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.

---

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)

|- | class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; background: var(--color-inverted, #fff); text-align: center; font-size: 125%;" | Start a new discussion

Desertambition's hostile edit history

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

I hoped this would go away by limiting my interaction with Desertambition, but it hasn't and my original notice got lost in the shuffle[1]. Desertambition continues to be hostile to me and to other editors. It seems this editor's entire[2] edit history is arguing with others in bad faith[3]. My interaction has mainly been on the Flag of Alabama. It hasn't been positive. Desertambition is hostile to anyone that doesn't agree with their edits. I've been accused of over and over of going against Wikipedia guidelines while trying to steer the discussion towards consensus. Desertambition simply cannot work with others in good faith. Given the editors actions it was a mistake to ever lift the original block. The editor hasn't learned from previous mistakes and will continue to be hostile. Nemov (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know if a new block is needed at this time, but at a minimum I think it is appropriate to topic ban them from making accusations about editors behaviour outside of ANI, with a warning that making accusations at ANI, if found to be baseless, may also result in a block; Desertambition is an editor that rather than understanding that editors may disagree with them in good faith instead accuses those editors of violating behavioural policies. I've presented these examples before in the ANI thread they raised against me on March 29, but they are an excellent example of this; on March 1 they accused three editors who had disagreed with them primarily about article titles of WP:STONEWALLING and WP:HOUNDING, without having presented any evidence before or since; myself, Spekkios, and Toddy1.

I see that there are also many examples of this at Talk:Flag of Alabama, with Desertambition accusing editors of STONEWALLING, BADFAITHNEG, TAGTEAM, and BATTLEGROUND behaviour - and I expect that I've missed a few other accusations, either on the talk or in edit summaries. I would also note this commentary on their user page, about what they consider a common interaction with editors and admins.BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• This user does not appear to be temperamentally suited for a collaborative project. I note that they have already been blocked twice for this kind of behavior. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Nemov and Spekkios have been WP:STONEWALLING on the flag of Alabama page for weeks at this point by creating a WP:TAGTEAM. I have barely edited the page and engaged in extensive discussion on the talk page. BilledMammal is another user who has tried to get me blocked repeatedly. I have not made more ANI posts or engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.

I have made many efforts to create consensus and discuss the issue without edit warring and Nemov has refused to engage or build consensus: Here [4] and here [5]

I always try to write very clear edit summaries and discuss disputes on the talk page while following sources and consensus. However, Spekkios and Nemov have exercised complete control over the flag of Alabama article while removing information about Confederate symbolism and writing misleading edit summaries.

Spekkios writes "ditto here" when removing Confederate flag from the page after this edit removing "controversial content" and telling editors to discuss on the talk page while they continue to implement their own interpretation and wording of sources. [6]: [7]

Spekkios, prior to removing the Confederate flag, had removed the description of the Confederate flag by saying it was "too long" without elaborating here: [8]

Nemov falsely claimed the New York Times in 1906 said the flag of Alabama had no historical connection here [9] In fact, another newspaper had published that piece and seemed to be using clear WP:POETIC wording rather than saying "the flag has no history" which is pretty nonsensical as everything has a history.

Nemov falsely claimed that an understanding connecting the state flag to the Confederate flag only came 20 years after the flag was adopted here: [10]

After I added a source exactly the same way Nemov did, they remove it and replace the wording with blatant WP:SYNTH and WP:OR violations. I added the source here: [11]

Nemov then said in their edit summary: "Cleaned up the first few sentences for clarity. The link to the Montgomery Advertiser source isn't formatted correctly and I can't find it in another archive. Can you please clip it and source it correctly? Thanks." [12] Then put their own WP:SYNTH and WP:OR into the article "No documentation in the legislative records indicates the flag was intended to commemorate the Confederacy and local reporting around the time of the flag's adoption is inconclusive."

Nemov then "fixes" it by writing "No documentation in the legislative records indicates the flag was intended to commemorate the Confederacy. Local reporting around the time of the flag's adoption is unclear. One newspaper says the flag was a suggestions of the Confederacy and another stating the flag had no historical connections." [13]

Today, Spekkios scrubbed the word "Confederate" from the image of the Confederate flag without any sort of consensus here [14] and offered their own interpretation. Which I should add was incorrect because the image is not just a "saltire" but rather the actual battle flag of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.

I have not broken the WP:3RR after my prior block although BilledMammal has here: [15] [16] [17] but I know that's not the focus of this post.

It is so frustrating to deal with these constant reports and attempts to get me blocked. I continue to engage in good faith discussions with editors about these issues and often they are unwilling to build consensus. Desertambition (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I've never called for you to be blocked - above, you will see that I am suggesting a limited topic ban that will allow you to continue contributing to your chosen topic area - and while you haven't opened a new ANI thread since March 29, it has only been a week, and the issue here is your habit of casting aspersions against editors you disagree with. BilledMammal (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I had a conversation about these exact issues at User talk: Cullen328#WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on flag of Alabama on March 27. I, too, am very concerned about this editor's right great wrongs variety of POV pushing. Their attempt here to argue the content case is yet another example. The purpose of this noticeboard is to deal with behavioral issues, not to adjudicate content disputes. This editor consistently argues, in effect, that all the many other highly experienced editors they interact with are in error, and only Desertambition is correct. This editor seems incapable of self-reflection and self-correction. I agree with the succinct assessment by Ad Orientem above: This user does not appear to be temperamentally suited for a collaborative project. Cullen328 (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Firstly, I appologise for this block of text but this isn't an accurate summary of my actions. I performed a major reversion because there had been 23 edits and about half of them were reversions. I rolled back to a previous version because there was obviously a dispute about the article content as shown by the number of reversions, hence my edit summary. I would have reverted to an even earlier stage before the flag was added, however I elected not to because another user had performed some article maintenance that I didn't want to revert. Therefore, I selected the version just after said maintenance was performed and manually reverted the remaining content, hence my second edit summary "ditto here". I posted a section in the talk page notifying editors of the rollback I performed. I shortened the description because it was very long, and further discussion occurred about the caption on the talk page. I didn't remove the image entirely because I think it needs to be there, but the caption was very long and could be shortened. I did actually elaborate in the edit summary. Finally, the flag was restored to the article by another user for a valid reason. I adjusted the flag caption, because as I said before the previous was too long, but the current just states what the flag is. The caption I selected linked the flag image to the article. Desertambition reverted that edit. After a little discussion on the talk page I selected a new caption which was again reverted.

I apologise again for that large explanation of what is essentially a content dispute, but I just wanted to show how wildly different Desertambition's version of events is. They believe that Nemov and I are actively engaged in some sort of conspiracy to "remove confederate symbolism" to the point where a good-faith edit to improve a caption (which was being discussed on the talk page) results in an accusation of "scrubbing" the word confederate from the caption. Desertambition has accused us of engaging in historical revisionism including making an accusation of me "preventing almost any edits about Confederate symbolism". This is blatantly untrue. Anyone can quickly read the article and find an entire section on the origins of the flag, including ties to the confederate flag. The word "confederate" and "confederacy" have been mentioned 8 times each in the (relatively short) article. I have been supportive of including the confederate battle flag in the article. I have been supportive of edits improving the article and adding more context to the time in which the state flag was adopted. To paint me out as a historical revisionist, implying that I'm a confederate sympathiser is absolutely not productive nor in good faith and something the user has been warned about in the past. --Spekkios (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• In reading through the varying diffs, and having seen prior ANs involving Desertambition, I agree that the editor seems unable to deal in the collaborative fashion Wikipedia requires. He's received multiple blocks in a short time, and has had more than one "This is your wakeup call to straighten up" warning. The warnings seem to be flying over his head. In particular, him flinging the TAGTEAM charge is objectionable -- as if there must needs be something sinister inherent in multiple editors disagreeing with him on a particular point. Unfortunately, this seems to be his default SOP in content disputes: to accuse the other side of collusion, chicanery or immorality when he cannot otherwise build consensus around his POV. At what point is enough enough? Ravenswing 12:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• I came across this editor a month or so ago and was distinctly unimpressed with their conduct. The first time I saw them was after they created a couple of completely ridiculous PROD nominations for things that are obviously notable (at least to the level where a PROD would be inappropriate) but which they don't like, one of which I reverted [18][19]. I saw them again a couple of days later when they made this completely ridiculous comment baselessly accusing ymblanter of admin abuse [20]. This seems to be a fairly obvious case of an editor who is simply WP:Not compatible with a collaborative project. They seem to have joined up with the intention of editing with a particular POV [21], while I hope everyone here can agree that racism is bad in this case Desertambition's views seem to be getting in the way of them editing neutrally and making objective judgements about things like notability and common names. They are still acting like everyone who disagrees with them is an abusive rulebreaker or a racist, they are still approaching every discussion here as if it is a battleground and they are still edit warring and being disruptive to try and get their way. They already had an indef block for this behaviour and a last chance unblock on the basis that they would improve their conduct, unfortunately it seems that there has been little to no improvement since the original block. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment From reading the various responses I understand that my conduct is not where it should be. Would it be reasonable to have a ban on any kind of accusation of bad faith? I really hope that my edits are useful the majority of the time and I would like an opportunity to continue editing. Whether or not what I said is true is clearly not to be decided here. There is no real point to ever posting to ANI again or alleging any kind of bad faith editing. Some admins/editors have said multiple times how much they would prefer I stop editing, "crying wolf", etc. and I really do get the point. I do think that I am WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. I don't vandalize or disrupt to prove a point and most of these controversies happen during discussions or on talk pages, not on the articles themselves. I have not, despite multiple comments here saying I have, been calling users "racist" or "Confederate sympathizers". I believe this is largely a response to my user page where I say "racism bad". Some users have accused me of "anti-white racism" or turning articles "into the Mein Kampf of Anti-racism." [22] I have not made allegations of racism and do not ever plan to. I will do whatever best resolves this conflict. Desertambition (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

No one is saying that "racism = bad" is an unacceptable stance. Where your behavior is objectionable is that you seem to presume that you're editing on the side of the angels, and therefore those who disagree with you must be doing so out of foul motives. And that just simply is not the case. To put it bluntly, no one elected you the arbiter of what is or is not a "racist" edit. We are all the arbiter, collectively, and we arrive at those decisions through consensus. The nature of a consensus-based encyclopedia is that sometimes you're on the losing side of the argument, and when that is the case, the onus is on you to lose gracefully and move on. What best resolves this conflict is for you to get that. The patience of the community to wait for you to do so is finite, if not already exhausted. Ravenswing 00:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

D received an indefinite block that was lifted with WP:ROPE as justification. Then the editor was blocked a few days later. It's the same pattern. Hostility, accusing everyone, and then begging not to be blocked again. I can understand lifting the block the first time. The editor was given two more chances after the last chance. The editor has proven why they were initially blocked. It's not going to get better. Nemov (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It was two months later, not "a few days". The block was for edit warring, I was not paying attention to my reverts and broke the WP:3RR. I readily admitted and accepted that. Desertambition (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Every time you respond you reinforce the issue. You were blocked 40 days later for reverting edits. After being told that you have one last chance to work with others in good faith. Instead of listening, you accuse others and make excuses. You haven't readily accepted anything. After the block CaptainEek pointed out you were still not accepting what had happened.[23]. I agree the sentiment that You have some good points and editing inclinations. But if you can't follow the rules, you'll find yourself banned again. Not because of some months old accusations, but because of current failure to simply play nice with others. That's exactly been the case. After failing to comply so many times, why should we waste any more time hoping you'll figure it out? Nemov (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

That isn't an accurate summary of the situation. Toddy1 warned you that you were at five reverts, but despite being aware of that you chose to make a sixth. Then, when they opened a AN3 report you said Toddy1 keeps falsely accusing me of edit warring. After you were blocked you accepted you were edit warring, but the fact that it took a block for you to come to that conclusion is not good. BilledMammal (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not made an allegation of racial bias since I was blocked months ago. I do not think I am perfect and not all of my edits are helpful. I will readily admit that. I have not said anyone is making "racist" edits. I have said repeatedly I will not make allegations of racial bias in any capacity, that was made clear months ago. I am fully aware of the need for consensus and I do not believe two users deciding amongst themselves constitutes WP:CONSENSUS. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to take my concerns to the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I accept consensus even when I disagree with it, as has happened on many move requests. I have a desire to include information on Wikipedia that accurately reflects reliable secondary sources, not push an agenda. Desertambition (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This I accept consensus even when I disagree with it, as has happened on many move requests also is not accurate, as can be seen with your habit of making repeated move requests for articles whose discussions produced a consensus against you with minimal time between them. For example, Mafikeng was moved to its current title after a discussion on 3 December 2021. You disagreed with that consensus and opened a new request on 7 January 2022, and then another on 31 March 2022. While consensus can change, and it is appropriate to open new move requests after a suitable period of time, three move requests in four months is far too many and an example of refusing to get the point. BilledMammal (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not made allegations of racism and do not ever plan to. less than a week ago your talk page contained a list of "Users with clearly problematic/racist/racially biased posting" [24] which was described distinctly less than favourably by the admin who unblocked you [25].

Here you say that another editor is very attached to pre-apartheid names and only seem to take into account white South Africans and flat out accuse them of "racial bias" [26]

Here you "completley don't accuse someone of racism" by asking them what their opinion of white nationalism is [27] 192.76.8.70 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

That list was created four months ago and was collapsed by an admin. I have not made allegations of racial bias since the block and do not plan to. No one would be able to tell what was in there without opening it and I didn't think about it. Deleted it the second a user requested me to. Desertambition (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Desertambition wrote above: Would it be reasonable to have a ban on any kind of accusation of bad faith?^{5 April 2022}

• When he wanted to be unblocked, he/she wrote: I understand why I was blocked due to disruptive editing^{16 January 2022}
• But after he had been unblocked, he/she wrote: I had an admin make up false reasons to block me when I brought up racism and then I was not given a chance to appeal.^{19 February 2022}

That is not showing good faith. The second statement is completely untrue. The first statement was from his unblock appeal (the one he/she says that he was not given a chance to make).

