accepting our feedback. If at WikiProject Law or NORN you had accepted our feedback and committed to clean up the articles, we would not be here. Your digging in is what has escalated this. You are not accepting what we are saying despite a huge WP:CONSENSUS. If you accept the consensus and clean up the articles, this tension will go away. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You told me to clean up all these articles, which nobody even reads, GoodDay said don't edit the articles, I said I'm busy, and I'm replying to all these comments. What would you do in such situation. Don't forget I also do a lot of things at home.--Libracarol (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Libracarol, re: I do a lot of things at home. We have no deadlines here. If you can't fix something today or this week or this month, fix it next month. The point is that you need to let us know you agree it needs fixing, and that in the case of a mistake you made yourself, you want to try to fix it, even if that's not going to be today. And that if someone else comes along to fix, you don't stand in their way, even if you aren't completely convinced their fix is perfect.

I think what @GoodDay was advising was that you don't continue to edit the articles against consensus? —valereee (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

No. He meant until this whole discussion thing is completely over. Sure, I'm always a fixer. That's the main reason I came to Wikipedia to fix common problems with articles.--Libracarol (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, that could be true, and it's very good advice. —valereee (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support broad legal topic ban per William. Cbl62 (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Change to oppose for now given the expressed willingness to listen and fix things. Cbl62 (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support broad topic ban on any law-related article editing, per discussion above and linked comment. JBchrch talk 00:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Moving to weak support, as Libracarol is slowly beginning to see the light and accept that there was a problem with their editing. JBchrch talk 04:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Starting to feel we're getting trolled. No, getting carried away doesn't generally happen with competent, well-intentioned editors just because we're working alone. We try our best to write neutrally. And when we're writing solo we don't even have anyone to push back on, so in theory (and in my experience in practice) we're able to be even less carried away. I also cannot figure out what you are talking about when you say you'll "try to make the articles normal soon". —valereee (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I'd like to see us give this person a bit more room to learn before we tban on their main area of interest. —valereee (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't deserve any sanctions. I talk a lot but I'm a good contributor with no grudges against anyone. I improve articles with no agenda of any kind. Wikipedia will be sad without me.:) I'll slowly fix the articles, just leave a short message on my talk page to fix something and I'll do it. No need to give reasons and explanations. I get things fast.--Libracarol (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  You might want to tone that down. Multiple editors have expressed concerns about your contributions. —valereee (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Was talking about pre-report edits. I thought everything was OK.--Libracarol (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is (AFAIK) the first time the lad has been brought to ANI, on this topic. Give'em a chance to change gears. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on legal subjects per my comment above: there's no understanding of WP:PSTS, and a stubborn refusal to WP:LISTEN to other editors trying to explain. I can sympathize with the oppose rationales, but it should be emphasized that this is by no means a new issue: editors have brought this up, and have been falling on deaf ears, on 5 September 2018, on 15 October 2018, on 16 February 2021, on 17 February 2021, and very profusely during the last few days. Rather, perhaps they will learn to appreciate what it means to write an extremely strict tertiary source (because of its open & pseudonymous nature, WP is actually much more stringent –and rightfully so– in repelling originally researched material than other encyclopedias) by editing other topics. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  In one of those diffs, admin Acroterion stated this to me: "You've made significant improvements to the readability of aggravated felony, thanks for your efforts...." [81] The other diffs relate to comments on my personal talk page, which were between me and another user who found a problem, I fixed it and that user left me alone. Why is this used against me here and now? If this is not hounding me then what is it?--Libracarol (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  I did, because you did clean up the writing, but I followed that with substantial concerns about the way you were sourcing your contributions and the way you were drawing conclusions. That it's still happening three years later is a significant problem. Acroterion (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  I got carried away, which always happens when an editor is doing an article alone, but will try to make the articles normal soon.--Libracarol (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  No, that doesn't always happen. And I think you would do well to simply accept responsibility for your editing rather than seeking to excuse it. Dumuzid (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Generally speaking it does, and I did accept responsibility.--Libracarol (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't, and no, you didn't. You continue trying to deflect. Your unwillingness to listen on this minor rhetorical point does not augur well. Dumuzid (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support broad topic ban on any law-related article editing Editors have been raising the issues of citing primary sources and adding personal analysis on User talk:Libracarol as far back as September 2018.[82][83][84][85][86] Libracarol appears to disagree with the consensus view of WP:PSTS and unwilling to modify their approach to editing to comply with it. Had there been any indication in this ANI discussion that Libracarol was taking the feedback onboard and was willing to learn, I would have been an oppose. Schazjmd (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Schazjmd has been blocked several times [87] and is posting the same diffs as Apaugasma above.--Libracarol (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked twice, most recently two years ago. That block was quickly rescinded, after the user engaged in civil, on-point discussion about what happened. Whatever they may have done in the past, it looks like the user has learned and grown from it. It begs the question: Libracarol, are you willing to learn and grow, are are you just digging in? —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I said it several times that the articles will be fixed. I hope that's the only issue. I'm just an observer for now.--Libracarol (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It would help if rather than just "the articles will be fixed", you mentioned something about using secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

See subsection "Cleanup" below.--Libracarol (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on legal topics broadly construed. Their condescending response in this AfD concerns me. Case of WP:BLUDGEONING, WP:IDHT and refusal to distinguish between primary and secondary sources. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  It's my vote submission not a response to anyone. WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:IDHT do not apply to me. Maybe you can help us here. When the Supreme Court in its written opinion state commonly-known facts (e.g., "The word 'shall' is ordinarily the language of command" [88]) or recount the relevant facts of the case [89], is that to you a primary or a secondary source?--Libracarol (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Change to Support SBAN in the 45 comments made by Libracarol here, not a single one of them indicates they understand the complaint against them, nor any resolve to take full responsibility. The fundamental issue here isn't just their misunderstand of Wikipolicy/disruption in Law, but their very behaviour including here at ANI, where exceptional conduct is expected. Instead they've engaged in ad-honimen attacks, and deflection. While the community's response has been extremely generous and sensitive given it's their first time to ANI, their actions have been anything but that. For me to change my mind, a clearly stated apology, ownership of problematic edits and behaviour would change my mind. And it shouldn't take another 45 edits on here for them to reach that point. Some time to cool off and reflect would be to everyone's benefit including Libracarol. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support partial or full ban The comments and arguments offered in this discussion by the editor in question make it clear to me that this editor is at odds with our policies and practices regarding the use of primary sources and original research. He or she would have to make a very clear and convincing statement otherwise for me to make a different judgment. ElKevbo (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban, as Libracarol has expressed expressed a willingness to fix the articles they've written. They also seem to be a passionate and knowledgeable contributor, both qualities we look for. Let's give them another chance.VR _talk 02:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Is that the correct diff? Also I think a full apology and strong statement is needed at this point, after their strong refusal at NORN. Their statement should take responsibility and be convincing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Diff corrected. Libracarol are we correct to understand that you'll fix your previously written articles to comply with WP:NOR, as time permits? VR _talk 03:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, slowly. My eyes can't take too much reading.--Libracarol (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Novem Linguae, sorry OK. I was willing to listen to you in the very beginning but things got heat up and confusing. I thought we were deciding the primary/secondary source issue at that time.--Libracarol (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for that. I think this is a good step in the right direction. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, very barely, for now I think this person means well, but the editing is a problem, full stop. I also see their repeated appeals to authority as a major problem--especially since I find their bona fides not so bona. But I am of the opinion that we all deserve second (and third) chances, and would be in favor of giving the editor a last chance, on the understanding that listening and collaboration are essential. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think our community is better served when we give good intentioned editors a chance to improve without beating them up with the ban hammer. This editor has demonstrated a desire to fix the mistakes they've made, and we should provide the opportunity to do so. Atsme 💬 📧 02:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. First, I see signs that they are willing to acknowledge the policies and abide by them, so there's hope in the situation, as it were. Further, quite frankly, I feel a topic ban would be setting them up for failure: I don't see them being able to abide the ban, so they'd wind up getting blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you very much to all the merciful ones (opposing the ban). Those supporting the ban I also thank you because you at least showed me my past mistakes.--Libracarol (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Changed to: Support topic ban -- see my post further down in this bullet's subthread. Anyone who claims you can look at a court decision or statute, and from it say what the law is, is a poseur. Libracarol is a poseur and not a particularly good one -- that's clear from bluffery like written opinions by Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and accessible through Harvard Law School [90] (as if being "accessible through Harvard Law School" -- whatever that even means -- makes a difference).
  We get these types now and then, and they can be rated on a 1-to-5 scale. Here's a 5:

  I'm a 70 year old professor in the MIT system, with a JD in IP and a PhD in molecular biology and supercomputing... I've got dozens of young stallions working for me here ... I'm a Boston area researcher and IP person in technology transfer, molecular biology, and supercomputing as they apply to the Central Nervous System. I've got armies of grad students and PhD candidates who work in my labs, but they are young and understand the new media far more than I do. I don't even have an iphone yet even though our systems rival Google in storage! I spend summers on the West Coast in CA and AZ with fellow old researchers and younger students, and can often be found hanging around the supercomputing lab at UCSD. [91][92]