Desertambition habitually accuses other editors of bad faith:

• BilledMammal 1 March 2022 29 March 2022
• Nemov 25 March 2022
• Spekkios 1 March 2022 25 March 2022 4 April 2022
• Toddy1 1 March 2022 2 April 2022
• Ymblanter 19 February 2022 23 March 2022 23 March 2022 24 March 2022]

Maybe he/she cannot help doing it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Proposal?

There seems to be a fair bit of support here to do something. What should we propose as a path forward? On WP:ROPE basis the editor should be banned, but maybe a topic ban at the very least? Nemov (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The editor seems to seek conflict. He/she gets it through move discussions, articles where racism is an issue, and ANI. It is not reasonable to ban him/her from ANI, because it would make him/her vulnerable to bullying. But topic banning him/her from (a) undiscussed moves, (b) move discussions, (c) deletion discussions, and (d) racism broadly construed for nine months might bring out a more positive side to this editor. (As far as I know he/she had not misbehaved in deletion discussions, but we do not want to move his/her conflict-seeking behaviour from move discussions to deletion discussions.) I think a year is a bit long, and 6 months too short, so 9 months sounds right to me.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't take pleasure in banning users and D has shown an ability for research. I support your idea. Nemov (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with time-limited bans. I think that if a ban is imposed, whatever it is, then it should be indefinite - otherwise, the editor doesn't need to improve, and instead can just wait the clock out. Further, an indefinite ban might be shorter than a nine month ban; they might demonstrate sufficient improvement in three months for an appeal to be successful.

I would also suggest something similar to "racial issues broadly construed" rather than "racism broadly construed", as I feel the latter is slightly narrower than the area their behavioural issues exist in. BilledMammal (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Regardless of what sanctions I do or do not deserve, it hardly feels fair for editors I have active conflict and disagreement with to decide on my sanctions. Desertambition (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

I have not had any prior involvement here, and so have not had any active conflict or disagreement with User:Desertambition in the past. So, this should feel fair when I propose this:

User:Desertambition is topic-banned from undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America). They may appeal these sanctions, in whole or in part, in 3 months. Contravening the topic bans will result in an indefinite block, which must be appealed at this noticeboard. They are also cautioned against polemic conduct, casting aspersions, personal attacks, edit warring, and adopting a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing.

Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Given that a significant amount of my edits are concerned with move requests and discussions, that does not feel like an appropriate sanction. It is also unclear what "racial issues, broadly construed" would apply to. Desertambition (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the issues with your editing are also in those areas. Let's just say that you aren't going to be getting out of this without a restriction on your editing of some sort. You can appeal in three months, which is relatively soon, often such bans last at least 6 months or more.

"Racial issues, broadly construed" would involve any topic related to race and racism, since that is where the issues lie.

Basically, the advice is, if you aren't sure if a given edit would fall into that category, don't make it, without at least asking an admin if it would contravene your TBAN. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I will take whatever sanction admins feel is appropriate. It does seem like I am the only one being discussed here. Are the other editors completely faultless in these interactions or am I the sole problem user in your view? Desertambition (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It does seem like I am the only one being discussed here.

Yes, that's appropriate since you're the editor under discussion. There's also a long list of editors who have provided numerous examples of your conduct. This is why some are not hopeful that any temporary measure is going to work. You are seemingly incapable of acknowledging and taking responsibility for your actions. Nemov (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Every time I have come to ANI the discussion comes back around to me so it seems frustrating that there is no critical evaluation of other users. What I have done does not excuse this conduct from Nemov: [28] [29]. We are in active disagreement so there is an obvious COI with Nemov recommending sanctions for me. Desertambition (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, well, that's the way ANI works; Nemov is no more debarred from commenting here than you are from commenting here ... surely by your own stance you aren't a neutral party either, right? (And seriously, you think that Nemov asking for a citation to be rendered properly is inexcusable conduct? Really?) With that being said, I support the sanction as Mako001 set it forth. Ravenswing 07:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

They were not just asking for a citation. They were 1. Saying I was arguing in bad faith and 2. Refusing to discuss the issue and come to consensus. Seems to be a very uncharitable reading of the diffs I provided. Desertambition (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning the constant WP:BADGERing from BilledMammal.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Desertambition#Deprived_of_context

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2022_April#Queenstown,_South_Africa_(closed)

3. Following me around on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:East_London_Airport#Requested_move_10_April_2022

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Makhanda,_South_Africa#%22Also_known_as%22

These are only a few examples of many. Desertambition (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that it is OK for Desertambition to reply to BilledMammal's comments, but it is not OK for BilledMammal to answer back? But if BilledMammal does, then Desertambition MUST have the last word. Who is badgering who?-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Desertambition: And that right there is why you are here in the first place. Whenever issues are raised with your editing, you promptly go on the offensive and engage in what-about-ism, casting aspersions, and such. The "it wasn't me it was everyone else" route will not lead anywhere good. I sincerely caution you not to keep pushing your luck on this, as you are lucky to get off with just a TBAN. A siteban wouldn't be completepy unreasonable, given how many times you have been told not to engage in combative behaviour, and still continued to do so.

Of course, you can always just double down, never admit that you have ever done anything wrong, and keep casting aspersions without substantial basis, but if you do, just let us know that you intend to do so now, as it will save everyone's time. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Support Support indefinite ban This last exchange has exhausted my faith that this editor will ever learn. Every prolonged exchange ends in hostility. This user will be right back here once a temporary ban is over. The first ban didn't work. The second ban didn't work. A threat of a topic ban hasn't worked either. I see where this is eventually heading. It's just gonna waste other editor's time getting there. Nemov (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

- Edit: Amending vote to support indefinite ban after reviewing the examples below. I don't think a topic ban is going to solve the temperament issue. Nemov (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to repeat again that we are in active disagreement and there is a blatant COI here. Desertambition (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support Comment I found this thread after encountering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ora (currency), an AfD that followed this PROD attempt. In both cases, the rationale does not appear to be based on notability, but on the editor's opinions of the topic at hand ("non-currency... non-English sources, and the article seems to exist largely for WP:PROMOTION...one step above monopoly money"). They have also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orania Representative Council following a similar PROD attempt, the deletion rationale of which appears similarly based on opinion on the topic rather notability. Concurrent edits to first article feel problematic as well, with the user removing sourced text apparently because the source is dead (the text in question is trivially sourceable too, eg.), while adding unsourced text that reflects the AfD rationale. Particularly concerning is that the AfDs and edits occurred after this AN/I discussion was opened, where the PRODs mentioned had already been brought up, which makes it hard to understand Desertambition's assertion above (also before the AfDs) that they "don't vandalize or disrupt to prove a point". If an AfD nomination citing the use of non-English sources is not meant to disrupt to prove a point, then there is a lack of understanding that would appear to warrant a topic ban. CMD (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  You should probably wait a bit before making an WP:ANI complaint as the Ora request has been withdrawn and I have added citations to the article. Hardly seems blockable to make an WP:AfD request that may have mistakes. I also stand by the Orania Representative Council nomination. Again, none of this seems to break guidelines by any measure. There is also nothing wrong with creating deletion discussions after a PROD attempt has failed, in fact that is the entire point of deletion discussions. Someone asserting that they disliked my AfD/PROD requests is hardly grounds to stop editing in good faith. You may have misread my request for the Orania Representative Council as it was absolutely based on notability, I'll repost it here for your convenience:

  Article about a non-notable pseudo-governmental body that was created in 2017. Article is replete with false information that is not supported by sources. Many of the sources are misleading, not in English, or just not relevant at all. Nothing about this council necessitates an article of its own. Anything that is of note is mentioned in the Orania, Northern Cape article. Orania has been an integral part of Thembelihle Local Municipality since 2001 from what I can tell. Information on the council was largely added by one user and fails WP:GNG. The article is extremely misleading and filled with WP:WEASEL words that imply Orania is a separate municipality. In fact, residents of Orania vote in local elections along with every South African. Strong suspicion this was created with WP:PROMOTION in mind. Desertambition (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Could you explain how that rationale relates to WP:Notability? CMD (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  After I posted the above, Desertambition reached out on my talkpage under a section titled "‎Reaching out in good faith". After I replied, they stated they did not feel I was acting in good faith. I find it hard to read the intention behind this, as if it was deliberate trolling given this AN/I it could not be more on point. CMD (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Despite everything above, Desertambition is now edit warring their changes I mentioned above into the Ora article, with an edit summary opening with "Stop edit warring" to boot. Given that and the previously mentioned items, I have shifted my comment above to support, as explicit sanctions appear to be needed. CMD (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  I am not breaking any guidelines. This is a weak attempt to get me sanctioned because you personally disagree with my edits. First you recommend I be blocked because you disagreed with two of my deletion discussions (???) then you refuse to discuss article related issues on the article talk page after failing to thoroughly examine what sections of the article were changed/removed and why. Brute forcing your preferred edits with no arguments rooted in existing guidelines/policies is edit warring and "no u" is not a cogent argument rooted in existing guidelines and policies. I have created a section to discuss issues with the article if you would like to begin discussing your specific grievances in depth. Desertambition (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  You are edit warring, again. You have accused me of bad faith, which seems to be another pattern. There does not appear to be an understanding of notability, along with misunderstandings of sourcing policy. On the content, I have noted issues above, on the AfD page, and on my user talkpage. Your new post on the article talkpage does not appear to have taken any of those into account, and I do not see why raising issues in a fourth location is productive at this point. CMD (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  I literally did not accuse you of bad faith, I said "It does feel a bit like you are not assuming WP:GOODFAITH." Very uncharitable way to view what I said. I was trying to WP:BENICE and reach out. Article issues should be raised on the article talk page. I see no reason why I need to track all of our discussions and tie them back to the article talk page. Desertambition (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Now, pretty much all recent contribution of the user is edit-warring and removal of the warnings from their talk page. Could we please put them back to the indef block they belong to? I think it is clear that they are incapable of collaborative editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  "All" is a bit of an exaggeration when I have not broken the WP:3RR and am engaging in extensive discussion on the talk page. You have made it extremely clear that you feel like I should have never been unblocked and trust me, I hear you loud and clear. I do not believe I am incapable of collaborative editing and have engaged in discussions extensively that have lead to improved articles and stronger consensus. Clearly users have nothing positive so say about me but I am not vandalizing or editing for the sole purpose of being disruptive. Many times consensus has been opposite my position and I have complied. Desertambition (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  I am afraid what you believe is irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is what the closing administrator believes. Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  Desertambition, you appealed your indefinite block on the basis that you understood why you were blocked, and were sorry. It was NOT on the basis of the block being unjustified. Yet some time after you were unblocked, you posted on your user page to the effect that you were wrongly blocked. That statement on your user page more-or-less says that you were wrongly unblocked. If I were you I would ask that the statement on your user page should be revdeled.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't want this topic to get auto archived again. Can we get more comments on this issue so it can be resolved? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support proposed topic ban to address the disruption, neutral on the indef. I am concerned by them making one statement to get unblocked, and then effectively retracting that statement afterwards, but not enough to support the indef at this time - a final last chance could be beneficial to Wikipedia if it turns them into a productive editor who can collaborate with those working in the same space as them. BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support proposed topic ban (though I would have preferred one limited to 9 months, instead of one he/she had to appeal). Since he/she got blocked on 22 March after making 4 reverts in 24 hours, he/she has mostly restricted him/herself to three reverts when edit-warring, and even self-reverted a 4th revert on 10 April after being reported. So Desertambition is capable of learning. He/she still has not understood why we have to put edit warring notices on his/her talk page after he/she has made 3 reverts to a page in 24 hours.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • There were four reverts on 12 April at the Ora article, but either way I do get the impression 3RR is being seen as an allowance rather than a limit. CMD (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - looking through the examples (is this the worst we've got), I'm not seeing much that's actionable at a topic ban level. The edit warring seems more serious than hostility. Riot act has been read - move on. Nfitz (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support: If this has been going on for a while, and no lessons are learned after several last chances, I don't see what else there is to do. I have seen some of their activity on this board and the accusations, in fact I was insinuated myself by this user today of wanting to get someone blocked in bad faith, and falsely accused of accusing someone of sockpuppetry when all did was saying I found the timing and circumstances suspiscious not directly accusing anyone in this ″friendly advice″. Support topic ban not indef. --TylerBurden (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with you based on what I have seen from Desertambition, but regarding your link to the discussion where you see he accused you of wanting (Me) blocked for my edits, he never actually accused you of that. In addition you did actually call me a sock puppet of Desertambition, by slyly assuming such due to editing in similar times. June Parker (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

    How about we keep focus on what it should be on this report, your false accusations have a seperate thread. TylerBurden (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Looking into this there seems to be a repeated and egrigreous violation of the rules here, as well as bad manners. As TylerBurden mentioned, he messaged me on my talk page trying to give me "Friendly" advice just because I so happened to make edits on racial issues and got into a content dispute. He's also shadowed some of my edits. I don't see what he has to do with the dispute I had with those users or what he had to gain from it but it was just really weird. June Parker (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Closure needed

Can an admin please close the topic ban proposal one way or another before this gets autoarchived?-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Bumping again... There's numerous examples and comments on this issue. Can we get a resolution on the proposal? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't had much to do with Desertambition and I opposed the AfD nom they made for Orania Representative Council. I considered the topic notable, but wouldn't consider the nomination disruptive. I think the comments on their userpage about racism on Wikipedia are unnecessarily critical. Something that suggests we actually don't tolerate racism was an ANI thread they initiated on 12 April regarding a long-standing, previously respected editor spreading white genocide conspiracy theories. Action was taken and the offending editor indeffed. This suggests we do take racism seriously and also shows Desertambition can bring legitimate concerns to community attention. I would say I disagree with some overly critical comments that have been made above. Desertambition has made some decent contributions and I note in their favour that they behaved appropriately at the AfDs that did not go their way (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orania Representative Council). This doesn't seem to me like an editor unquestionably unable to work with others, even in case of disagreement. I think what we do need is commitments from this editor to remember the importance of civility and keep serious accusations such as racism for when it is deserved. I don't think anything can reasonably come from this discussion now and I'd honestly suggest a close with a clear warning regarding civility. AusLondonder (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Desertambition has now restarted edit warring on the Orania article. CMD (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  Feel free to revert edits you disagree with. Editing != edit warring. Please provide reasoning on why you disagree when reverting and be specific as well please. Desertambition (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  These are edits you have made before, have already been reverted before, and already has a talkpage discussion. Please understand that this is edit warring. CMD (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

user:Mariofan3 WP:NOTHERE, WP:NOTWEBHOST

Almost all of this user’s edits are to WP:FANCRUFT fake articles about non-notable web shows. They may need blocking for abuse of Wikipedia for webhosting purposes. Dronebogus (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You haven't notified the user, and you have provided zero diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dronebogus's assessment. The editor's entire contribution history is clear that they're using Wikipedia as a webhost and are WP:NOTHERE. Schazjmd (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Notified. Also I peovided “diffs” in the form of statistics because literally their whole edit history counts as evidence. Dronebogus (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Firstly why do you care, secondly they're user pages, I wasn't trying to record notable information cuz the info I was recording was relevant to me, obviously no one is gonna look at those pages so idk why you are calling it "web hosting". Also like i'm gonna use wikipedia of all things to self promote lol, I was just recording info related to my projects cuz it was fun, stop going to furthest extreme, It's just harmless pages I was just practicing the wikipedia source with, calm yourself Ryan Jay (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• • @Mariofan3: It’s not “practicing” if you never put your skills to use on actual articles. Dronebogus (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not exactly fair is it, I admit I got carried away and made a few too many pages, and forgot to actually edit other pages, so I apologize for that, honestly the one user page I care about rlly is the Snowtab in the Void one cause of the amount of time I put into that one Ryan Jay (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• • @Mariofan3 and Dronebogus: Wikipedia:How to use your user space and WP:USER. Many, if not most, users who have been around for any amount of time, create user sub pages for any number of reasons. There's no limit on how many a user can have. How do any of us know they aren't working on ideas for expanding an article, or building ideas and sources for a new article. And as these guidelines say, "You can put more or less anything on your user page, as long as it does not break any other rules (for example, no copyright violations or insults directed at other users)." — Maile (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    I know that, but this user hasn’t spent enough time anywhere else on WP to justify making 500+ edits in userspace Dronebogus (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    Literally 90% of their edits are on personal projects, which is the definition of WP:NOTHERE (“Editing only in user space”) Dronebogus (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    I could easily change that though, I mean I believe I contribute to episode list pages occasionally I could just do it more often but with other pages Ryan Jay (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Fandom exists. They have practically zero standards as long as you don’t add porn, slander, or hate speech. Dronebogus (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • ok Ryan Jay (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @Mariofan3 and Dronebogus: "Fandom" is a more general topic. It would appear to me that the wiki-hosting website Fandom (website) is what might have been intended here. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

      Yes thank you Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Fandom does not like falsehoods any more than we do. wikia:User blog:Wikiatastic/A perfect rules article for your wiki#No Vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    I’ve seen some comically terrible wikis. Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    There are a lot of "fanon" wikis on Fandom which blatantly lie and are allowed because they admit they're not true. I'm not going to take a stance on the content issue, and much less the behavioral one, due to my lack of experience. However, I do think the user starting his own wiki could be helpful in solving the dispute. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 12:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Mariofan3:, please save whatever content you want from these pages ASAP as they will very likely be deleted, either as WP:U5 violations or through WP:MfD.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This user’s mainspace behavior also includes personal attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mariofan3#March_2020 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_DuckTales_(2017_TV_series)_episodes#This_is_annoying), blatant vandalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Steven_Universe_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=838356166 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Screams_of_Silence:_The_Story_of_Brenda_Q&diff=prev&oldid=956108419) and a general flippant and hostile attitude towards editing (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_DuckTales_(2017_TV_series)_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=945408058). Honestly I’m not sure why they expect us to believe they can actually edit the wiki competently. Dronebogus (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

2 Years Ago -_- Ryan Jay (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Also not gonna lie now is when you are starting to be a bit of an ass about this, I already agreed and have been as close to “nice” about this situation as I can be, all your doing now is just bringing up random stuff from 2-4 years ago that doesn’t affect this current situation, what are you, a twitter user? Quit it already, I already agreed to the page deletions (or well even if I disagreed I wouldn’t really have a choice now would I), I don’t care about this situation after this point, so can it just end now lol. Ryan Jay (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal indef block

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

---

• Support indef block as nominator for User:Mariofan3. This thread proves itself. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC) – Reinitiated my support due to very uncivil behavior of Mariofan3 at this thread. Even if they are let go, they will surely going to cause headaches and cost editors valuable time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose based on the evidence presented so far. No one is born magically knowing that WP:NOTWEBHOST exists. Dronebogus should have discussed this with Mariofan on his talk page and explained the policy to him rather than taking this to ANI and demanding a block that sounds more punitive than preventative. Mariofan hasn't engaged in any more NOTWEBHOST violations since this thread was started, and seems to understand the policy now, so a block would prevent nothing. And I don't think throwing into the mix some juvenile edits from two years ago changes that. Maybe there's a case to be made for an indef, but the above ain't it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  I said a block may be necessary. I did not demand one, let alone an indefinite one. Dronebogus (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus: If you say at a village pump or on a talk page that a block "may" be necessary, you're saying it may be necessary. If you say it at AN/I, you're requesting one. You came here guns-blazing without attempting to discuss with the user, concerning their violation of a policy that they had no way of knowing existed, and their reaction to that has been predictably one of surprise. If they're indeffed, and/or if they stick to their retirement, that's no great loss to the project in terms of what they've contributed so far, but we'll never know how they would have reacted to a polite explanation of NOTWEBHOST here. Maybe they would have decided to contribute more productively. If you ask me, your starting this thread less than a week after Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1095 § Dronebogus @ MFD is further evidence that your fixation on what others do in their userspace is becoming a net-negative to this project. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 12:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Note that the thread went nowhere. Dronebogus (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Basically everyone who participated in that thread agreed that your conduct was problematic. If what you're saying is "I won't listen to the community's concerns unless there's a consensus to formally warn or sanction me", that's rather troubling. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  No consensus is no consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  WP:BOOMERANG? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Boomerang who? I assume me since I get this threat every time I’m at ANI. Dronebogus (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• weak Oppose I’m unimpressed with this user’s attitude and behavior but we have no reason to assume they’re going to keep violating policy per WP:CRYSTAL. Support on top of the utter lack of meaningful productive editing they also have consistently behaved in a flippant and immature manner towards literally everything outside of their little bubble of vanity pages. No reason to have faith in them at this point. They had their chance right here and they clearly blew it. Dronebogus (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support despite the nom striking their !vote. I really was right about to oppose per Tamzin, but the diffs Dronebogus provided, as well as how User:Mariofan3 reacted to them, suggest that WP:NOTWEBHOST is far from the only reason to not keep them around. I don't agree that a block would prevent nothing. Yes, it was in 2020 that Mariofan3 called other editors retarded and vandalized multiple articles (it's a miracle they weren't blocked for that at the time), so it's possible that they've changed since then; I believe their recent behavior demonstrates that they're no less juvenile today, throwing out WP:NPA like "what are you, a twitter user?" or replying to MfD notifications with a disinterested "did i ask", etc. If they ever choose to use Wikipedia for legitimate purposes, they'd certainly be a problem editor and wind up back at AN/I.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 06:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  I will give them a chance. The reason I strike my proposal is per WP:ROPE: give them another chance, and if they are indeed a problematic editor, they will come back here and get blocked indef. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  They are indeed a problematic editor, and their second chance was now. Dronebogus (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  I will say my piece now as you guys have essentially raided my email box with this for the past week, I literally have no clue what is going on and what exactly you guys are trying to say, the original point was that I had pointless user pages, to which have been deleted and I agreed to their deletion, all you guys are doing now is nitpicking at me for no good reason at all, all my "juvenile reactions" were literally me reacting to this random ass situation like a human being, "are you a twitter user" may sound harsh but to me it just sums up what this is, I made a mistake, and you started picking at my history on the site to make me look even worse for some reason? Also responding to a notification that way in my own talk page should not be an issue lol. So yeah all you've done is ensure that I don't want to ever use this site again, you've made it clear that you just want me gone so i'll just go lol Ryan Jay (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Then go. Bye bye. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  jeez, no need to be so rude about it. 晚安 (トークページ) 12:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Not that something shouldn't be done about the WP:WEBHOST, personal attacks and battleground mentality, but all of the warnings and diffs the OP provided are from two years ago and the OP seems to be (somewhat) piling on and basing their arguments on edit counts rather than entirely on the substance of Mariofan3's edits (with comments like "Literally 90% of their edits are on personal projects, which is the definition of WP:NOTHERE (“Editing only in user space” and "Almost all of this user’s edits are to WP:FANCRUFT fake articles about non-notable web shows."). Recent warnings and lesser sanctions (such as a definite block and a restriction from using their userspace for webhosting) have not been tried and the OP has failed to provide sufficient evidence than an indefinite block would be absolutely necessary. From what I can see, the WP:WEBHOST did not get brought up until this thread and a look here shows that Mariofan3 does in fact contribute to mainspace. While this doesn't in any mean that Mariofan3 is right or that the OP's concerns about WP:NOTHERE are illegitimate, if after sufficient warnings, Mariofan3 continues to use Wikipedia as a WP:WEBHOST and the personal attacks/battleground behavior, then I'd say block indefinitely.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tamzin. The user figured out what they did wrong. casualdejekyll 13:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see why this came here instead of MFD - though who really cares? If the user learns some skills in their user pages and sandbox, isn't that a good thing? Why chase away a potential user, and poke them with a stick until they bite? Nfitz (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary as the user appears to have WP:VANISHED. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Are you kidding me? Mooted. Mariofan3 has been run off. This was completely ridiculous, excessive, and uncalled for. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Dronebogus warned