Gotcha. Here's a 4:

I lectured at MIT on computing in the 1990s. Later I changed careers. Earlier this year I lectured in D.C., in a program where just before me was a panel of heads of several agencies, and I was followed by Senator Hatch and Chief Justice Roberts. So I guess I'm more current on law, but at the top of both. [93]

We bow down to you for sure, Mr. Computer Lawyer. (And yet he couldn't answer even one of my four MIT trivia questions -- see the link.) Anyway, I'd put Libracarol at about a 3 out of 5 on the poseur scale, so conceivably not beyond redemption. EEng 04:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

So to you they were like Pete Puma. [94] The 70-year-old is indeed a professional.--Libracarol (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

WTF? I'm afraid that based on your response here and posts elsewhere I'm changing my !vote to endorse topic-banning you from legal topics. You continue to make a fool of yourself by pretending to be knowledgeable about the law. Not only are you obviously not that, you're not even possessed of mature discernment in affairs of the world. For example, you seem willing to believe that our "70-year old professor in the MIT system" was real, and that he had a "JD in IP", when in fact he was a nudnick out to see how much drunken made-up garbage Wikipedia editors would swallow.

Three years ago you said Only precedents (published opinions) should be cited and quoted. If you prefer "references that discuss the court's opinions" then you'll run into many problems. [95]. You did not then understand how Wikipedia works (and why it must work that way) and from all that's happened recently it appears that you still don't understand, nor do you seem to want to understand. EEng 00:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, draftify the articles and editor can submit via AfC(or directly move) when they are ready. Slywriter (talk)
• Very weak oppose per above discussion. NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 20:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support based on their behavior in the continuing discussion below, which puts the lie to any claim of lessons learned or behavioral changes. --JBL (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support some kind of measure -- I'm sorry to be on this side, because I want to extend the same second chance as others, but there's absolutely nothing in Libracarol's actions to indicate they understand what the fundamental issue is here. I cannot find a single comment where LC accepts that their interpretation of WP policy is wrong, and they remain largely opposed to content critiques from other editors. Promises to fix are nice, but we need some kind of clear statement from LC acknowledging some basic WP policies. The below discussion demonstrates the exact same issues that got us here: pushing a POV in wikivoice, misconstruing what "common knowledge is", dredging up the irrelevant history of other editors to win a content argument, building massive strawmen, etc etc. Unless LC realizes that their current understanding of how WP works is fundamentally wrong, this is just going to happen again. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. In the section below, Libracarol is still insulting other users and acting as if their expertise overrides sourcing. I don't see any other way forward with this, despite their claims to improve. They can improve in another area of the Wiki. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  If you see it as insult my intention is not to insult anyone. Topic ban basically means I will no edit WP at all because there's nothing else for me. I wrote these articles the best way I could, some found them problematic and I repeatedly said I'll fix them, but it's like they're not happy with this. I'm very confused right now.--Libracarol (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. A day or two ago, Libracarol apologized in this ANI thread and I thought that was the end of this. I thought that we had finally gotten enough experienced editors and admins together to say "this is original research, you need to stop", and that it had convinced Libracarol that they were wrong, where the other two noticeboards hadn't. I therefore abstained from posting in this section and I created the cleanup section below. Unfortunately Libracarol went back to their old ways in the cleanup section below. The issues include not taking responsibility (for the most part, some exceptions since they did apologize once), pushing back on most ideas, and WP:BLUDGEONING. They have derailed the cleanup section below with their comments, to the point where most of the comments are unable to address my original question of "how do we clean up these articles?" Considering the very large amount of cleanup that will be needed, and their lack of cooperation, I now support a TBAN. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup

Alright, editor has apologized (which is great, sounds like they get it now and will do better in the future), and it doesn't look like the topic ban is going to achieve consensus. What are the next steps? Looking through the edit history, there are more articles affected than just the ones I mentioned at the beginning. What is to be done with all these? Leave alone, revert to an old version, draftify, delete the huge cites, etc? Can someone with law editing experience please go spot check one of the articles above and give their opinion about how bad the OR is? Is it something we can leave in and just replace the huge cites with {{citation needed}}, or is it bad enough to justify scrubbing the articles? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think one article should cover it all (Americans who have been deported by mistake and legal immigrants who have been deported by mistake). As usual, the commonly-known facts need not be referenced unless someone tags them. Before I began working on these articles there was no meaningful solution for illegal deportation but now there is so the articles or article do not have to explain things in detail. This case, which is a very long reading, explains what has happened. If that's too much reading then you can just read this (page 67), the text under "§ 1003.2 Reopening or reconsideration before the Board of Immigration Appeals."--Libracarol (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Can I add Imprisonment to the list? The four paragraphs of Imprisonment#United States seem to be an extended argument that the definition of "imprisonment" is routinely misconstrued to enable deportation, breaching WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV, as well as WP:WEASEL, and has some bizarre linking (eg confinement). It currently states, in Wikipedia's voice, "This shows a pattern that courts in the United States have been illegally turning petty offenses into aggravated felonies for the purpose of sending a specific group of Americans to Afghanistan so they could be tortured. The legal premise of the Third Circuit is irrational and contradicts clearly-established law." I was grimly preparing to engage Libracarol again when I saw this thread. NebY (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

NebY, you've been around since 2005 so you should know that such things should normally be discussed in the talk page of the article and not here. Did you do that? Did you write anything on my talk page? It's common knowledge (and a fact) that "confinement" in reference to imprisonment covers "solitary confinement" but to assume that confinement includes every form of confinement is unsourced POV. Because the INA covers all aliens on Earth, in some countries or places they may only have a solitary confinement system but no incarceration system (prisons), Congress made it perfectly clear that imprisonment includes the period of incarceration or confinement in an institutional setting such as a prison. [96] Courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and others have confirmed this over and over in many cases. Immigration attorneys have also stated this in various secondary sources. As such, Wikipedia should stick to these sources. We could remove that green part because it's unsourced but if there were many secondary sources saying that then we cannot remove such findings just because we don't like them. WP:CENSOR. Those courts turned probation to imprisonment. You don't see anything wrong with that?--Libracarol (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It's common knowledge (and a fact) that "confinement" in reference to imprisonment covers "solitary confinement" but to assume that confinement includes every form of confinement is unsourced POV. Good lord, it never stops! --JBL (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

JayBeeEll, are the people in the International Space Station or those ordered deported to let's say Jamaica or Haiti confined?--Libracarol (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Astounding. --JBL (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Libracarol, it seems as though you repeatedly introduce citations with a "see" signal. Let me suggest to you that this is, basically, always inappropriate and should act like a warning light. "See" means that the cited source does not directly support the assertion, but that an inferential step is required to make the connection. While I won't say it is always true, I think you can take it as axiomatic that if you correctly use a "see" signal, you are running afoul of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Dumuzid, I stopped doing that here and will remove them from the articles but you're correct.--Libracarol (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Libracarol, when I undid some of your changes to Imprisonment#United States and placed a primary-sources tag on that section, you did not follow WP:BRD and go to the talk page. Iinstead you deleted the tag, restored problematic material, added more and now attack me for not immediately engaging on the talk page myself. Novem Linguae is made of sterner stuff than me; I didn't want to take on such long, depressing and frustrating talk-page and noticeboard discussions right now, so I was glad to stumble on this discussion and see that we might be moving to a clean-up phase. Instead, you do opposition research on me - as you have on others here - in an attempt at ad hominem deflection, wander into a long argument in favour of linking to a possible occasional meaning (raising WP:CIR red flags) and end with a resounding "Those courts turned probation to imprisonment. You don't see anything wrong with that?", a very clear statement that you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. How can we trust you to participate in the necessary clean-up? NebY (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Not attacking anyone, and don't plan to. I'm not here for WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Issues of law are resolved in courts only, and they don't rely on Wikipedia information. Probation and imprisonment are completely opposite to each other. What happened in the past stays in the past. I re-tagged it until the primary/secondary sources dispute gets cleared once and for all. [97], [98]--Libracarol (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

All of the immigration articles created by Libracarol and listed at the top of this thread show evidence of false referencing and some of it was done years ago. This is not just a recent behavior....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

WilliamJE (talk · contribs) has been blocked about a dozen of times and he's still carelessly misbehaving. Only he sees the so called evidence of false referencing. My articles contain too many references and that's it. But that can easily be fixed. If William wants me to engage in edit-war or something, I don't come here for that.--Libracarol (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Some editors above voted not to topic ban this editor because they have changed their behavior. Have they? Libracarol is still conducting personal attacks. I'm calling out what they have done here and I have plenty of proof. One example, this 2019 revision[99] of Deportation of Americans from the United States. The sentence 'Such deportation entitles Americans to seek damages, which may include immigration benefits and/or money, in the form of injunctive relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.[5][6][7][8][9]'. How many of those references cite Bivens? None of them do in their long summaries. If you want a recent example of this type of behavior from Libracarol, check out this edit[100] and how many of the references on the sentence mention Born in East L.A..It is zero....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