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

---

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1095 § Dronebogus @ MFD

Dronebogus has said above that they do not see the previous ANI thread as having had a consensus, even though almost everyone agreed that Dronebogus' conduct was problematic, simply because no one bothered to formally close it. In light of that, I propose that the community formally warn Dronebogus that their actions regarding user subpages have been disruptive and have wasted other editors' time for minimal benefit, and in particular warn them to not use MfD and ANI as venues of first resort for cases that might be solved by discussing with users directly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support @Dronebogus: This has all been clearly excessive and disruptive, and devoid of the collegiality and WP:AGF editors should show one another. I just rejected a vanish request from @Mariofan3:, so harassing other users off the project is certainly not what we should be doing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with @Mythdon: --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with Liz below. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  PS. I vanished Mariofan3. Per their request. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Support. I don't have anything to add. casualdejekyll 15:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support - bordering on bullying. There's no need to be censoring Wikipedia to this degree! Nfitz (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with everything the nom said. I would like to reiterate to Dronebogus that if they are to nominate dozens of related items for deletion with the same delete rationale, they should be a single nomination so editors don't have to copy and paste their !votes over and over again, this is disruptive and far more time consuming than it needs to be, I asked this of them in the previous ANI too. I do also agree in principle that it's better to discuss with users before going to AN/I (despite me agreeing that the user they brought to AN/I was NOTHERE). I wouldn't agree to warn them not to bulk nominate userboxes in the future, though, as it's still true that most of what they nominate for deletion results in a delete consensus. The nominations themselves aren't the problem, but the way they've gone about them is an issue.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Dronebogus's focus on putting a wide swath of userpages up for MFD is tendentious; whether or not those pages need to be deleted or not, pursuing a campaign like that is itself disruptive because it inevitably and invariably involves the pursuit of a goal rather than actually resolving the dispute. Judging from this thread and based on the link Tamzin has provided, if we're going to have a conversation about WP:NOTHERE, that should also include Dronebogus's approach and their obsession with what it's in others' userspace. As I've said above, Dronebogus was right as far as Mariofan3 using Wikipedia as a WP:WEBHOST, but the method by which Dronebogus went about bringing those concerns —going straight to ANI, digging up stuff from 2+ years ago that's nothing to do with the original complaint, WP:BITING Mariofan3 even after Mariofan3 agreed to stop, taking it upon themselves to act as a sort of userspace police putting stuff up for MFD that they don't like or find offensive— is bordening on harassment. Like I said above, Mariofan3 did indeed violate WP:NOTWEBHOST, but how a user approaches whatever they perceive as a violation of policy matters just as (if not more) important than the violation itself. And how Dronebogus approached this (in general and with Mariofan3) it itself a case of WP:NOTHERE and I think Dronebogus should find something better to do than going around policing other users userpages, because all policing does is insists on drama and confronation rather than an amicable solution. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- Dronebogus has an abrasive approach that needs to change. --JBL (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately, xfds are adversarial by their nature. Sometimes we learn the wrong lessons. I do. As I'd mentioned (and was demonstrated) in the previous ANI thread, Dronebogus has this habit of lashing out, then telling others to drop the stick. I call attention to the back and forth between they and I following this edit, where they attempt to explain calling another editor a name (which they later properly retracted). Dronebogus admits humanity, and then when I'm thinking I'll let it go, I read another un-aimed attack: "double standard much?" They have this history of adding inflaming comments (like the ones I'm trying to redact through my drafting process at this moment, not letting the user continue to effect me). I wish they would learn not to do this; such interjections undercut otherwise good contributions to the pedia. It's great with me that Dronebogus tries to prune dead wood; I'm glad we have sensible and intelligent people thinking this perfectly valid way. If they can get over trying to "win" they could be better at what they do. BusterD (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• I hate to stir the pot, but I have to say, if I'd noticed this at the time of starting this subsection, I might have suggested more than a warning. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Explains the RTV. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Removing comments from other users with an edit summary like "Nobody asked for your opinion" is definitely not okay.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  +1. No matter how pure the intention, that invokes a visceral reaction from me. Dumuzid (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I can't believe DB MFD'd Mariofan's userpage today, after all that's transpired, and then removing the user's comment with that edit summary... Levivich 23:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support I don't participate at ANI much any more but I just closed 6 or 7 MFD cases brought by Dronebogus after the pages were speedy deleted and had to see what was going on. Tamzin makes absolutely reasonable suggestions that more editors should abide by. I see a lot of new editor's talk pages and I more often see warnings and threats than welcome messages explaining information and resources that could help new editors navigate the confusing world of Wikipedia polices and guidelines. This was not a new editor here but what I'm alluding to here is preferring templates and noticeboard complaints over starting an actual conversation with a editor, explaining how what they are doing is problematic and what changes are called for. Bringing this to ANI after tagging all of their user pages for deletion was over-the-top and unnecessary. I'm not sure what is appropriate here but maybe a simple admonishment would alter Dronebogus' style of interacting with other editors. We are colleagues, not adversaries and vandals. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I just came across User:Dronebogus/Unpersoning which I agree with. The generous attitude you express here seems at odds with your behavior at times which seems very defensive. I understand that no one enjoys their behavior being scrutinized (I speak from experience) but you have to sift through all of the remarks that are made and accept the criticism which is constructive and intended to make you a better editor. I realize this isn't easy but it's a challenge we all can face at some point here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair. Dronebogus (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Well said. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree my conduct was aggressive and out of order. Dronebogus (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support, I shouldn't have proposed an indef block and unstrike my nomination. Sorry for me causing this fuss to the already heated situation. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• What's needed here is for Dronebogus to refocus away from userspace. A clear commitment from them to involve themselves with mainspace, project space and talk space instead should be sufficient, and would in my view obviate the need for any kind of logged sanction.—S Marshall T/C 08:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support a warning about their vexatious litigation at MFD and ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support more than a warning Frankly, I can't see how a warning is sufficient given the conduct Dronebogus has engaged in. Removing another editor's comments for no reason at MfD (the user whose content was in question) and using an abusive edit summary to do so is just completely unacceptable. All this drama was so utterly disproportionate to the issue at hand. An inexperienced editor, who sounds quite young, made a minor mistake about the kind of content we should have on the project. Dronebogus decides to unleash what can only be described as unacceptable, persistent bullying. I found it quite appalling reading some of the above. I can't see how this behaviour simply warrants a warning. AusLondonder (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Also briefly, in what world was bringing this to ANI in the first place necessary? ANI is for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." The only behavioural problems I am seeing is from Dronebogus. And not for the first time. Their behaviour at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Malvinas, where they got on their soapbox to polemically claim a userbox was supporting "ethnic cleansing of British Falklanders" was also completely toxic and ridiculous. AusLondonder (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I’ve already stated that my conduct is out of order, I haven’t engaged in similar behavior since, I can’t un-bully MarioFan, that discussion about the Falklands box was weeks ago… I respect all the above criticism from other users as totally fair but you’re seemingly looking for punishment and not reform. Dronebogus (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

People will assume that what they've seen is what will happen in future. That's human nature. What people have seen is you perpetually popping up here as an irritating problem. I guess if you think that's not what's going to happen in future you could try to convince everyone of that, but, honestly, it's now up to you to do that, not others to assume it'll happen. Begoon 13:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: I consider any sanctions in this case to be preventative, not punitive. WP:BLOCKP states that blocks should be used to "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms". Preventative in this case would be to stop what happened to Mariofan3 happening to anyone else and stop editors time being wasted. I am glad you acknowledge what happened was wrong and I'd personally suggest you should apologise to Mariofan3 even though they have now left. I agree with Begoon that's it now up to you to show you've learnt from this. AusLondonder (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support I suggests Dronebogus avoids MfD for a while, stops patrolling user pages and finds something more productive to do. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support I confess I am struggling a bit to not simply vent emotionally here. I find Dronebogus's apparent self-appointment as Wikipedia's witchfinder general and random persecutions to be reprehensible, and diametrically opposed to the ethic of this website which I so admire. I'd like to believe they have seen the error of their ways, but the recent "no consensus is no consensus" reaction to criticism makes me skeptical. A formal warning should be logged so that when they cyberbully the next user (as I fear is inevitable) further action may be taken. Dumuzid (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support This user is a timesink. I'm supporting this because this is what's here. I honestly can't see how we are far from a siteban. I'm also proud to comment here at all - an ANI vote for a warning? Must be new ground... Begoon 13:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

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

• Noting post close that Mariofan3 unvanished. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 10

Special:Contributions/42.3.120.0/24,this LTA use this IP range after 7 October in 2019 (only 42.3.120.242 is not),please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 05:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Djjjjjl. El_C 14:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

i will light you on fire 晚安 (トークページ) 06:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/112.120.179.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 18 July in last year,please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Plllllljn. El_C 11:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

no 晚安 (トークページ) 11:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/119.236.212.0/22,please El_C block it,also,please protect Bag (Spam and DE after last protect),thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

COI/UPE bullying

• Chris troutman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DoubleCross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scope creep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been away from Wikipedia for a few years due to general inactivity + being locked out of my account. But after noticing that a startup called Remote that I was learning about didn't have an article, I tried to log back into my account and to my surprise I succeeded in regaining access. So I started to update myself on what has changed around here, as I would like to become more active again. And I proceeded to create an article on the mentioned company.

That proved to be a quick reminder that Wikipedia is not always an enjoyable experience. The stub was first speedy deleted due to lack of sources while I was still gathering them (I don't think Drafting existed a few years ago so I was just editing as I would before - directly on the mainspace). I reached out to the admin who speedy deleted, who then restored the stub as a draft. I finished adding sources and moved the article back to the mainspace. Shortly afterwards, user Chris troutman nominated it for deletion due to concerns about the company's notability and the sources I had gathered. So far so good, but in his reasoning was also the allegation that I may have a conflict of interest as this company was "an odd choice of article to write after [me] having stopped editing for years".

I ignored that and the discussion proceeded to focus on the sources and how to improve them. As the outcome was leaning towards Keep, Chris brought up the COI allegation again and demanded I disclose whether I have a COI - a demand which I refused to comply. Chris then took it to the COI noticeboard. Two users agreed with him on similar assumptions: the quality of the sources and my choice of article meant I had to have a COI.

Users DoubleCross and Scope creep then decided to up the ante and accuse me of being paid to create the article[30][31]. And now I even have a user implying I7 should be kicked out because I'm so obviously an UPE.

I may have been away from Wikipedia for years, but unless a lot has changed during my absence this is bullying plain and simple. I used to break fights by reminding users to be civil and assume good faith, and I'm disappointed that this type of hounding is allowed to run unopposed.

I would like to be clarified if the users above are in their right to make these accusations. Húsönd 23:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

If you don't have a COI, it's best just to say so. That said, we have high standards for notability of corporations precisely to avoid poorly sourced boosterism, regardless of whether it's well intentioned creation or not. (t · c) buidhe 00:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, due to the spectre of spammers, passions sometimes run high in deletion discussions for companies, and the independence of sources can be debatable. While the launch of this AFD unfortunately followed some snarking by the nominator Chris Troutman to the article creator Husond upon his return, discussion was proceeding quite well. Unfortunately, Scope creep joined in with a rather passionate Delete, and reacted to my answer to his comment by wholly reverting my response [32]. I think this was a decidedly suboptimal reaction, but that happens. Things degenerated from there. As pertains to me, he's now responded to 3rd parties calling him out on his conduct by accusing me and Husond of being corrupt on his own talk page. I've asked him to withdraw the accusation, but he does not seem inclined to do so. I do think a 3rd party look into the conduct issues here all around would be helpful, hopefully leading to a deescalation and withdrawal of rash accusations. Moving from conduct to content, I shake my head sometimes how much more scrutiny we place on articles about 2nd tier but (arguably) notable companies versus minor celebrities, all from a fear of COI which actually arises just as frequently for personal vanity articles. However, this is not new (see for instance [33] from 2006!) and probably not solvable at ANI. Martinp (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that scope creeps reversion was totally out of order and their corrupt accusation is not ideal either. As to the COI insinuations it just makes me uneasy. I can see why they were made and companies are notorious for it, but Husond explanation is also entirely plausible. Overall I think the evidence is a weak to go all out on UPE and it is really just a red herring as regards the AFD anyway. It would be great if scope creep could restore Martins comment and editors could leave out further accusations of COI at the AFD and just focus on sources. If non-neutral editing or spamming results then the COI accusations can be revisited. Aircorn (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree about the odd imbalance between the treatment of notable companies and minor celebrities. People tossing COI accusations around should really check the sources more thoroughly first to determine whether a subject is credible before assuming corporate articles are being put up in bad faith. Sure, there are a lot of crap, spammed company articles, but it is also normally pretty obvious whether they are credible or not from the sourcing. It is also pretty normal for a Wikipedia editor to see a company in the news, go to check for it on Wikipedia, note an absence and then try to do something about it. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Martinp had only made two comments in the discussion prior to the one which scope_creep removed, one of which was Martinp's !vote and the other of which was expanding on the !vote. To say that Martinp bludgeoned by posting a third comment, which was the first time they had replied to another person in the discussion, would stretch the definition of the term "bludgeon" beyond its breaking point. scope_creep should voluntarily restore Martinp's comment at the AfD. I also feel the need to point out that scope_creep has a history of playing fast and loose with COI/UPE allegations, so it does not surprise me that they would refer to Martinp as "corrupt" solely because Martinp disagreed with them. Mlb96 (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Husond, yes, things have changed a lot since the early days when you were highly active before going pretty much silent for a decade or more. You have been an administrator off and on, and have lost your administrator's tools twice, I think. One thing that has changed for the better, in my opinion, is that we work much harder to control the promotional contributions of spammers/paid editors/COI editors. As an administrator for almost the past four years, I have blocked 5849 accounts and about 80% of those were spammers and COI editors. One useful tool is the direct question to a possible COI editor: "Do you have a conflict of interest?" This is not bullying. It is protecting and defending the encyclopedia. You seem to consider this entirely legitimate question to be unacceptably intrusive and are refusing to give a direct answer. Your refusal reflects very poorly on you, because you could have easily and promptly and conclusively denied all accusations of COI editing and PAID editing. But you have declined to do do, which leaves these possibilities open for editors who patrol COI and POV editing. Let me be crystal clear with you. If you harbor any wish to be an administrator again or return to the status of a respected and trusted editor, you need to answer these questions frankly, honestly and fulsomely. Your reluctance to answer places you firmly into the informal category of editors who cannot be trusted. Is that what you really want? Cullen328 (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The direct COI question might not be bullying, but it can be presumptive and certainly feel quite rude depending on the context. A more astute accuser might have AGF upon seeing an editor with 36,000 edits under their belt, a history of adminship and a gazillion barnstars and perhaps recalculated, especially when the article was clearly being built with quality, guideline-compliant sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of the article and its sources. I wouldn't have AfD'd it if it didn't look questionable. More to the point, our deletion discussions are not political events where the consensus casts !votes based upon who's hot and who's not. An editor with longevity isn't given special permission to do undisclosed paid editing. Barnstars don't earn an editor the right to use vulgar language aimed towards another editor. And editors like you create our Super Mario problem, making adminship a big deal, by intoning that if you were once popular and now seem to be violating policies and guidelines a regular editor like me isn't allowed to say so because I'm not of the ruling class. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't make adminship a big deal, or trust editors solely based on counts, but historic access to admin tools does, by definition, carry the implication of a certain level of past community trust, and might give one pause for thought before exercising an itchy trigger finger ... unless one is to totally distrust the whole foundation upon which this community is built. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

We certainly have different views on the question "do you have a conflict of interest?". You find it a useful tool, I find it a tool for fomenting discord. It creates an atmosphere of suspicion that may easily poison the process - as seen here. Even if an editor denies COI when asked to disclose, other editors in the room will still wonder if the editor was being honest. So I can't really see what's the point of the question. Unless of course you get a lot of editors saying "why yes, I do have a COI, thank you for asking" - but even those, I'm inclined to believe did not require the question in the first place as their COI was probably pretty obvious anyway. Now of course you may claim that demanding a user to disclose COI was actually instrumental for increasing your prolific COI block tally - and I would love to learn more about that - but in any case I have serious doubts that it offsets the damage the demand may cause when aimed at the wrong users.