You see my point? He wrote the above comment in the hope I write something and then use it against me. But all I did was mention the word misbehaving, which refers to his unsuccessful ban proposal and now again bringing the very same content disputes here. He's a long Wikipedian and should know that content disputes go in each article's talk page and not here. I believe that's misbehaving and I think I'm free to speak my mind so long as it doesn't violate WP rules. Bivens has own article and every deported American was compensated under it and FTCA. The article has a list of those deported Americans and links to their cases.--Libracarol (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Libracarol -- a few thoughts. First, your tu quoque regarding William's conduct just reflects poorly on you. I would suggest you adopt a new tack. Secondly, while you are right about article talk pages, the complaints he has cited strike me as "of a piece" with the rest of the issues here, and so, at the very least, has an arguable basis on which to present them. Thirdly, no one is arguing that Bivens is not notable. I agree with William's assessment here--you have fallen back to argumentation rather than encyclopedic presentation. As far as I can tell, none of your sources directly support the assertion you have made about Bivens. Again, I find it troubling that you don't seem to be taking that distinction on board. Perhaps others would disagree with me. Dumuzid (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think he and you forget that I repeatedly said that once this ANI report is closed, I'll work on those articles and begin fixing all the problems in them. And I proposed that the 4 articles could be made into a single one. The 3 will redirect to this one. The Cambodian and Afghan articles are the same content wise. It's up to you guys. Remember I'm the one who wasted countless hours writing these articles and with good faith.--Libracarol (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

You're forgetting. The editor who began this cleanup part of the thread wrote- 'What are the next steps? Looking through the edit history, there are more articles affected than just the ones I mentioned at the beginning. What is to be done with all these? Leave alone, revert to an old version, draftify, delete the huge cites, etc?; And I responded- 'All of the immigration articles created by Libracarol and listed at the top of this thread show evidence of false referencing and some of it was done years ago. This is not just a recent behavior.' That was to say that reverting to some past version is not necessarily going to get rid of the problems. I contend that Libracarol's replies in this section are just further evidence of WP:IDHT and they aren't taking promises to clean up editing seriously....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Saying you will eventually fix the articles is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Your conduct in this discussion is still problematic and doesn't suggest at all that you now have a better grasp of the sourcing policies at play. My articles contain too many references and that's it is flatly incorrect and hides the other issues present in the articles you've worked on. Do you understand that? Alyo (chat·edits) 16:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Willim, sorry I misread your earlier comment. The references part was not done purposely. I just couldn't decide which ones to cite so I cited many. I expected someone to come and help out but nobody came. It's like I'm building a house on my own. That's why I said I have to slowly fix these articles one by one. The reason I'm involved in these articles is for humanitarian purposes. I feel obligated to help those who have been deported by mistake and don't know what to do. I feel guilty if I don't help because I know something that they don't. True, many of the references do make the article look bad because they are misplaced.--Libracarol (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info and subsequent accusations of having a nationalist agenda

I've reached my three revert limit but Safinazuyuyor keeps removing info that was based on based RS. After their initial blanking, I added two additional RS but they kept on removing the information.[101]. Their removal is blatantly a nationalist POV but, hey, I'm the Kurdish nationalist with an agenda here... This is vile as well[102] but the whole section was unsourced so there's that. --Semsûrî (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I restored the stable version for now. I suggest Safinazuyuyor take their issues to the respective talk pages. If they keep editing like this, they'll likely run into further disputes. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Pleasureme23 - Unsourced content & no sign of WP:COMMUNICATE

Pleasureme23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user continues to add unsourced content/information to articles, most recently receiving a 3-month block for this same behavior in August, with three additional previous blocks for the same behavior in June 2021 and September 2020. As I note here, it appears the editor's previous additions of unsourced content led to many incorrect/still unsourced content on Corn & Peg, that I had to figure out/revert/remove myself.

Apart from this one talk page message, not even on their own talk page, there appears to be no signs of actual communication coming from the user, despite their four previous block of unsourced content and continuing the same thing now. Most recently, a user has given them these warnings just about a week ago, and yet, they still continue with unsourced content being added.

At this point, it seems like yet another block is needed, possibly a much longer block unless they actually show they intend to communicate from here on out, as problems continue to come from this editor. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry how has the user not already been blocked on account of their account name?! GiantSnowman 20:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

blocked 1 year for refusal to discuss. User has never edited a talk page, including their own. —valereee (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If we want to get them to communicate, perhaps someone should register User:23? Levivich 20:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I see what you did there. —valereee (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Straight Outta Nowhere: Scooby-Doo! Meets Courage the Cowardly Dog

For several days, an anonymous person with dynamic IP keeps adding the unsourced information about the involvement of Cartoon Network Studios into this article (it was not involved in the production and never shown in the credits). I tried to draw his attention on the talk page, warned him about these kids of edits...no progression. Therefore, I am asking you to do something about this. I've seen the similar situation of the article of Kikoriki. Team Invincible. The simple ban of the user won't do justice, I think. Ромми (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ромми appears to be referring to these IP ranges:

• 2601:5C4:4300:93E7:CA4:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:4040:10DA:3700:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The person behind the IPs inserted the information in the following diffs: under the first IP range [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], and [110]; and under the second IP range [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116]. The earliest diff is from mid-September and the newest is from within the last 12 hours (not sure if there are other edits outside of this /64 range). While the user has been warned for disruptive editing in the past, the only warning I saw regarding their edits on this particular article (on a user talk page) was here by the OP. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ромми: when you start a thread here, please remember to notify the user you are reporting. I left a note here, though to be fair, it's probable that this IP range is dynamic enough that they won't see the notification (it's been about 8 hours since they last edited from what I can tell). Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Aoi:, that user doesn't listen and continues to do unsourced edits. From another IP, of course. Ромми (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Editor possibly NOTHERE

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

---

FrederickSmith29

This user opened a Template:request edit on their talk page, asking for help on a project on the origin of a symbol [117]. This template is used for editors with a WP:COI and is posted on the talk page of the article they wish to edit. I closed the request with a note explaining what this template is for and that editors are expected to contribute to Wikipedia, not to help with personal projects. [118]

FrederickSmith29 posted an update on their project, said the relevant Wikipedia articles on the symbol do not exist, and reopened the request. [119] I closed the request again, and added another note about what the template is for and that editors are to contribute to Wikipedia. [120] FrederickSmith29 reopened the request and posted a non-collaborative response. [121]

I spoke with @TheresNoTime: about the editor possibly revealing personal information in their response and posting that information at ANI. TheresNoTime's response was that this was not oversightable and it would be OK to make this report. I think this user is WP:NOTHERE, and I would appreciate thoughts on the interaction and feedback on how I could improve in this situation. Z1720 (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd definitely be leaning towards them "not being here to build an encyclopedia". Just as an aside Z1720, you can link to diffs by doing [[Special:Diff/1061018577]] or by using a template like {{Diff2}} -- TNT (talk • she/they) 06:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I see a brand-new user trying to figure out Wikipedia and being "Robert McNamara'd into submission" through mindless robo-messaging and other hectoring when repeated gentle nudging towards the Reference Desk would suffice. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ayup. Further proof that not only is Wikipedia a bureaucracy, it’s a peculiarly stultified one. Having seen an obvious manifestation of the Reader, our supposed audience, people can only assume it is some kind of vandal. Qwirkle (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• The user has been referred to the Reference Desk. The user is probably a troll, and the only issue is whether we wait for more evidence of that, we block him now, or he goes away on his own. One of his many silly comments: "I didn't live to be 92 just to let you have a nice night. tell me what to do again, kid".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• If the editor did not make the "I didn't live" comment, I would have just gone to bed and let another editor evaluate the request edit (as I would not want to close it a third time). However, I felt that this comment, in addition to the NOTHERE behaviour, warranted a report here. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that this is a troll, so I'll do what administrators are supposed to do under the circumstances; blocking the troll. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Abutalub

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

---

May I please invite community's attention to Abutalub's behaviour? He demonstrated disruptive editing and combatant behaviour by:

• Creating and defending with logical fallacies an indiscriminate list of "damaged Islamic and Azerbaijan sites during Nagorno-Karabakh conflict", apparently serving the purposes of advocacy for victimisation of Azerbaijan and incriminating "the other side", "throwing s**t hoping it would stick" as one of the uninvolved users characterised it in previous AfD discussion, the most egregious example being inserting a "small mosque in Armenia" as demolished without any details whatsoever
• Creating a similar gem trying to save non-notable content by separating from the main article.
• Inviting exclusively editors who would usually support Azerbaijani positions when creating articles in the hot Armenia-Azerbaijan topic
• When I highlight the problems in his behaviour, after previous alert of DS in AA topic and attempts of reasoning with him on his talk page [1], [2] which he chose to ignore, he doubles back saying I am the one not following the rules, that I am "too traumatized and filled with patriotic feelings" and that he does not include in the Karabakh-related article users who may not share his POV as "most of these territories were Azerbaijani-majority areas before 1989, while Russians control most of Armenian-majority areas now"