You think my refusal to acquiesce to Chris's demand to disclose COI reflects very poorly on me - that is your opinion, and I can live with it. I never asked for respect or trust - if the community indeed saw me as a respected and trusted editor, that was probably because I was consistent, reliable, and unafraid of expressing positions that may not please everyone but were backed by sound reasoning. You can rest assured that that has not changed, and it is definitely not the mop that is going to make any difference. Húsönd 18:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If you don't have a COI, it's really very simple to say, "No, I don't have a COI." You're well within your rights not to do so, but if you had simply done that from the beginning, I'm quite sure everyone would have assumed some good faith and all of this suspicion and acrimony could have been avoided. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• I wasn't particularly discussing Martinp in any accusation about being corrupt. I didn't believe at the time, they had a handle on the policy, although I've since found out they have written some of the NCORP policy. I was speifically speaking about the behaviour about editors who are trying the game the system, that I believe is happening here on a regular basis. I shouldn't have reverted the comment by Martinp but by the same token, this type of behaviour where editors now try to for push for a no conensus, so the article is kept, by continually pushing the conversation in the same direction that it becomes bludgeoning, is now common. It is standard pattern. I thought it was that. Even after I called out the references, where 6 out the 9 were press-releases, and 2 of the remaining were 2 sentences each, still the comment, ignoring the references and there is no other coverage. Mlb96 above makes the comment about me, playing fast and loose with COI/UPE allegations. To a certain extent I do, but nobody seems to care about it. I thought by now, there would be sea change, but no. I will stop working on coin and Afd and cat:nnn from this point forward. I think about 60% of the articles are now paid for and that it's now de-rigueur to pay for articles on Wikipedia. A few days a sock master self-confessed to running a farm on the coin for four years. That is the tip of the iceberg. I really don't understand why we are doing this. Its madness. I rail against the 1000's of hours I've wasted working to keep it out, that could have going into writing new articles and and there is so much still to be done. scope_creep^Talk 07:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Through comments here at on his own talk page, scope_creep has effectively withdrawn his accusation against me, so that side-show is over. That said, it feels like his accusation of corruption against Husond still stands, though maybe he means it as a general accusation against "spammers" and just assumed Husond was one (and lumped me in briefly too). And I think there's the rub:

• @Husond: (and others): for better or worse, Wikipedia is now pretty merciless regarding COI and UPE, for companies in particular. On Wikipedia, one rarely has to do anything, so formally if someone asks you if you have a COI you don't have to answer, but in practice if you want to Get Things Done you have to answer queries about COI swiftly, truthfully, and nonevasively, even if they raise your hackles. Otherwise your contributions may be treated as suspect. Specifically - asking you to declare whether you have a COI about an article you created that is up for deletion is not inherently out of line; and while you may not have felt the way it was first raised was appropriate, when multiple people are asking, you more or less have to reply.
• @Chris troutman and Scope creep:, and others: The obligation to be civil, to AGF, and to not bully does not stop just because your spidey senses about COI are tingling. It may build a sense of camaraderie to treat spammers as The Enemy, but you still can't BITE newcomers and people speak up when it turns out not to be Evil Spammers or clueless newcomers, but long-term editors that you're bullying. And while you feel strongly it poisons the well when someone is (potentially) being paid to edit, it's also true it poisons the well when accusations of UPE/COI are flying around. They take a life of their own.
• Everyone, at AFD it's good to actually evaluate sources and engage in discussion; and opinions may vary. Be wary of conclusory thinking, especially if there are accusations flying around. Martinp (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

"The obligation to be civil, to AGF, and to not bully does not stop just because your spidey senses about COI are tingling. It may build a sense of camaraderie to treat spammers as The Enemy, but you still can't BITE newcomers and people speak up when it turns out not to be Evil Spammers or clueless newcomers, but long-term editors that you're bullying. And while you feel strongly it poisons the well when someone is (potentially) being paid to edit, it's also true it poisons the well when accusations of UPE/COI are flying around. They take a life of their own." Well said. I think Nietzsche said something about staring into the abyss... Begoon 12:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at your methodology for determining who's an UPE, I'm surprised you think it's only 60%. You accused me of being paid to edit WP, still no statement that there might be a possibility that you might be wrong (let alone a retraction), and now you go on a rant on why the process is broken. At the risk of generalising your contributions to the COI/UPE fight based on my encounter with you, I can't say I will be sorry to hear you intend to be less involved in these matters going forward. Húsönd 18:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• As the guy implying I should be kicked out because I'm so obviously an UPE, no, only if you're an undisclosed paid editor, then, yeah, taxi to Inglewood for you. But Husond, why did you never answer Randykitty's question at BN? That seems a dead cert way of stirring suspicion before you've even done anything. SN54129 13:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps he felt it was ever so slightly akin to the idea of being asked when he had stopped beating his wife? Not everyone takes questions like that in good spirit. I certainly understand why they might sometimes need to be asked, and I'm not saying they should not be asked - but nobody is under any obligation to respond to interrogation and, while you may infer whatever you wish from a non-response such non-response is perfectly valid. We allow (no, we insist on) anonymous editing. There's a huge disconnect between that and the additional step of allowing interrogation of those anonymous editors about their connections. We're not going to solve the tension between anonymity and COI in this thread, and it leads to horrible situations. I'm not sure there is a solution, but I'm damn sure we won't arrive at it here. Begoon 14:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  It was a polite question, one asked in good faith, about a reasonable clarification. Interrogation it was not. Those questions are asked (no, insisted on) every day, and—far more to the point—they were asked back in the OP's own day. This isn't some radical new expectation created just for them. And what makes a refusal to answer worse was that it was in the context of requesting tools back. Frankly, if anyone thinks it's OK to request "powerful" (in-Wikiverse) tools, but refuses to answer basic questions as to account security, then either their competence or good faith absolutely needs to be questioned: asking the community for advanced rights but unwilling to respond to a polite question? The odd thing is, they haven't demonstrated such a thin skin since, either at the AfD, or here... SN54129 14:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  I was making a more general point about the ludicrous position which we take that anonymous editing is fine unless we wish to question people, in which case they must answer. I haven't looked at anything else, so if you've had other discussions with people mentioned in this thread they didn't factor into my response at all. The "beating your wife" thing was just an aside about how we think it's ok to ask unanswerable questions - well, unanswerable without prejudicing the things we say we hold inalienable. I've generally tended to agree with you in the past, and I'm sure I'd probably agree with some of whatever personal points you're making here. None of that was my point. If it's about some "resysop" request, well, ok, I haven't looked. What I'm saying is that you cannot fully allow anonymous editing and then quiz people about their identity/affiliations. The two positions are fundamentally incompatible. But, as I said, we won't solve that in this thread. Begoon 14:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  (EC) @Begoon: I very, very rarely visit BN but I think if someone mentions a question at BN, you can assume it's probably a resysop or desysop request even without knowing that Húsönd used to be an admin which was sort of indicate in this thread. But anyway, you're free to check out BN to see if you think it could be something else Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 46#Resysop request (Husond). You can see it was indeed about a resysop request and the question had zilch to do with identity/affiliations.

  I actually don't think what they said is particularly surprising given the edit history. They edited on "2020-04-30T21:09:21" [34] and then next edited on "2022-04-05T13:09:15" [35] which was their request on BN. So "I forgot my password a couple of years ago - which in turn distanced me from WP - but I just remembered it and managed to log back in" seems a reasonable thing to say, as they may have lost access not that long after their last edit in 2020 and then only were able to gain access again it nearly 2 years later. If I'm reading the logs correctly, they were doing enough (maybe just enough at times, not sure) to keep the bit since losing it for about a month in 2012 until they lost it in 2021 [36] which would seem to further support the notion they may have lost access to their account which distanced them from Wikipedia.

  OTOH, I also don't think there was anything wrong with RandyKitty asking that question, it was a reasonable thing to query especially since Húsönd was asking for the bit back. If Húsönd saw it but refused to answer it that IMO does reflect poorly on them, my assumption is they just didn't see it. (They did reply twice in that thread after the question was asked [37] [38] so it can't be a matter of them not checking the thread.)

  I'd note that unless Húsönd transverses time in a different manner from the rest of us, whatever people may feel about the way they were treated and the questions they were asked afterwards in relation to the Remote article etc cannot be the cause or an excuse for them failing to answer Randykitty's question since all that stuff happened after the BN thread was basically dead.

  Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Begoon: Did you misunderstand the question? Husond claimed in his request for the tools that he forgot his password before anyone asked him anything. Perhaps this was a sheepish bullshit (untrue, but not meant to deceive) excuse for not having edited. RandyKitty questioned if this statement was in fact a lie (meant to deceive). 54129 knows about WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, and so questions Husond's apparent need to deceive, about which the community is concerned. Husond could've just been honest and said he wants the tools back and so officially be above the law. He didn't have to excuse not recently editing, but now we are questioning if Husond didn't return to Wikipedia for honest reasons, hence the immediate and unnecessary deception. That Husond started this post at ANI only after editors started supporting deletion of the apparently-CoI article indicates his need to punish those who point out his seeming dishonesty. Of the many problems Wikipedia has, one of them is that the editing community no longer silently adheres to the political agreement that might have existed in 2006 and the oldtimers can't figure out what to do about it. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  While there was definitely nothing wrong with Randykitty asking the question, it's IMO also silly to make a big deal over what Húsönd said. They did basically disappear for nearly 2 years which included them losing the bit in 2021 after they'd been doing enough to keep their admin bit since briefly losing it in 2012. It seems entirely plausible that what they said is basically true, they lost access to the account for 2 years. Technically it wasn't quite 2 years, but people don't have to be that precise over timeframes. I'm reminded of a maybe somewhat unPC joke I once heard about a girlfriend questioning her boyfriend about an ex they met and then questioning him again and making a big deal when he said they dated 3 years the first time and 4 years the next time. (It's also possible they don't quite remember when in 2020 they next tried to access their account and realised they could not. And remember that people's perceptions and memory of time can often be inaccurate, I'd suggest COVID-19 has thrown it out of wack even more for many.) Of course Húsönd should have just clarified if they saw the question and if they intentionally didn't then that does IMO reflect very poorly on them. But it seems easily possible they just missed it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  WP:AGF didn't die out in 2006 and you need to go back to basics. Húsönd 19:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't reply because honestly I didn't understand the point being made so I didn't give much thought to it. But going back to it, I think the user is implying that I couldn't have forgotten my password because I edited in some recent years. I can't see what's suspicious about that. I had access until one day I was prompted to type in my password and realised I didn't know what it was. I used to be permanently logged in and can't even remember when did I have to type in my password prior to that time. Húsönd 19:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Bit of a weird coincidence - minimally active editors suddenly creating controversial articles I mean - Remote is a character from Battle for Dream Island. It's a small world, or something. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Getting it in the record: Battle for Dream Island is NOT a children's show. not all animation is for kids, aight? casualdejekyll 15:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo bot-like editing

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

Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo is a two month old account that is racking up thousands of semi-automated edits at a fairly shocking pace. An editor has complained on their talk page that they were removing infobox parameters that could have been fixed, although I'm not sure on what scale they're making mistakes. Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo doesn't appear to be acting in bad faith, but I'm under the impression that this level of rapid semi-automated editing is enough for the user to be considered an unauthorized bot under WP:BOTPOL. What is the best course of action here? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 11:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

hello Swarm!, about the problem on my talk, MB were just reminding me that i have a mistake on editing |postal_code= and also other fixable parameters on "template:infobox settlement". i recently try to avoid those mistakes again and presistently focuses and more carefully fixing them. however i'm not a bot, i know it's shocking, but i actually opened more than 100 tab on Chrome and edit the articles one by one. The general process takes about 1 hour per se. I actually keep an eye on my editing record. And i'm also surprised that i managed to make 2000 edit on a month period. overall, thank you for mentioning me in WP:ANI, and i hope i did not make any awful mistake. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you aware of WP:MEATBOT? If you are editing rapidly and such editing is producing errors an attentive human would not make then it doesn't matter if you are running a bot, using a script or just editing very quickly. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The pace of editing definitely seems human and is not too rapid. (I mean, for comparison, this board has often refused to take action against established editors who are actually possibly using bots on their account, or at least making so many (debatable) systematic edits that their behaviour is indistinguishable from one.) Different question as to whether or not any of the edits are problematic, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

taken into account the amount of problematic edits that i made, it's only a handful, and mostly on a high-traffic pages, as MB mentioned on my talk that i noticed. however, there are mainly mistakes that i made, for example mentioned above, |Postal_code= or |iso_code= and sometimes map, but luckily some other helpful editors fixed it aferwards. i did fix them as of now though. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m not trying to get you in trouble for making mistakes, I just think this scale of bot-like editing means you get treated like a bot under bot policy. Like, you can’t do it without approval. I could be wrong. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 11:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

if ever, i will try to reduce it to more acceptable pace. but the reason of those quick-paced edits that i made was solely for my intent to reduce backlog for the corresponding template. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that you're making a lot of mistakes in doing it, I just had a peek at a few of the edits you've made and there were issues with over half of them.

In this edit the parameter needed its name fixing, not deleting [39]. You should have just removed the "Gibbons is home to K.B"

In this edit [40] the "Parameter" you removed was someone's attempt at adding an image caption, it should have been moved to the caption parameter.

In this edit [41] the parameter needed the half HTML comment removing to fix the name, it didn't need deleting.

You've made a load of edits where you've been deleting "pushpin_map1" and related parameters [42] [43] [44]. These are an old obsolete method of adding multiple pushpin maps that was removed a few years ago. These should have been converted to the new format like so:

|pushpin_map = Map 1#Map 2

|pushpin_map_caption = Caption 1##Caption 2

Rather than being deleted.