The user does not listen and does not reflect when problems in his edits are pointed at, and regards Wikipedia as battleground with Armenians apparently. It appears to me that Abutalub is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia, failing to grasp how it operates, but advancing official Azerbaijan's POV at the same time. He may benefit from AA topic ban, as he seems unable to edit in this difficult area without systematically introducing significant one-sided bias. After he cools down and he gains experience in less controversial topics for a few months, he may be able to be useful in this topic as well. --Armatura (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Abutalub#Indefinite_block. El_C 15:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Range block

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

---

We have a Toronto-based IP editor, previously blocked, reverted on multiple articles by multiple editors - is a range block possible? Edited most recently as 2607:fea8:1e5f:f0e0:6144:52e3:40ef:c830 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2605:8D80:6A1:B30B:7578:641F:8A67:82B6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2607:FEA8:1E5F:F0E0:70F6:B5D1:8DF0:43DF (talk · contribs · WHOIS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contributions/2605:8d80:6a1:b30b::/64 and Special:Contributions/2607:fea8:1e5f:f0e0::/64 for a month. Let me know if it continues. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: will do, thank you! GiantSnowman 12:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Slurponmybigkurac12

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

---

I ran across a user 'Slurponmybigkurac12'. They made some edits (apparently personal attacks in Serbian) to other users' talk pages, so I reverted and warned them and left a note on the targeted editors' talk page saying that it was vandalized and it was reverted (so they don't get an OBOD and don't know where it came from).

Then, this user came to my talk page to say they were having a hard time in real life (appeal to pity?), "apologize", and call me a "bitch".

I also checked their edit filter log, and it was kind of alarming. I saw 'persistent sockpuppetry', 'common vandal phrases', 'LTA 1053', and 'vandalism in all caps'.

Now, they're coming back to my talk page to have a converation with me. --67.183.136.85 (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Definitely a WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR case, with an offensive username to boot -- "kurac" being an offensive, colloquial term in Serbo-Croat for pretty much what you imagine it is -- and a sound indef candidate. Ravenswing 02:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/14.177.7.174

• 14.177.7.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Impossibleultimate1545 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor persistently fails to adhere to WP:VERIFY. Warning have been issued on their talk page, and there have been no replies.

The editor may have used multiple IPs in the recent past (Special:Contributions/113.178.44.106, Special:Contributions/113.178.44.5, Special:Contributions/14.226.24.7, Special:Contributions/14.177.240.82) with much the same behaviour, with blocks being issued. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 01:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Also appears to be User:Impossibleultimate1545. Impossibleultimate1545 is adding copyright-infringing images on Commons ([122]) and 14.177.7.174 is adding them to articles ([123][124]). - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Arpowers and gendered hostility

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

---

User:Arpowers had this to say in an exchange at Talk:Peter A. McCullough - "@zaathras the fact you list your pronouns on your Wikipedia profile tells me everything I need to know. Sure happy you're letting me know you're "he/him"! Guess the "woke" have taken over Wikipedia"

I'm not sure this user is well-suited to edit in a contentious topic area such as Covid19, if they're going to quickdraw to ad hominems such as the above. Zaathras (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Might it be a good idea to take this to WP:ARBE, rather than here? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think so, as this user's antivax agenda isn't the primary concern, but rather it is the degradation of a user's (i.e. me) gender preference that is the issue. Zaathras (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This still falls under behaviour the DS are supposed to prevent. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano (A little blue Bori), actually, this disruption isn't nuanced enough to bother with WP:ACDS. El_C 14:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

EnverPasaTr

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

---

Enverpasatr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am not sure if this is the right place to report, but the username team is not doing anything so I have no other choice.

The username of EnverPasaTr glorifies genocide. They are named after a Ottoman Turkish leader who killed 1.5 million Armenians. The user vandalizes and harasses users. Imagine someone called Adolf Hitler vandalizing pages on Wikipedia. The currently seek to erase Armenian references from Ararat even though it is a historically Armenian mountain with the argument that "it is in Turkey so all other cultures are irrelevant"= cultural erasure. Please do something. --217.149.166.11 (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

For context, the IP editor asked me about this user on my talk page. The user claims Enver Pasa is their actual name and it seems very unlikely but possible. I'm one edit away from blocking the account as a nationalist troll though. Anyone with fewer reservations is welcome to do what appears to be the inevitable indef. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

My opinion from yesterday--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with EvergreenFir. There is a (somewhat unlikely) prospect that this is actually their name (see for example Pasha (surname) for examples of this as a surname beyond the WWI Ottoman leader). Either way their arguments at Mount Ararat aren't getting any traction, and their approach suggests a vigorously nationalist viewpoint at odds with neutral editing. This might remain a content dispute which doesn't require janitoring, but they're an edit or two away from proving that wrong. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

While I am fine with waiting, a Turkish user whose name is Enver Pasha and denies Armenian heritage in Eastern Turkey is no coincidence. This is active glorification and preference to racism and genocide. This is too bad to be false. --217.149.166.11 (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah agree it would be a very surprising coincidence. Have left them a talkpage message urging them to comment here. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Mount Ararat is a mountain belonging to Turkey. 2. Although it is a mountain belonging to Turkey, the current article seems more like an Armenian mountain and the article is biased. 3. Why a mountain belonging to Turkey is shown with a photo taken from Armenia. 4. Why It is allowed to write the name of a Turkish mountain in Armenian font"Արարատ", not its local name.? 5. Although it is a mountain belonging to Turkey, why are there mostly explanations of the Armenian rulers? 6. Here, an attempt is made to officially assimilate a mountain belonging to Turkey. Is it extreme nationalism or realism to say this about the current state of the article?

You can see that the article is more like an armenian mountain. You can see that the article is tried to be shown more like an Armenian mountain.As I said at the beginning, this mountain is a mountain belonging to the Republic of Turkey, which is within the borders of Turkey. otherwise it appears to be a completely biased article. And my name is enver pasa.I don't have a problem with my name. that's your problem.

. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_AraratEnverpasatr (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

There appears to be a flare-up nationalist tensions at trwiki, and we've other editors coming here to denounce Armenian perfidy in claiming Mount Ararat as a symbol of Armenia or even as Armenian territory - see Talatr (talk · contribs), for instance. This is another.one. I've blocked them as NOTHERE - they appear to be interested solely in nationalist soapboxing. Acroterion (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Gina Carano's page is inaccurate

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

---

Wikipedia has opened itself up to defamation suite for the following statement on Gina Carano's page -> and repeated claims of voter fraud during the 2020 presidential election

She did not say this, she only said that she wanted a system that prevented voted fraud, anyone who believes in a true voting system would.

When she added the words "beep/bop/boop". to her Twitter profile she said that it was to show how reactionary and ridiculous some people are -> because she knew she would be attacked over it.

My information comes from videos I've watched of her interviews, those are her words, what you have is interpretations by other people.

You have blatantly allowed a leftist agenda here. If you keep this up the begging for money will fall on deaf ears and I hope it goes under, a true unbiased information source is needed, not whatever your leftist USA political leanings are.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.76.243 (talk)

Please raise any concerns about the Gina Carano article on its talk page, Talk:Gina Carano. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not what the opinions of viewers of her statements are. There is no such thing as a "unbiased information source" as everything and everyone, including you and me, has biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. Only you can decide what is true for you. Wikipedia does not claim that what is written here is the truth, see WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want to see donation requests, you may either create an account and turn the requests off in the account preferences, or allow cookies on your device. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Repeated instances of WP:CANVASS and WP:UNCIVIL by Lugnuts

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

USER:Lugnuts has been pinging all of the Keep !votes (and only the keep !votes) from one AFD related to an article they created into other AFDs: 1 2. When it was pointed out to them that this was canvassing, they responded with groundless accusations (3) of WP:TAGTEAM (an essay which says "Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil"). They have been making the same accusation multiple times over the last few days 4 5 6 7 8 9. Lugnuts has had previous cases at ANI involving canvassing and is well-aware that it is disruptive behaviour.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not in a "tag team" with anyone, do not communicate with any Wiki editor off-wiki, and merely work on AFDs (particularly. Geo AFDs) that appear on the GEO AFD notice board. FOARP (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• When are we going to stop Lugnuts from mass-creating microstubs? We pulled autopatrol, buy they're still doing it [125]. Canvassing AFDs and accusing editors of tag team (without evidence) to defend the microstubs is even worse. This is spam. Mass-creating articles like Harry Oppenheim and Akuşağı, Baskil is no different than spamming. A standalone for every village? For every guy who played one national football game 100+ years ago? Come on. Also, I believe systematically copying thousands of entries from worldfootball.net and other websites onto Wikipedia is a copyright violation or a license violation or a violation of those websites' TOS. I'd be pretty BS if I was running a database website, and somebody was just scraping it to copy everything over to Wikipedia and purport to re-license it for free. One of these days, folks, this bird will come home to roost. Levivich 15:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree that there's a potential database rights issue with importing database entries wholesale that needs more attention. FOARP (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich and FOARP: US law does not recognize database copyright protection. If the information is highly basic as laid out like "Footballer from Australia was born on [date] and played midfielder" then there is no copyright concern. Our copyright policy is based off of US law provisions, except for our fair use which is more stringent. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is however also available in the EU. But as much an issue is the terms of use of websites like Sports-Reference.com whereby users explicitly agree not to use their data to create a competing or substitute service (see 5.j here: https://www.sports-reference.com/termsofuse.html ). FOARP (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