I looked at less than 10 edits, The error rate here seems enormous. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this kind of behaviour requires approval under how the bot policy is currently implemented, but the edits do have to be improvements and absent of errors, otherwise it's just disruptive editing.

On that note, as to the purpose of Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo's edits, afaics I think they're (mostly) removing parameters used in articles that aren't recognised by the infobox template? If this is because the parameters were renamed/removed, then fwiw Primefac has a bot task to clean that up (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 30). If there is a new format to convert them to, such that they will produce an output, then that should be preferred to just removing them. For edits like [45], these are legitimate, because that's not a parameter that's ever existed in the template AFAIK. Others, like this, result in visible improvements to the article by removing bad parameter fields. In general, the removal of non-existent parameters is considered a useful task, since it improves wikitext clarity and reduces confusion (c.f. the PrimeBOT 30 approval). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes exactly!, i was removing parameters that are not recognized by the format. however, there are some mistakes. but i believe it is not as serious as precieved. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

192.76.8.70 take into consideration that most pages that i actually edited is low-traffic to low-importance but this is not the case. the general intent for me is to reduce the backlog. as i said earlier, i did mistakes. the |pushin_map1= and other parameters that were labeled per se, some of them did not show any changes to the infobox overall. So i flag them as "unknown format" anyway. thoroughly i did fixed some of them, but my focus was to remove the unrecognized format out of the infobox. i did recheck and re-preview most of them, except those that i missed. Take into consideration that this is not simple and short task to do. Infact it is a very time-energy consuming task to do. and i doubt there are many people who willing to do it on a large scale. moreover, the articles that i got was randomized aswell per Category:Pages using infobox settlement with unknown parameters. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 12:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo: I've just been through your last 40 ish edits and at least 10 of them contained mistakes, that's an error rate of 25%. You're making even more questionable edits while this discussion is going on which is probably not a good idea.

In this edit [46] Why did you delete the latitude and longitude information rather than converting them into proper parameters?

You need to slow down, double check every edit and make sure that everything you are removing couldn't be placed in another parameter. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you checking the edits you are making at all? Because I find it hard to believe that anyone who was paying even the smallest amount of attention would have made this edit [47]. Why did you delete the parameter rather than fixing the obvious vandalism that was causing the error? 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@192.76.8.70 I did not know which one of them is questionable, i did checked and re-checked. and also my apologize for not updating the parameter. but on what condition does my recent edit is questionable ? They seems to be fine on a sense. i just trying to clean them. And that was actually is a mistake. but on a sense, it isnt. I just reverted a blatant vandalism. why not you fix it ? i did not know why did you talk in an antagonizing manner right now. i try to keep things warm and civil here. I did change and put things where it belong, for example, sometimes |pin_code= was mistaken to be a |postal_code= and vice versa, i did put things where it belong and fixing it if it isnt. but i do make mistake, just so be clear. right now, you talk to me as if i did not recognize there is one. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 12:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If you've been brought to the administrator's noticeboard because people have concerns about you performing rapid bot like editing it's generally a bad idea to continue performing rapid bot like editing while the discussion is ongoing.

I have been fixing the errors in your edits when I've come across them, but other people shouldn't be needing to follow you around cleaning up your mistakes. If you're going to be making large scale changes to articles then you need to get them right first time. The issue here isn't specifically "pin code vs post code" or the map edits, it's generally that you don't seem to be making any effort to check what you're doing and are creating a lot of messes for other people to clean up. If we wanted to bulk delete all incorrect parameters we could get a bot to do it trivially, but we don't. We want people to take care, think about what they're doing and fix the issues where possible. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

"Infact it is a very time-energy consuming task to do. and i doubt there are many people who willing to do it on a large scale." If it (whatever "it" is) was widely viewed as a major issue, though, there probably would be, don't you think?

" i did recheck and re-preview most of them, except those that i missed. " You should be checking and previewing every edit, don't you think? Begoon 13:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

i'm not reffering to those pin code errors, i just trying to make a stand here that those mistakes were inevitable as you said about |longtitude= etc, it is really clear that the format detects it to be unrecognized. Where should i put it ? consider it. I did put focus on it. If seen on your POV right now, seems that all my edits were problematic. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You should have read the documentation at Template:Infobox settlement which clearly explains how to deal with all the different parameters the template can handle and what format they need to be in. You shouldn't be deleting stuff just because an automated tool tells you it's unrecognised, you should be putting some effort into figuring out how to fix it. Yes, there is a parameter for keeping longitude and latitude data in, and it should take you a few seconds of reading the documentation page to figure out which one it is. Yes, your edits are problematic, because you've been making thousands of edits deleting stuff from templates without bothering to read up on how the template works, without bothering to see if the information could be preserved in another parameter and seemingly without bothering to check your edits before you save them. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Begoon yes i did preview it 2 or 3 times before publishing it and as you said, "if it's a major issue". But is it ? No it isnt. But the thing is only a few people would like to do this on a large scale on a "minor issue", on a pretext to minimize the backlogs. and i'm actually happy to see people fixing the errors i made, i feel that they helped me in a certain way. anyhow i did not intend to create any harm to the encyclopaedia. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

But your comment, confusingly, says that you previewed most of them, except those you missed. Can you elaborate? Begoon 13:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

take note about my saying above on line 2, i opened more than 100 tabs on chrome, (which now seems to be a bad idea). i did preview most of them as i said above, 2 or 3 times. But there are some i missed. By "some" is not elaborated as many, but infact minority of them. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

So, if, having now seen that people have concerns about the speed and possible inaccuracy/undesirable nature of what you are doing, you were to stop doing it for a little while and re-evaluate your approach, do you think that would be a problem? I guess what I'm really asking is whether you think there is some kind of urgent emergency that means you can't just take the feedback on board and adjust your approach to include the better ways of dealing with things described above, applying more thought to how to fix things rather than just removing stuff, for a less disruptive overall result. Begoon 13:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a note, Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo: you may notice that many Wikipedians are highly skeptical of anyone making large numbers of edits, and will comb through them to make sure you're not making mistakes. The problem is the amount of work it makes for other people when there are mistakes. Some people (basically everyone at the top of WP:4000) do successfully make large numbers of edits for a long time... others (including some of the people at the top of WP:4000) wind up getting banned because the benefit of lots of small changes doesn't quite make up for a lot of other people's time spent cleaning up when those small changes go wrong. The takeaway here should be: be extra careful when editing rapidly, and maybe even slow down a little. If there's a single large batch of edits you want to make, you can always create a WP:BOT account. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Rhododendrites thank you very much for the advice!, i will be extra careful next time. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a really good idea. I'm sure that slowing down and being more circumspect will be appreciated. If you have time to answer the questions I asked above, which you probably missed, I'd appreciate it, but regardless of that, your greater care, deeper consideration, more thoughtful consideration of options and willingness to engage can only be a good thing. Thank you. Begoon 13:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Begoon i did and i will re-evaluate my approach, but does that mean i will stop editing ? No, these are critiques and advices that i sought have to accept. i infact still and will keep editing on that topic and try to improve my approach and slowing down a bit. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Good luck. I hope this discussion has avoided the whole thing becoming a bigger/ongoing issue. Begoon 13:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Begoon it wont!, thank you for the participation and advices on this discussion! -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Indulge me, because I'd like to just ask one of those questions again:

"So, if, having now seen that people have concerns about the speed and possible inaccuracy/undesirable nature of what you are doing, you were to stop doing it for a little while and re-evaluate your approach, do you think that would be a problem?"

I'm particularly interested in "whether you think there is some kind of urgent emergency that means you can't just take the feedback on board and adjust your approach to include the better ways of dealing with things described above, applying more thought to how to fix things rather than just removing stuff, for a less disruptive overall result. Begoon 14:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Begoon 1. stop doing it for a little while and re-evaluate your approach, i did not agree on the first half sentence, however, i did agree on to re-evaluate. the thing is, i did not have an intention to stop editing. the secenario that i would be ended up doing is to slow down and carefully fix the parameters on the format per se. in my opinion, it's really unproductive to stop just because you made a mistake. what you must do is that; you must fix it and overcome it much more carefully.

2. take the feedback on board and adjust your approach to include the better ways of dealing with things described above, applying more thought to how to fix things rather than just removing stuff, for a less disruptive overall result. I'm actually quite having a trouble on comprehensing this one. But if you meant that, will i accept the advices on board above or not? definitely i will accept them. There is no way i'm not gonna accept them. Overall the general reason for me here on the encyclopaedia is to contribute and do the right thing. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 14:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. We'll see how that goes. I'm not entirely optimistic, because it feels like the things you don't want to do - taking more care, slowing down, listening to people who disagree with you rather than plowing on, accepting your path may be flawed, finding better ways to edit, are not really things you seem keen to hear. I somehow don't feel it will be long before we can know for sure though... Begoon 14:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I just fixed one of this editor's "delete the parameter instead of fixing it" errors that was made two hours ago. This editor is failing to listen to advice and continuing their disruption. Here's another recent one from less than three hours ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Jonesey95 that edit was made before this ANI discussion even started, and were already addressed. thank you for fixing it. but this doesn't mean it porhibits me to correct other article's parameters carefully. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 15:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Untrue, AFAICT, based on the time stamps. The discussion was started four hours ago; the disruptive editor responded nine minutes later. Both erroneous edits were made after that response. I just reviewed this editor's most recent 30 edits and had to revert 8 of them. This is a terrible error rate. This editor should take the time to read the template's documentation and commit to stop removing parameters. In general, when the editor fixed a parameter name instead of removing the parameter and value entirely, the fix was valid. The editor should focus on that type of edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps not - but you're not really showing the positive commitment I'd have hoped for here. I'll ask you again: What's the emergency that makes you think you can edit like a bot against very clear consensus? And why haven't you just said "ok, I'll stop doing that because it's not clear that I should" yet?

You're starting, if I'm honest, to just look like a nuisance. Begoon 15:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• I blocked the user for a week, just to reduce damage to the project, since they kept high-rate editing against objections. I leave the discussion here open.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem necessary. After their response to me above, they made nine edits in nine minutes. That's not a particularly high rate of editing. Has anyone identified problems with any of those nine edits? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    • AFAICT, all 3 of the edits 192 commented on Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango's talk page were after they replied to you, actually after all replies by them on this thread except that to Jonesy95. They're counting 3 out of 8, you're 3 out of 9, either way assume 192's assessment is fair that's a terrible error rate. Technically, these may have only been specifically identified after the block but IMO it was reasonable enough under the circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Indeed. :/ Looks like the message didn't sink in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I just visited another 50 or so of this editor's edits to settlement infoboxes, and I found that they deleted valuable information instead of fixing the broken parameters at least a quarter of the time. It pains me to say that, unfortunately, all of this editor's infobox settlement edits that are current edits should probably be reverted so that they can be revisited properly via Category:Pages using infobox settlement with unknown parameters. It appears that there are about 2,000 such edits dating back to March 25. Here's one dating from March 25 that I just had to revert. I don't know how this would be done, or if there is a better way to address these hundreds of errors tucked away amid some valid edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Why shall trolling usernames, only intended to disrupt collaborative editing, be allowed to stand? TrangaBellam (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Mass revert seems appropriate. There are scripts that do the bulk of them in a few clicks (User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Perhaps I'm jaded but the user name, signature and edit summaries smell troll to me. Coupled with the inability to read the mood here and the arbitrary nature of the edits (some improve things and some don't), I would be inclined to block indefinitely, particularly if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  2,000 edits, most of them helpful, without attracting attention until the 1,900th edit, doesn't smell like a troll to me. It seems more like a CIR problem to me. I don't think it changes the outcome; a longer block is probably appropriate if the editor fails to comprehend the problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  I’d recommend a conversion to indef for CIR indistinguishable from trolling, pending only a logged WP:CONDUNBLOCK. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, troll or incompetent, either way, the username just screams "I'm not here to make your lives any easier". SN54129 18:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  WP:UNCONF. Basically, a “confusing” username (excessive length is cited as an example) is strongly discouraged but not outright prohibited by the policy. However, such a username should be viewed through the lens of its edits, and it can be viewed as an aggravating factor, including when issuing blocks. That’s the policy guidance as far as the username goes. Regarding the user, if there are no objections I am not going to let the block expire and will be converting it to an indef until a conditional unblock can be negotiated. Regarding the edits, if there are no objections to a mass rollback I can do that as well. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Swarm, makes sense. SN54129 14:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  For icing on the cake, see User:Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  And they stole the name I was going to use if/when I rename my account! I wonder if User:Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo2 is free... But on a serious note, at the pending changes reviewer page, they tried to "up" their account, after making the required minimum edits to get that far. Past experience suggests they're not a new editor and/or up to no good. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• The one week block will expire tomorrow, so it would be good if someone evaluated consensus in this discussion concerning the site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  He's gonna vandalize again!!!!!!!! Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 15:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Just browsing through ANI and saw this report. It seemed like there was a request here to mass revert this editor many edits but when I checked, this hadn't been done. Is this an action that folks are advocating? Mass revert is most effective to do soon after the edits have been made...in my experience, when another edit has been made to the page in question, the edit can no longer be reverted. It has to be the most current, latest edit to the page. I'm sure if my understanding isn't correct, someone will tell me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment & Declaration: Thank you very much beforehand for everyone who attend this discussion. These are some of my statements that i made per my talk page since i was blocked. There are 4 points on this to conclude.

1. It has been a week since @Swarm, @Begoon, @192.76.8.70, @Rhododendrites, @Ymblanter and @Jonesey95 mentioned me on ANI, and on those times, i have made a significant changes in my approach since i'am blocked, but first of all, i'm sorry for what i did, i should have stop editing the template while the ANI discussion is going that night, if only i show restraint on the editing and listen to others, it wont became a bigger issue like this. As @192.76.8.70 said; "what is fixing if it came out even worse?". and i re-thinked about their saying that night, and then i realized for what i did was wrong. i will not do it again in the near future.

2. My commitment now is clear that i will stop editing on the template format, and will just doing some minor maintenance instead on other articles, ie. adding citations, adding contents per WP:RS. etc, and going back to my non-disruptive pattern prior to 25 march 2022. and i will stay away from the Template Settlements, my intent is that; i wont repeat the same mistake that i did as per my commitment above. And as a reassurance note; notably i'm active on editing such things as minor improvements on other pages before i mede this big erros after 25 march 2022. And as a track record you can check my edits starting from this date (14:39, 25 March 2022 ) to the even older ones to the bottom. And you can see the diffrences between my editing pattern on those times compared to the times where i edited the settlements template. however this did not justify my recent editing actions which is an obvious mistake and problematic.

3. The statements that i made above is my commitment, and it did teaches me something, As of this times, i already recognizes my mistake. for example, as shown on this revision, it's very obvious that it is my mistake, because i thought those parameters is not usable and is not a valid parameter, but turned up it is a valid parameter and i blindly deleted it just because there is a gibberish vandalism in it, and i blindly do this repeatedly in many settlement articles. and as @192.76.8.70 and Jonesey95 said; i could've fixed it into more proper format and/or convert it into a modern format because some of them used the old format, and also it is better that if i read the documentation template first before making any edits. and as my statement above, i will refrain, to even stop and persistently not do so again. and most importantly I will never do any form of rapid editing again as per WP:MEATBOT since it is ineffective, inaccurate and will reduce an article quality. so because of this; i will slow down & put as much attention as possible to an article when editing them in the near future. and also regarding on the mass revert, please do so if possible.

4. per points i said above, i accept an administrative actions pointed towards me, because the mistake i did was very obvious. but i hope an indef block is not neccessary, since i will stop this type of editing and will act conscientiously according to wikipedia policy. And thank you for your valued directives given to me that night, i say this is what makes the encyclopaedia a better place. atleast there are people that are willing to help me reach a better productive measure towards editing. Thank you -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• I apologize for the delay, I am traveling and on mobile. Without objection, I have converted the user’s temporary block to indefinite pending a CONDUNBLOCK. I am also initiating a mass rollback, again, without objection. I’m my opinion the standardized unblock negotiation process can handle this from here, and this thread can be closed. I appreciate everyone’s feedback. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

user Rooveaouravevo (2 threads)

Requesting help to stop vandalism on chinnese australians

User:TyronMcLannister is vandalising the wikipage Chinese Australians by repeatedly removing Chinese Australians of partial European descent despite leaving out other wikipages Cornish Australians and German Australians that contain famous figures that are of mixed cornish and mixed german ancestry as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooveaouravevo (talk • contribs) 10:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Rooveaouravevo: This isn't vandalism - this is a content dispute. Go to the talk page of the article, Talk:Chinese Australians, and have a discussion with TyronMcLannister about what definition of Chinese Australian should be used in the article, If that fails to resolve the issue follow the steps outlined at WP:Dispute resolution. Be careful chucking around accusations of vandalism - vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm the project, disagreements about content are not vandalism. You are also supposed to notify other editors when you open a thread about them here, I have done that for you. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is a new account whose entire field of interest is original research in citing sources in specific two articles:[48] and [49], as well as changing the established definition of ethnicity in the article to its own. My friendly and polite attempts to explain to the new user that it is necessary to cooperate and seek consensus with other editors based on reliable sources were unsuccessful, he began a vindictive action of accusing me of vandalism and spamming these accusations, including on the administrators Talk pages, as we can see. Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. TyronMcLannister (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I was only removing your fabricated false definition and following what other ethnic Australian wikipages have defined. Chinese ancestry are those of full or partial Chinese roots just like the wikipage African Americans identified Barack Obama as African American despite his mother being of European and the wikipage Cornish Australians identified Robert Menzies as Cornish Australian even though his father is not Cornish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooveaouravevo (talk • contribs) 16:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You continuesly refuse in constructive cooperation in the creation of the encyclopedia and continue to project personal attacks, accusing me of "false fabrication" of something. And what does this have to do with African Americans and Barack Obama? In the United States, a different definition of ethnicity has historically developed in the context of blacks, and even more so, Barack Obama associates himself with African Americans, which is confirmed by sources. Even before you registered an account in the project and started making changes, the Chinese Australians page had a well-established definition for a long time, and if you do not like it, you must first come to a consensus in the discussion in order to change it. Wikipedia does not standardize definitions from other articles. It is also unacceptable to make unconstructive edits, replacing quotes from reliable sources with your own thoughts. TyronMcLannister (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

OR and CIVIL issues with user Rooveaouravevo

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

Rooveaouravevo this is a new account created less than a week ago whose entire field of interest is original research of citing sources in specific two articles:[50] and [51], as well as changing the established definition of ethnicity in the article to its own without consensus with other contributors. To my friendly and polite attempt [52] to explain to the new user that it is necessary to cooperate and seek consensus with other editors based on reliable sources were unsuccessful, he made a false claim that his edits were based sources [53] and then began a vindictive action of accusing me of vandalism and spamming these accusations, including on the administrators talk pages as we can see [54], [55]. Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. TyronMcLannister (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Um, it seems way too early to conclude Rooveaouravevo is NOTHERE. Yes they don't seem to understanding our sourcing requirements and are way too quick to throw around accusations but I see no reason to think they aren't here to build an encyclopaedia. While you have made an effort to engage with them on their talk page, it's often difficult especially for a new editor to see the other editor is right when they're in direct dispute with this editor. Also while your earlier effort was decent [56], you too seem to have descended into false accusations of vandalism [57]. Since you yourself have seemingly been here for less than a month, I guess this can be forgiven but it's a little bit silly to complain about an editor falsely accusing you of vandalism if you've decided to give as good as you got. I'd also note that the article talk page doesn't seem to have been touched by a person in 3.5+ years and I don't see any significant discussion of definitions even in the past. Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think that your boorish opinion is somehow appropriate here? Don't project or mirror yourself in me, because that's the only thing "a little silly" here. I did 100% right in interacting with this user who was unwilling to cooperate constructively and deliberately changed the meaning of source citations, wherever he made any edits. But you twisted the whole context of my actions in your comment. It even looks like you are interested in this controversial account in some way. TyronMcLannister (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

All Wikipedians who have the time should speak up when an editor is proposing action against another editor without evidence or reason to support such action. And no, you were not 100% right. You cannot falsely accuse an editor of vandalism just because they falsely accused you of vandalism, that's ludicrous. It's actually still a personal attack which could lead to you being blocked just the same as Rooveaouravevo, but Rooveaouravevo has already been warned by the IP above. Since you yourself apparently a new editor, we can be taken as a case of the blind leading the blind, but we can fairly say perhaps one of the reasons Rooveaouravevo is confused about what vandalism is is because they were unfortunately taught incorrectly by you.

Also, to some extent Rooveaouravevo is now starting to "win" this content dispute in behavioural terms (which is what interests us at ANI) since they've made it to the talk page [58] while you have not. While it was perhaps a good thing to approach Rooveaouravevo directly especially as a new editor; as always teach don't preach. Since you yourself are involved in the content dispute and edit warring to boot, at some stage and especially before you came to ANI to complain, you should have started the talk page discussion and invited them rather than waiting for Rooveaouravevo to do so. Whatever WP:ONUS says (and it doesn't say it's okay for either party to edit war), it's incredibly lame when an editor comes to ANI and there's zero talk page discussion because one or both editors are insisting the other editor needs to be the one to initiate it.

My earlier point is an important one, we don't deal in content disputes here so it doesn't matter much to us who might be right in the content dispute with the possible exception of cases where the content changes are so terrible that no editor can reasonably defend them, simply the editor's behaviours in the content dispute and starting a talk page discussion is one of the very basic requirements.

Again, I'm taking you as your edit history suggests as a new editor so won't bring WP:BITE etc in to it, however you still should not expect to be treated favourably at ANI if you're going to propose severe action against another editor and your own track record in the dispute is very far from the ideal.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If they have nothing to say other than baseless accusations to "defend" someone who is wrong but has a similar view on the "topic" being contested, then they should not speak up. TyronMcLannister (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@TyronMcLannister: For once I have to agree with Nil Einne, who has perhaps been a little harsh on you, just as you are being harsh with Rooveaouravevo. It's inconsistent for you to complain about someone else's incivility and then call his opinion "boorish". Deb (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Another mushroom after the rain... You seem to have misunderstood my comment, just as Neil Einne misunderstood my actions towards the user: I'm not "complaining" about his tone, I'm not truth sensitive and I'm proud of it. I complain about his hypocritical passive-aggressive false accusations that I am "not sincere" in my actions, he literally projects himself and mirrors these qualities to me, and everything else is a rhetorical device. Again, you do not need to project to me the qualities that you yourself have, but ask directly. Better to be honest but rude than pseudo-polite and projective. TyronMcLannister (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Best of all to read WP:CIVIL before you get a well deserved block for aggressive assholery. --JBL (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

No need to scare me, it won't work anyway, better turn your advice to yourself. TyronMcLannister (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• @TyronMcLannister: Tread carefully. Between this and your attempted refactoring someone else's edit, you are on very thin ice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: How about the comment right above yours. This is not even rudeness, but something more. TyronMcLannister (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I would have used another term. But the principle difference is that your uncivil commentary looks like an ongoing pattern of behavior compounded by a bad case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I'm sorry that you have such a view of the situation. Because i'm actually sincerely support constructive criticism with facts and logic and i'm ready to change as soon as there is a reason for it. But i can't tolerate slander and manipulations. I am ready to admit that I am a bit rude in rhetoric by American standarts, which means Wikipedia standards (but I am Russian and this is not "rude" here) - there is a factor of cultural differences but I can adapt, also I mistaken in editing another answer, but I do not admit rest of the accusations, such as accusing me of being "insincerity" about my concerns from one of the local "rules experts". He initially stated that I allegedly "out of revenge" warned the editor about vandalism on his page, such an accusation does not hold water, because I left evidence that the editor was first warned about the rules of Wikipedia in a friendly and polite manner, but Rooveaouravevo not only didn't listen and consciously continued to do what he did, but also went to slander me, accusing ME of vandalism. Nil Einne literally rearranged the context of my actions, created strawman to make my complaint look irrelevant and absurd. So I reacted to his comments as I reacted. TyronMcLannister (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

TyronMcLannister, since the issue is already being discussed here at ANI, it's unhelpful to also raise the issue on individual admins' talk pages.[59][60] Please see WP:FORUMSHOP. Schazjmd (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no reason to poke other admins. Especially if they do not respond in your favour (Prime example of WP:BOOMERANG. Sorry, but I'm not your friend.). —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@K6ka:You are not the first admin to approach this situation in this way: with harsh criticism of my actions. I'm not blaming anyone, perhaps i look like a wolf near a flock of sheep. I have already explained, in detail, to another admin my point of view on this situation and why my (unmistakable errorenous) tone was the way it was, and it looks like he changed categorical judgment some way, at least didnt challenged and didnt banned account. You can read this explanation some above. In turn, I already carefully studied the rules and will change my tone towards "controversial" acts of other users. Not because of the risk of a ban (I don't care and I can finely live with it), but because I don't want to bring destruction and more conflict to the encyclopedia that I have been using in many languages for many years. I don't intend to bother you anymore, good luck! TyronMcLannister (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I just want to point out something I wasn't aware at the time of my earlier replies. This isn't the simple case that I thought it was where Rooveaouravevo was trying to introduce a change and TyronMcLannister was reverting. In fact, TyronMcLannister had recently removed a bunch of names [61] and even more in another article [62]. While it was a few days before Rooveaouravevo came along, it hadn't been long enough that TyronMcLannister can reasonably be consider the stable version or WP:status quo ante bellum. I didn't check when these names were added but I'm guessing it was over time, long enough that most or all of them can be considered part of the status quo. While Rooveaouravevo was also trying to make some other changes which were IMO unhelpful to the situation, and also unnecessary since there was nothing in the article restricting it to people of full descent as TyronMcLannister seemed to suggest, the reversion of the removal of names could reasonably be considered a recent change being reverted. This doesn't mean it was a good idea, notably a number of those people removed are living persons and there are no sources for anyone so removing them is likely justified although this does apply to everyone whether full or partial descent. However it does IMO further emphasise my point of why most of the time it's spectacularly unhelpful for one editor to be insisting that the other editor needs to be the one to start the article talk page discussion since without considering BLP, BRD would imply we stick with the reversion before TyronMcLannister removed those names. Someone just needs to do it and get on with it (there are exceptions where we can understand an editor leaving it for the other party). Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

>While it was a few days before Rooveaouravevo came along, it hadn't been long enough that TyronMcLannister can reasonably be consider the stable version or WP:status quo ante bellum.