WMF Legal, and by extension, enwp, is only concerned about US copyright law because it is the only jurisdiction where the WMF can be held legally responsible. It does not matter that WP is available in the EU or other sites because the servers are in the US. The concern with sports-reference.com is database rights, which US law and enwiki policy does not recognize. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Sports-reference.com’s terms of use are contract-law. If data is transposed directly from their database to Wiki to the extent that people no longer need to use sports-reference.com because the data is all (or in large part) on Wikipedia then their terms of use are broken. Whether Wikipedia or just Lugnuts are liable in that circumstance for breach of contract is very hard to say.

Also we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that Lugnuts said in their previous ANI that they would stop making this specific kind of stub, and was warned about canvassing. He’s now acting as though the consensus of that previous ANI simply doesn’t apply any more. FOARP (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Lugnuts typically posts notifications at WT:FILM in a neutral way and does good work for the project, but this is a clear case of canvassing. It's best to stick with pinging projects and noticeboards with neutral notices than it is to single out specific editors, but if you're going to do that, ping all those involved in a past discussion, not just the ones who agree with your position. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Agreed, and he's been selectively canvassing some more on an unrelated notability discussion [126]. Alright, I get that Lugnuts has made a lot of edits, but he's been warned more than once at ANI already [127] for such antics. Are we really getting back to the days when having enough edits was sufficient immunization against having to follow the rules? Beyond that, his recent exhortations for people to stop posting to his talk page defy the purpose of a talk page, which is to communicate with other editors about (among other things) such controversies, or deletion filings. We would not look kindly at all about a newbie harshly rejecting such communications, and that newbie would be at serious risk of an indef for no other reason. Ravenswing 15:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed particularly on Lugnuts refusal to allow notices on their talk page and their uncivil attacks on people who post necessary notices there, including even the notice that I literally had to post on their talk page in order to raise this ANI notice.

Whether or not Lugnuts is being treated with undue leniency I can’t say. It is clear from their blocklog, however, that they have already made commitments not to engage in uncivil and disruptive editing, commitments which they were explicitly warned breaking would result in a much longer block than their previous blocks.FOARP (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(... blinks HARD) Hang on. He's accusing you of harassment for notifying him of the ANI action?? Ravenswing 18:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Well presumably the edit summary is about starting a discussion at ANI (not the subsidiary act of notification). This seems to me like an unproductive angle to focus on. --JBL (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn’t assume that at all, as Lugnuts has been regularly doing exactly the same thing to people posting AFD notices and similar on his talk page, and because the edit summary says “RV ongoing harassment” (as in, the notice itself is “harassment” in Lugnut’s view, that they are reverting). These are interactions people literally have to do. They are standard notifications. Communication is a required part of editing on Wikipedia and not something editors can simply opt out of. FOARP (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

If only, JBL, but this is nothing new. We have this diff [128], a notification of an AfD filing on articles Lugnuts created, where his edit summary was "what part of don't post here don't you undertsand?" We have this diff [129], another AfD filing, where his edit summary is "don't post here, rv WP:TAGTEAM." The same here [130], with the edit summary of "and please do not bother me again." From an editor who's been warned and admonished at ANI more than once, and with a pretty impressive block log, this is either a strong case of WP:IDHT, someone who's flipping us all off, or someone who's just going to keep on saying whatever he needs to say at ANI to get off with a stern finger waggling. Ravenswing 19:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've been redirecting Lugnuts-created Turkish village stubs to their District articles, since no real effort had been made to improve them over the past 8 months. This has led to multiple conflicts which have escalated due to Lugnuts' incivility and refusal to communicate. Paşakonağı is a typical example: I redirected this version since the only source (besides the unreliable Koyumuz) was a trivial mention about its Kurdish population. Lugnuts reverted; fair enough, this seemed like a good-faith disagreement that could be talked out, but my only choice was AfD since Lugnuts had asked me not to ping them or post on their talk page. The article was then expanded to the point that I actually voted Keep. Great! If someone is willing to expand a stub with reliable sources then by all means it should be re-created.

But then, Lugnuts used that Keep outcome as a reason to keep two other sets of stubs [131][132] that had not been expanded, and called me "disingenuous" and asked me to not ping or post on their talk page after I pointed out their bright-line canvassing violation.

And then we've also got Çaltılıçukur and Büyükalan which Lugnuts un-redirected twice each, again citing that Paşakonağı AfD and suggesting that these articles go to AfD as well instead of actually discussing their objection to the redirect.

It seems like Lugnuts can't handle having their articles deleted/redirected and is fighting it at every opportunity, expecting others to do the work of finding sources and expanding. It's really a shame since many of these articles probably could be expanded, but Lugnuts has little to no interest in doing it themselves and seems incapable of approaching it in a civil manner. It's a struggle and makes this very large cleanup task even more difficult. –dlthewave ☎ 05:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

In this AfD I pinged all the previous editors from this AfD. It appears I've missed ONE person out (Mike). I then copied that same notification, sans Mike, to another AfD. I've asked Dlthewave to stop posting on my talkpage at least twice, following on from this "apology", which I find hard to take sincerely. OK, so that's my issue, the least they can do is simply not bother me. Recent AfDs started by this user seem to come with a very quick follow-up from the OP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Clear cut block evasion

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

---

Ibavcahe87 has been involved in some pretty blatant edit warring and block evasion after being finally blocked for a short while for persistently adding unsourced content. The whole episode seems to have been between these diffs, [133]. Basically, Ibavcahe added unsourced content, which was removed, back and forwards a few times, and then suddenly they start to EWLO, apparently to avoid 3RR (I consider block evasion more serious though, hence why it is here, not at 3rr), very obviously, and tried edit warring with an admin to add the exact text that they had tried to add whilst logged in. Then they logged back in, and tried adding more unsourced content again. So they got blocked. a few hours later another IP on the same range also starts adding in unsourced content, while Ibavcahe87 was blocked. I don't think that this is the first time that they have evaded a block either. Their similarities in editing pattern to another user, User:Jellywings19, (who has been indef blocked for, oddly enough, abusing multiple accounts) are rather concerning. I'll reserve judgement for now though, but I have warned them about it. Mako001 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User Geoff3Cae continuous category organisation MOS breaches

Hello, following advice from @Lee Vilenski: and @GiantSnowman:, I would like to raise the topic of continued breaches of the manual of style, specifically MOS:CATORDER by @Geoff3Cae:. I have had to make a number of reverts in recent weeks of this behaviour, but I won't have even scratched the surface of the number of breaches I'm afraid. Users Lee Vilenski and GiantSnowman made attempts to steer Geoff3Cae away from this behaviour here and here, but unfortunately the user has not responded on either occasion and the behaviour has not changed. Per the advice from Lee Vilenski/GiantSnowman, I am raising this topic here to gain wider views on the matter and what action/s may be necessary to change this behaviour. Kind regards, MunsterFan2011 (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful @MunsterFan2011: if you provided examples of recent edits which violate CATORDER. GiantSnowman 16:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Potentially uncivil edit summaries

• Sparkle1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

While reverting vandalism I've stumbled across User:Sparkle1, who has been leaving some pretty uncivil edit summaries while reverting other's edits or critiquing how someone else edited a page. It's not really targeted harassment but just general rudeness in their actions. Some examples: [134][135][136]

I'm leaving this on the noticeboard and not the user's talk page because I'm not directly involved in any of the edits / pages, and don't feel I have the authority to "warn" this user of any incivility. If my post here is incorrect or I've done something wrong, please let me know. Thanks, ― Levi_OP^Talk 16:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed this user around a little, and was disappointed to see them bite a newbie and mislabel good-faith edits as vandalism on their talkpage[137] and left a few more passive-aggressive edit summaries[138][139]. — Czello 16:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Block - after looking at their contribs and talk page (see talk page history, as many postings have been deleted), the battleground attitude is strong and has been going on since the edit summaries of their first edits (which suggests to me those aren't their first edits). Also prior ANI [140] and warned at ANEW [141]. An uncivil UK editor who began in summer 2019 with strong feelings about article layout and graphics... hmm... Levivich 20:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Looks like there's a 3RR violation here too revert 1 revert 2 revert 3 (the IP they were warring with has been blocked) -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 02:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by User:Veneta1 on article Dua Lipa

• Dua Lipa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Veneta1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a textbook case of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, as explained here. User:Veneta1 has been trying since March 2021 to either alter the meaning of, or totally remove reliably sourced content pertaining to the maternal ancestry of the subject. The diffs below pertain to reverts over the course of 9 months. He/She has been reverted and warned multiple times in the past by a number of editors, yet continued with the same disruptive editing.

Diffs of User:Veneta1

1. 01:48, 10 March 2021
2. 03:17, 15 March 2021
3. 20:47, 6 April 2021
4. 21:36, 6 April 2021
5. 22:23, 6 April 2021
6. 00:04, 27 April 2021
7. 21:48, 28 April 2021
8. 00:07, 29 April 2021
9. 15:16, 30 April 2021
10. 22:46, 31 May 2021
11. 19:30, 5 June 2021
12. 21:27, 26 June 2021
13. 16:34, 18 July 2021
14. 05:44, 23 August 2021
15. 19:48, 23 August 2021
16. 22:06, 23 August 2021
17. 09:18, 24 August 2021
18. 09:01, 1 September 2021
19. 21:52, 1 September 2021
20. 00:01, 9 September 2021
21. 05:27, 12 September 2021
22. 07:03, 16 September 2021
23. 22:49, 30 September 2021
24. 08:00, 15 October 2021
25. 18:55, 20 October 2021
26. 08:23, 17 December 2021
27. 17:24, 17 December 2021
28. 13:16, 19 December 2021
29. 14:00, 20 December 2021

Diffs of edit warring warning

1. 02:29, 7 April 2021 by User:Binksternet
2. 06:02, 23 August 2021 by User:Binksternet
3. 20:40, 23 August 2021 by User:LOVI33
4. 10:41, 2 September 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
5. 15:17, 9 September 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
6. 23:00, 20 October 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
7. 13:49, 20 December 2021 by User:Demetrios1993

I initially reported the user at the "Edit warring" noticeboard, but was forwarded here, since this is a long-term issue. Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Bringtar's BATTLE and CIR

Few days ago, Dennis Brown on WP:AE had suggested that should file the report about Bringtar on ANI. Filing it here now since this user's edit warring to insert his misrepresentation of sources, BLP violations and engagement in typical battleground behavior is still not stopping.

1. 11 December: Wants to apply WP:BLPCAT on a person who died centuries ago.
2. 11 December: rejects his own edit summary by telling "it removed due to failed verification and not because of BLPCAT" but the added sources supported the information
3. 11 December: Falsely claims other user is vandalizing. See WP:NOTVAND.
4. 11 December: When presented evidence of his wrongdoing, he removes discussion with edit summary: "removing false claims and lies".
5. 11 December: Edit warring to restore misrepresentation of sources and BLP violations.
6. 11 December Files a disruptive SPI in retaliation.
7. 12 December: Adds a name on List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism in violation of WP:BLPCAT; the article does not mention "Hindu"/"Hinduism".
8. 12 December: Same as above.
9. 13 December Edit wars when above additions are reverted in violation of WP:BLP and shows his lack of understanding of WP:LINKVIO.
10. 13 December: Adds a quotation to establish a conversion but the quotation does not verify his claim.
11. 13 December: Same as above; quotation does not verify conversion.
12. 13 December Edit wars to restore another name by adding 2 sources, none of which mention "Hindu"/"Hinduism", thus violating WP:BLPCAT again.
13. 13 December: Restores his another BLPCAT violation when neither sources confirm the subject's admission of conversion from Hinduism to Christianity.
14. 13 December: Showing lack of WP:AGF by alleging me of "using WP:LINKVIO at your whim".
15. 14 December: Edit warring to restore his misrepresentation, LINKVIO and BLP violations with edit summary: "undo disruption"
16. 14 December: Engages in WP:IDHT by repeating himself and shows his failure to understand WP:LINKVIO. Claims that there is no LINKVIO violation because the "youtube video is not uploaded here" on Wikipedia. See WP:CIR.
17. 20 December: Same as above; restoring same violation of WP:BLPCAT and WP:LINKVIO as well as misrepresentation of sources.
18. 20 December: Still engaging in WP:IDHT: "I cannot take lectures from you on this", "I read WP:LINKVIO and no where it says that youtube links cannot be used"
19. 20 December: Strikes my messages on his talk page in violation of WP:REFACTOR and alleges me of "trolling" and "lies".
20. 20 December: Files another repetitive and retaliatory SPI same as the last one which was already rejected by Bbb23 and AmandaNP[142]

The user is an WP:SPA with whom, together with several other editors, I have already tried enough to guide on the basics of Wikipedia for months[143] but this user is unwilling to learn. Given the continued display of WP:CIR and battleground mentality, this user appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have been keeping an eye on these "conversion" articles. However, it takes two to edit war, as you'll see from the history of List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism (2) The filer is no stranger to WP:AE, where they regularly try to remove ideological opponents from relevant areas, and they are equally no stranger to filing evidence-free SPIs after an editor reverted them (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LucrativeOffer/Archive). Why did they remove Anju Panta from List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism today, with an edit summary of "I have noted on talk page that there is problem with each of your entry", when they have not mentioned her at all on the talkpage, and there appears to be an RS? Well, that's a question. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• As per Black Kite, I think the behavior of all parties in these edit wars is less than ideal. Some parties are mass adding content, some of which is poorly sourced. Some parties are mass removing content, some of which is clearly well sourced and belongs.VR _talk 22:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW the AE report on Bringtar, has been closed as not actionable. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

New user rapidly creating pages, possibly unattributed translations from other wikis

See Asma Alblooshi (talk · contribs). These aren’t stubs either, and they are created with just one edit. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we know what #KMUOS is? Some contest again?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Project #KMUOS--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

And an interesting off-wiki link:[144]. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Since it's an ongoing educational project, I assume the teacher has been having them work on the articles in a Word document or the like before submitting them in a single edit. They seem like fairly high quality articles. I just wish they'd use the trans-title parameter in the references to also list the titles in English and to use the work parameter to list the actual source publisher and not the archive name. That would make it easier to look through the reference lists. Silverseren^C 19:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have guessed. I was thinking Twitter. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: As far as I can tell these articles appear to be unatributed machine translations of articles from other projects, e.g. the text of Yousef Abou Louz is identical to ar:يوسف أبو لوز run through google translate. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed this. I've been spending a lot of time in the new pages recently. The above-noted user isn't the only user creating these #KMOUS articles, and I haven't really figured out what to do with them. I think I've come across at least five users creating these articles. There a few being created every day for a while now... Singularity42 (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

If these are all unattributed translations from other wikis, this is not good at all. I see the discussion at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Project #KMUOS is expressing concern about them. It seems they are meant to be translations. Doug Weller talk 07:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm fully in favour of more articles on Arabic literature etc., but (1) we cannot have Universities treating Wikipedia as an examination task; it places undue burdens and pressure on WP's editors, who are not here to act as examiners; (2) It is fundamentally wrong that people should be becoming certified Wikipedia translators and editors; WP doesn't require certification to edit, and no one else should be implying that they can grant certification as some sort of super-editor - it's only one step away from another organisation deciding who is "approved" and who not; although in this case it may be well-intentioned it takes little imagination to see that organisations could easily profiteer or censor by controlling the stream of trained WP editors; (3) and if prizes, quite substantial prizes, are being offered, then the editing is WP:PAID. (4) while there is no fundamental problem with people putting articles straight into main space, unattributed translations are a really big problem; translations absolutely must be attributed properly, and with due regard to any copyright issues. This is all wrong. Elemimele (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert violates his topic ban again

Johnpacklambert is topic banned from editing articles about religion and religious figures (broadly construed). He was recently blocked for a week because of a violation of this ban (although he was unblocked after a day). Following that block he made this edit to John McManus "a British clergyman and historian of religion". The image File:Portrait John McManners.jpg appeared in the article at the time. Additionally, he also made this edit to Raymond Lee Lathan "pastor of New Hope Baptist Church in Milwaukee" and this edit to H. Evan Runner " a graduate of Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, Westminster Theological Seminary". Frangible Round (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Why so long in reporting those? They're days old. Silverseren^C 22:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Because they are in dispute about something, and FR is trying to find an angle on JPL. -Roxy the dog. wooF 23:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Brand new editor focuses only on a topic ban violation?? Isn't this the 2nd time? Slywriter (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban violations are topic ban violations. If you dispute what I have reported here, let me know. Frangible Round (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed it is. See here. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 23:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Does that matter? Frangible Round (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the reporter's intentions, if there's a possible topic ban violation, it should be investigated. It's been made clear to JPL time and again to steer clear from this topic area. clpo13_(talk) 23:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Some observations. (1) OP is obviously a sock or meatpuppet (2) JPL needs to stop making edits that allow those like the OP to keep doing this. Black Kite (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Seriously though, why does nobody want to discuss this? It can't keep getting swept under the rug forever. clpo13_(talk) 23:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• These edits were all mistakes. I had no idea when I made them any dealt with religion in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • How many times have you been told to be extra sure you're abiding by the topic ban? This is becoming a time sink. clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I am very much trying. The state legislature article only mentioned that in the lead and I found the dates from the info box. I had no idea at the time what his non-political career was. I will be more diligent in the future and review these articles more before saving edits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

      • For what little it is worth, I can completely believe that the edit to Raymond Lee Lathan was a good faith mistake. The other two, however, are not even close. To me, they represent willful and flagrant violations of the ban. I don't believe there should be any sanction, but please, please, please stop doing that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

      • • • None of these edits were willful violations. The other two edits involved the issue of not using super common nicknames like Bill for William 8n quotes or in other ways lengthening the lead. That is the only thing I saw when I did those edits. I am very sorry that I did not review them further. I thought I had been, and I was not in any way trying to flaunt or disregard the topic ban in these cases. I was only focused on trying to implement the MOS on nicknames. I am very sorry about this mistake and will redouble my efforts to not edit anything that is even close to the line.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
            • In your edit here the article’s got a pretty big lead pic of an guy with a dog collar and the lead sentence that you edited ends with was a British clergyman and historian of religion who specialized in the history of the church and other aspects of religious life in 18th-century France. ??? DeCausa (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• We're not discussing it now because we don't give presents out to disruptive socks. If JPL continues to do this and an editor in good standing raises the issue then we can discuss it again then. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Who is 'we'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Oh, I don't know, probably those people who are trying to close this section that was started by an obvious sock but keep getting edit-conflicted. Which bit of "obvious sock" is the bit you're having problems with? Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I wish folks would stop using bullet points in non-survey type discussions. BTW: How can an new editor know about ANI? GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Last time this happened I blocked for a violation. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and took their word that they did not understand the nature of the ban, and I removed the block early. I made it very clear to them what the standards are. In my opinion JPL cannot claim ignorance again. I think this topic ban should be enforced with another block and this time they should serve the entire length. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oh sorry, my mistake, apparently we *do* now reward obvious socks. FFS. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• These are two separate issues. The sock is blocked as they should be, when they come back we will block them again. Do we give immunity to violations because a sock reported them? The community has created this topic ban, they expect it to be enforced. At least one user in good standing has asked that this be responded to[145], so there ya go. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Fine, whatever. Carry on then. I think it sets a poor precedent, though. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm firmly in Black Kite's corner here. But what do I know?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• I am not doing anything, I am on vacation right now. I just popped in to dispel the claim that John does not know better. That was their song last time and I made sure there was no uncertainty when I accepted that claim last time[146]. This user has been given a second, third, and fourth chance and frankly I find their claims that this is once again an accident to strain credibility. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, editors are still bullet-pointing their posts & obviously ignoring my complaint about it. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be better addressed in another thread? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• On the edit with the man where it said John "Jack" then his last name all I focused on and saw was that Jack is the standard nickname for John and that the manual of style says that we should not put such a standard nickname is quotes inside the name in the lead. That is all I noticed before I made the edit. I only noticed that much and fixing that was all I was focused on. I realize now that I should have slowed down and surveyed the article a bit more, but I saw that and went straight to fixing it. I am very sorry for this mistake. I was not trying to break any rule, I was trying to comply with the common nickname rule. I thought I was surveying the articles before I did so but I was clearly not doing so enough. I am very sorry about this. I will redouble my efforts and make sure to survey articles more before editing. I am very sorry about this mistake. It was no way intentional. I was just trying to comply with the guideline. I will be more circumspect in the future. I am really sorry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

As they say around here, 'competence is required'. It appears that JPL's competence doesn't actually extend to reading a sentence before he edits it. Does he get a free pass for that too? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• • I was editing the specific part where the name with the quotes was. That was a clear non-compliance with what the MOS says about using common nicknames in quotes. My whole focus was on that first part, and so I was just totally ignoring the rest of what it said about the person because I was only focused on the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• The topic ban is on religious figures and religion, broadly construed. John McManners, Raymond Lee Lathan, and H. Evan Runner are religious figures. McManners' photo at the top is him in clerical garb, so that was impossible to miss. The Raymond Lee Lathan article is only five sentences long, from which JPL derived his birth and death dates, so his various religious degrees would have been impossible for him to miss. In the H. Evan Runner article, JPL edited the sentence immediately preceding the Westminster Theological Seminary mention, and the whole brief article contains the words "Christianity" or "Christian" six times (plus another in the citations). I'd say it's time for JPL to receive a more extensive block, which is not removed early. Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The two articles where I changed shortened name references that is literally all I saw. It was not at all an attempt on my part to edit anything related to religion. I was fully focused on the name reference part and nothing else. The other all I noticed was the opening that only describes him as a state legislator. I was not trying to flaunt any bans by my actions here. These were legitimate mistakes caused by rushing and not paying attention to all the possible parameters. I am very sorry about this. I was not in any way trying yo flaunt any ban. I had no idea that any of these articles involved religious figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Please re-read what I wrote. It's impossible that you did not know on Raymond Lee Lathan, as you derived his birth and death dates from the article, which is only five sentences long. And you had to have seen the clerical photo in John McManners, because you couldn't have edited the lead sentence without seeing it. To quote HighInBC above, "Last time this happened I blocked for a violation. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and took their word that they did not understand the nature of the ban, and I removed the block early. I made it very clear to them what the standards are. In my opinion JPL cannot claim ignorance again. I think this topic ban should be enforced with another block and this time they should serve the entire length." and "I just popped in to dispel the claim that John does not know better. That was their song last time and I made sure there was no uncertainty when I accepted that claim last time[2]. This user has been given a second, third, and fourth chance and frankly I find their claims that this is once again an accident to strain credibility." (bolding mine) -- Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• These were accidents. I am acting in good faith. I derived the birth and death years from a narrow focus on categories, and I did not see the picture. I often do not look at pictures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Latham is in no categories at all related to religion. He is only categorized based on being a politician. So looking at the lead and the categories would lead one to not realize he was in any way connected to religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose a block. The edits are unobjectionable, the thread is opened in bad faith, and the explanation that one could make these edits without reading the article is plausible. JPL, please find a way to edit that won't let this happen again. --JBL (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I keep trying to post a response on my plans to be more deliberative before editing. I keep getting told there is an edit conflict. I am formulating such plans.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, JPL's contribution history around the times of those edits show him working through articles in Category:1915 births and Category:1916 births at a rate of about one a minute, editing the first sentence to remove some nicknames and/or insert or shorten birth & death dates as (yyyy-yyyy), and adding or correcting categories. It doesn't look as if he chose those articles to edit for any other reason. After doing that task so long, he may have become confident that he was doing something totally unrelated to the scope of his ban. He was wrong in that the task might be unrelated but some individual edits would not be. This meant that after hundreds of edits over a week or two for each birth year, anyone wishing to find breaches would have a good chance of finding them, especially with suitable category-intersection search skills. NebY (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• • I have been trying to avoid conflict edits. There are multiple cases of wrong birth years in those categories I have glossed over because of the ban. There are also multiple cases of common nicknames I have left stand because of the ban. I was trying to avoid any conflict, rushing away from articles with even a little conflict. I did not intentionally include religious figures and was proactively avoiding them, even a few articles that said nothing about religion because I was sure if I dug deeper on them I would find something. However with the state legislator based on the lead and cats I did not bother to look through the short body. With the other two I was so focused on fixing the name reference that I forgot to figure out anything about why they were notable. I am very sorry I rushed so, I was not trying to and I was not trying to defy the ban. There were multiple cases of articles clearly in the wrong birth year category that I just left alone because of the ban. I was trying to abide by the ban. I am very sorry I did not take the time to ensure these articles complied and just rushed in to deal with stylistic issues at the very start. I will slow down and make sure to not do this again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Block. The edit to John McManners was a particularly blatant violation of a topic ban on religion and religious figures broadly construed. I can understand not looking at the photo, even not registering the dog collar in that photo if one's own religion doesn't use them; for all I know, Johnpacklambert may have a sight impairment. But that article (not John McManus, there's a typo above), when JPL opened the edit window, began: "John "Jack" McManners {{post-nominals|country=GBR|CBE|FBA|FAHA}} (1916–2006) was a British clergyman and historian of religion who specialized in the history of the church and other aspects of religious life in 18th-century France." (And continued, as it still does: "He was [[Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History]] at the [[University of Oxford]] from 1972 to 1984. He also served as Fellow and Chaplain of [[All Souls College, Oxford]], from 1964 to 2001." Everything there except the name, the years and All Souls (which a cautious non-Oxonian subject to a topic ban from religion, broadly construed, might be expected to assume was a religious institution) is related to the Christian religion and two Christian denominations. This is in no way an edge case. McManners was not a clergyman and historian of a faith that JPL might not be familiar with or might not have considered included within the purview of religion. If JPL was working too quickly not to notice that, despite making efforts to check for articles that would violate his topic ban, he was not working carefully enough. The topic ban was instituted in lieu of a ban from Wikipedia, since indef-blocks for JPL's editing in the religious sphere have been tried and have not worked. (I read the discussion, but I don't believe I participated.) The community determined that this was necessary to prevent further disruption. If JPL is being this careless, the only possible conclusions are that he either is incapable of controlling himself and keeping away from religion (where the comunity has determined he causes intolerable disruption) or that he doesn't consider the topic ban important enough to take sufficient care. Either way, a block is required as the next step. Apologies are all well and good, but JPL also said he understood the topic ban when he was unblocked for his first violation. As to the identity of the reporting party, I'm afraid I consider that a red herring. We all have better things to do than monitor JPL's edits, that's why there was consensus that either a site ban or a topic ban was required. And many editors, I'm sure, try to cut a long-term, well intentioned editor some slack and would rather not tattle about them being naughty. But that edit is a blatant, careless, unignorable violation, so much so that I am afraid there are probably several more. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Yngvadottir here. The John McManners was literally impossible to miss. Just open the editing window and see. The only way for the repeated drama to stop here IMO is for the topic ban to be enforced and not removed early. Either it's a topic ban or it isn't. If it isn't, remove or reword the topic ban. If it is, enforce it. If JPL can't help himself, then he can stop making small rapid edits. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose a block, he adequately explained what happened way up the page someplace, there is no conscious violation here. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose a block as I said above, for at least two out of the three edits in question, I cannot believe that the religious component was unnoticed--and if it was, that's such willful blindness that I hardly find it exculpatory. But, as I believe Cicero said, de minimis non curat Wikipedia, and I think there is wisdom in that maxim. I once again implore JPL to be more conscientious. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Deny The banned user is getting their way wasting everyone's time. Start treating their posts as poisoned fruit as it is obvious they are hawkishly watching JPL edits to catch minor mistakes. If JPL makes a real mistake, this board will be the first to know. Slywriter (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• I really did not realize these were problematic when I fmdid them vecause I was so narrowly focused on the issues I was fixing I did not see anything else. I am very sorry about that and will not do it again. Two of them I was focused on the common name rule, this about name variations that are so common or so obvious that they do not need to be explained. I will make sure in the future that will check to make sure I know what the article is on fully in the future before I make any edit related to the name, no matter how obvious or intuitive it is. The other was a simple adding the birth and death years to an article that at quick glance appeared to be one of our myriad of articles on members of the Wisconsin legislature. We have articles on members of the Wisconsin legislature much further back in general than many other states. I did not think to check what his pre and extra legislative career was. That was clearly my fault. I want to make this right. If it will appease people I can go back and reverse the edits. Or I will just stay away. I am going to be much, much more careful in the future. I was not trying to flaunt the ban. I have tried really hard to abide by the broad topic ban. I have avoided editing even categories that may be more ethnic ones than religious ones where there might be any possibility of conflict. I was not trying to flaunt the ban in these cases. I was just so focuses on the narrow issues that I was editing that I forgot to check the whole article. I am very, very, very sorry. I did this totally without any ill will. I was just trying to bring the openings of these articles into compliance with the guidelines set forth in the manual of style of Wikipedia. I should have read them more fully before doing say edits. There was no good reason for me not to. I am very sorry about that. I am pleading with people to show forgiveness. I had no realization what the possible conflicts were here. In 2 cases I was just focused on editing the giving of the name at the start of the article that I did not look at all beyond the giving of the name. In the other case I was so focused on the placing of the birth and death years in parenthesis and on seeing that the subject was a politician I thought I was in the clear and did not delve into the life section, just looking through the opening that said he was a politician and the category section that gave his birth and death years. I really was not trying to evade the ban at all. I have been trying to avoid articles that are anywhere near the ban. I am really, really, really sorry about this. I recognize now I was too narrowly focused when I made these edits and apologize for them. I was not in anyway trying to be disruptive or evade the ban. I was narrowly focused on the matter of how the names of the subjects were listed and adding the birth and death years in parenthesis and neglected to consider the whole scope of the subjects. I am very sorry about this and am asking that people please accept my apology and my promise yo redouble my efforts to avoid any possible conflict in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Block for violations, or change the wording of the topic ban. These are three clear violations according to the current wording of the topic ban. If JPL is allowed to make small gnomish edits (removing nicknames from lede, adding birth-death dates to lede) to articles on religious figures, then add that wording to the topic ban. If he's not allowed to do that, then block now for clear violations (which he has repeatedly been warned to be careful about) which he did not expend even the slightest effort to avoid, and since HighInBC has already noted that he's already "been given a second, third, and fourth chance", he's clearly not going to do so in the future, because his behavior clearly demonstrates that he could not care less about the topic ban when it comes to his rapid gnomish edits. Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oh my gosh , this is a clear violation of his topic ban. When I click on John McManners, I immediately see a portrait of a guy wearing a clerical collar and the first sentences of that biography say a British clergyman and historian of religion who specialized in the history of the church and other aspects of religious life in 18th-century France. He was Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Oxford fMy thouhhtdbrom 1972 to 1984. He also served as Fellow and Chaplain of All Souls College, Oxford, from 1964 to 2001. Any assertion by this editor that I did not intentionally include religious figures and was proactively avoiding them, even a few articles that said nothing about religion because I was sure if I dug deeper on them I would find something seems be disingenuous at best and overtly false at worst, since is is glaringly obvious to any uninvolved editor that this is an article about a religious figure. Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

ICookie

This editor, ICookie, has been causing a lot of trouble over at the COI noticeboard. He made edits to the Luckin Coffee page, which i reverted because of their suspicious nature and the fact that he had been reported at COIN (They were later rev deleted by an admin for violating the copyright policy.) and all other editors on this matter have agreed with my actions. Despite this, he is still denying that he was in the wrong and has readded content that got deleted for the aforementioned reasons and has threatened to report me to the Edit warring noticeboard despite me doing nothing wrong (even going as far as to accuse me of breaching TOS.) and has been incivil towards the other editors. This is my first report at ANI, so I hope i didn't do any mistakes along the way. Quetstar (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Reply from ICookie

Anyone can look at the Wikipedia page of Luckin Coffee and see that all my edits follow the Wikipedia TOS and all other rules and legal framework, and that my language is kept as objective and civil as possible. Yes, some edits made by another user were removed by an admin for copyright infringement, but my edits were never rev-del'd. My edits include completely non-controversial data such as updating the sidebar with the recent financial data, revenue figures, the number of stores, as well as news citing Bloomberg and Reuters regarding a restructuring process that Luckin Coffee is currently undergoing. @Quetstar has been arguing with me on the COI noticeboard for some time, and has consistently deleted / reverted any edits I have made to the Luckin Coffee-site, with no regard for the actual content of my edits. He has claimed numerous times that I am breaching copyrights, but has still not been able to point out exactly what or where I am breaching copyrights. The COI debate is a mess, but @Quetstar almost immediately deleted all my edits on Luckin Coffee before any of the other editors were able to take a look at the edits made.

I suggest editors take a look at the Wikipedia page of Luckin Coffee in it's current state, and make your own decision as to wheter or not there is copyright infringement, COI or whatever other excuses Quetstar has used in the times he has deleted my edits.ICookie (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not delete them, i just reverted them. Only admins can delete reverted ones, which is exactly what happened. Also, many of the rev deleted edits were made by ICookie. Quetstar (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar: I notice on your Talk page you have a lot of complaints against you about mass-reverting contributions. In fact when you mass-reverted the Luckin Coffee page the second time, you gave "copyright infringement" as the reasoning, despite there being no copyright infringement in the version you deleted. Take notice that the version that you deleted was NOT rev-del'd by admins earlier. In fact admins rev-del'd ALL versions of the page after 20:22 (GMT +1), 19 December 2021‎, for reasons unbeknowst to me. But most of my editing was done before this happened, the remaining edits I made were mainly spelling corrections and re-arranging categories. Again, the version you just reverted was not rev-del'd and had no copyright infringements in it. ICookie (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand, but the admin rev-del'd some of your edits as well. I will now let the admins decide the matter. Quetstar (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar: Anyways. I would highly appreciate it if admins or other editors could take a look at the Luckin Coffee page and tell me if my edits are breaching Wikipedia TOS, Copyrights, COI or any other legal framework that @Quetstar seems to claim I am doing. PS: Before you start reading, make sure to check Version History so you know you're reading my edits, as it's fully possible that @Quetstar will soon do another unexplained mass-reversion on the article. Anyways. I do believe I have worded myself objectively and stayed true to the Wikipedia TOS, and correctly used citations where required. But I always appreciate constructive feedback. Thank you. ICookie (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)