In fact we can consider my edits as a reasonable status quo, since there is no rule ANYWHERE specifying from when an edit can be considered as such. It's been more than a week since my edits to the article since user Rooveaouravevo started disputing them, so there's no contradiction in the rule that EXACTLY this account should have started a discussion in order to change something that causes controversy. Also, the article prior to Rooveaouravevo's edits did not suggest that it was appropriate to include people of mixed ancestry, that why user changed defenition in lead to make his edits appropriate. It seems that I have already made a compromise - I removed all people without clear reliable sources that points their ethnicity. If there still need another compromise that suits both, then I'm ready to hear suggestions from Rooveaouravevo in the already ongoing discussion on the Talk page TyronMcLannister (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That is... a novel take. No, a week isn't enough to establish the status quo, and Wikilawyering about the timeframe not being codified isn't a good look. I am glad you're discussing it on the talk page, though. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

So you also have the opinion that a week is not enough to establish the status quo in the article. But what are your considerations and how much is enough then to approve this status? Considering the fact that it is not my edits that are not inconsistent with the spirit of earlier version of the article that are being disputed, but the edits of another user who even registered week after my edits. I don't consider my previous statement to be some kind of "wikilabel" just out of a desire to be clear and reach constructivity, otherwise anyone can name a convenient time for them and use it as a rhetorical device to point out that the other editor is wrong. We don't want that here, do we? The main thing is that the dispute is already being actively resolved on the talk page and it seems to me that Rooveaouravevo suits my compromise. TyronMcLannister (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

On my DYK contributions

Summary of DYK process on Wikipedia

Background: A user (hereafter nominator) nominates an interesting fact from an article. The interesting fact is known as Did You Know (DYK), and is nominated on a template subpage. Another uninvolved user (reviewer) reviews the fact, checks the quality of the article, Points the problems(if any) on the subpage. Nominator gets chance to fix the problem. Once satisfied with improvements the reviewer approves the DYK. Fact is displayed on DYK section that is transcluded on the mainpage. At the end of this, the nominator is said to have earned one successful DYK Credit, and it is noted on the user talk page of the nominator. Quote from Wikipedia:Did you know (or WP:DYKRULES) 29 December 2021 Review requirement (QPQ) – For every nomination by a user, he must review one other DYK nomination (unrelated to nominators submission) ‍—‌this is called quid pro quo or QPQ for DYK nomination. Exception: If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nominator is exempt from QPQ.

Below are the dates when I had accumulated the so called "DYK credits".

Table for Successful DYKs [63]

Date	Successful DYK (DYK Credit) Diff
14 January 2022	1
22 January 2022	2
16 February 2022	3
2 April 2022	4
14 April 2022	5

The WP:DYKRULE originally said, "users without 5 Successful DYKs were exempt from making DYK reviews" and I have understood it as new users "lacking sufficient expertise of the compliated DYK process to conduct proper reviews". Anyone who looks at the dates on these diffs above, would agree that until 14 April, I was not eligible for making DYK reviews for nominations by others. Yet in the past two-three weeks I have faced continuous harassment and threats for blocks, topic bans etc for allegedly gaming the system. Those users seem to believe that I am against doing reviews, even though I am already doing reviews, as I am expected to do.

Please review the timeline of events below and let me know if the uninvolved users believe I have erred and liable for sanctions as some are baying for. My expectation in bringing this complicated matter to ANI is to seek an end to this ongoing harassment and denigration by some users.

My entire DYK contributions timeline

My entire DYK contributions timeline Diff No. Date Event Notes DYK Credits QPQ expected from the DYK Nominator? Is user expected to review Other DYKs ? [64] 16 Dec 1st DYK nomination submitted for review, later closed as unseccessful as improvements were not done in one month time 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [65] 17 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 10 Jan) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [66] 22 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 10 April) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [67] 27 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 18 Jan) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [68] 27 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 11 Feb) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [69] 11 Jan DYK nomination submitted for review, later closed as unsuccessful by Narutolovehinata5 as timely improvements were not made 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 1 14 Jan First DYK credit successful 1 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [70] 15 Jan DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 1 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 2 22 Jan 2nd DYK credit successful 2 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [71] 10 Feb DYK nomination submitted for review. later closed as unsuccessful on 10 Feb 2 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs Diff No. Date Event Notes DYK Credits QPQ expected from the DYK Nominator? Is user expected to review Other DYKs ? 3 16 Feb 3rd DYK credit successful 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [72] 23 Feb DYK nomination submitted for review 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [73] 22 Mar DYK closed Narutolovehinata5 did an involved closure of the discussed he participated in, as unsuccessful. I requested for a review, but was ignored by Narutolovehinata5. Other users pointed involved closure, I asked to re-open, my request ignored By Narutolovehinata5 who did not undo the close. I gave up pursuing this. 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [74] 23 Mar DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 4 2 Apr 4th DYK credit successful 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [75] 4 Apr DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [76] 6 Apr DYK Rules changed the WP:DYKRULES werr changed by Theleekycauldron from checking for DYK Credits, to check for "nominations" (successful or unsuccessful or whatever) [77] 7 Apr DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [78] 7 Apr DYK Rules restored I objected to the change as no new RfC had been done and the change required an RfC. I asked the proposer to conduct an RfC for the proposed change. My request ignored. No RfC started. Diff No. Date Event Notes DYK Credits QPQ expected from the DYK Nominator? Is user expected to review Other DYKs ? Reviews done [79] 19:28, 7 Apr DYK reviewed Reviewed another dyk even though not expected to review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 1 [80] 22:31 7 Apr Harassment New thread started by Schwede66 to attack me over my objections saying that I am a newbie with strong opinions. Schwede66 Made several inaccurate statements, admonished me for not reviewing DYKs and at the same time admittedly conveniently ignoring that 3 hours ago, I had already done my first review following the changed rules. Schwede66 started a thread claiming that I was not reviewing DYKs and yet calls the fact that I had already started reviewing, as "irrelevant" and not worth commenting. In this comment Schwede66 wrongly accuses me of saying "I don't need to do QPQs" he gave no diffs and I never said that. Schwede66 continued later, [81] [82] 1 [83] 8 Apr Rfc Started to discuss DYK Rule change No RfC was started for a day, So I go ahead and start the RfC linking the diff and seeking opinion for the new change of WP:DYKRULES, and I note my objections as oppose !vote. The new rules essentially demanded new users without successful DYK credits to review other nominations 1 [84] 8 Apr Rfc closed in 12 hours Several users voted as support and oppose, yet the RfC was inappropriately closed within 12 hours of starting. I did not object to this closure, even though I believed the closure was not appropriate. Essentially I WP:DROPped the WP:STICK 1 [85] 12 Apr DYK reviewed Reviewed another dyk even though not expected to review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 2 5 14 Apr 5th DYK credit successful 5 QPQ expected Nominator expected to review DYKs 2 [86] 14 Apr DYK reviewed Reviewed another dyk 5 QPQ expected Nominator expected to review DYKs 3 At the time of writing, I have 5 Successful DYK nominations, 3 unsuccessful and 4 are awaiting review.

Policy disagreement on a recent change of rule

DYK rule were changed on 6 April without seeking wider consensus for a big and controversial change. The question due to the change was "Should users without successful DYK Nominations be asked to judge other DYK Nominations?"
Until 6 April, users who submitted DYK nominations were asked to judge a DYK Nomination if the nominator had 5 or more 'successful DYK Credits' (aka 'DYK credits' checked using this tool). A proposal to change this rule was made on 4 April , where it was proposed that users with 5 or more DYK nominations (Successful or unsuccessful or pending) be asked to start judging DYK noms that others have filed. The change demanded users with 5 unsuccessful nominations, to start judging DYK nominations. Asking people with failed nominations to judge is a major change in WP:DYKRULES and deserved wider community consensus before implementation. In my opinion I noted that nominating a DYK is mostly just clicking buttons and it does not give sufficient experience to the nominator. Getting the DYK through the finish line does. The reviewer need to be experienced, which is what the old rule demands. This change in rule was significant watering down of the requirements without considering the ill effects.

So clearly there was a policy disagreement between users on WT:DYK. Accordingly I tried to follow Dispute resolution. I let the RfC lead the policy disagreement to a conclusion, but my efforts for a consensus via RfC were thwarted and the RfC was closed within 12 hours. (diffs in the table above)

Harassment

After my RfC was closed 10 days ago, I yielded and did not continue my objections on DYKRULE any changes further, also started reviewing DYKs as per the changed rules. Since I have given up and complied with the new rules, this inappropriate harassment against me should have ended. Yet the scheming against me and attacks on WT:DYK continued as of today (since 4 April). And now I see another attack thread based on misleading timelines and changed rules to confuse the readers and to seek sanctions against me on ANI.

To conclude, there is no ongoing (or ever) disruption by me on Wikipedia, nor have I expressed intentions to start any, there are no grounds for attacking me and this ongoing witch hunt being pursued by some of these users against me, must end. Venkat TL (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you add diffs for the scheming, harassment, and attacks on you? Schazjmd (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd It is in the collapsed table on row 7 April. I will add some more in next 5-10 mins. Venkat TL (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

My apologies; from the collapse header, I thought it was just your DYK work. Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I have added few more diffs in the table row 7 April, Some attacks with factually inaccurate statements and slander are these [87] [88] [89] [90], in the last thread Joseph2302 attacks me and claims I have started tonnes of QPQ discussion threads when they were started by Narutoloveninata5 or Theleekycauldron. The only thread I started was RfC for seeking dispute resolution. Venkat TL (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

"I was criticized" ≠ factual inaccuracy, let alone slander. Stop whining and arguing and go do something productive instead. --JBL (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyone wanting the context of this thread should look at the two discussion threads Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#QPQ_freebies and especially Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Article nominators and other editors removing comments by others on a DYK nomination. The idea of a topic ban for Venkat TL has been floated there by several editors. --JBL (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Context threads User talk:Narutolovehinata#QPQ and
  Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive_185#RFC: Should users without successful DYK Nominations be asked to judge other DYK Nominations Venkat TL (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

In Venkat's table above, labeled as "harassment", are Schwede66's comments at Special:Diff/1081517890 and Special:Diff/1081535891. I'm more concerned by Venkat's comments at Special:Diff/1081527663 and Special:Diff/1081539768.

The content/policy discussion at WT:DYK can handle the WP:DYKRULES issue; that's not an ANI issue.

I am as concerned at others about Venkat's intense focus on the QPQs, and whether he does or does not have to complete them. That is such a strange thing for someone to focus this much attention on. Even stranger for a new editor, whose account was created in August 2021. But then Venkat's made over 20,000 edits in these last nine months (that's about 75 edits a day, every day) [91], of which only about 4,000 are semi-automated [92]. That leaves me wondering if this is a continuation of some older dispute. Anyone who can put out 16,000 non-automated edits in 9 months (that's about 60 non-automated edits every day!) would not be trying to delay doing a QPQ for DYK.

I think a TBAN, if the DYK regulars want it, would help reduce the disruption they have to deal with. Levivich 17:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Levivich, There is no ongoing dispute, as I have given already given up 2 weeks ago. There is no ongoing disruption at WT:DYK, I have never ever said that I did not want to do QPQs, The WP:DYKRULES before it was changed said users without 5 Successful DYKs were exempt and I understood it as "lacking sufficient expertise to conduct proper reviews". As noted in the collapsed table, at the time of writing of this comment, I have already done 3 QPQ reviews of nomination by others. Accordingly I have considered myself not eligibile to review DYKs of others and Some users are a conflating this as "Hostility in doing reviews" and while doing this they keep ignoring the fact that I have already done 3 reviews and listed them as QPQs. The policy disagreement is over, and I see no reason why these users even after 2 weeks continue to pursue that against me. Venkat TL (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• This looks like a classic case of "Self-governing area of the 'pedia makes a minor change to its internal rules, user refuses to accept the consensus for that change, others in that area get frustrated, and the user runs to ANI." The "harassment" diff does not look like harassment, or even really incivility. If there's something I'm missing there, please point it out; otherwise you should rescind your accusation.
  DYK is an entirely optional area of Wikipedia. (Well, all areas are optional, but DYK is particularly optional.) It's also an invaluable area for encouraging content creation, and time spent arguing over procedural minutiae there is time taken away from its maintainers' work reviewing, promoting, and enqueueing hooks. If a significant portion of your time on-wiki is being devoted to arguing over meta-level things at DYK, you may need to reconsider how you're spending your time. If you've reached the point of thinking that a wiki-wide consensus was needed to change "fewer than five DYK credits" to "previously nominated fewer than five articles", you may be in too deep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Please notice carefully and you find that none of those meta discussions on QPQ (you are talking about) were started by me. Others started those thread naming me in the original post and enforcing their own unwritten rule, clearly different than what was written in WP:DYKRULES of the time. You may have your opinion on the policy disagreement, it is more than what you claim it is, my position on it is explained at the RFC thread. In any case I have moved from past, and not pursuing any point from the two week old threads/issues and I expect that others should also move on. Venkat TL (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Tamzin is correct here. DYK is supposed to be an enjoyable area of Wikipedia, where editors can get credit for their work, but is not so important as to be a topic for such wikilawyering, a word which, if it hadn't already been invented, we would need to invent for such behaviour. Just get on with editing the encyclopedia, Venkat TL. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  ... And I have already moved on. My last comment on WT:DYK was a week ago, so I am not responding there anymore, I even unwatched WT:DYK page, to stay awy until I was pinged yesterday on a plan to escalate it to ANI. Even now, in this thread I am not pursuing any of those past issues, Pray tell me @Phil Bridger how am I supposed to advertise that I have moved on? Venkat TL (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  You started this thread today. If that's moving on, then I'm a banana. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Why have you started this thread? It advertises that you have not moved on. —Kusma (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict with the two above) Not to be snide, but it would be a poor advertisement an editor has "moved on" to introduce a thread claiming harassment by DYK volunteers. This is gaming, and exactly the sort of behavior which has plagued this editor's DYK nomination templates. BusterD (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger Kusma This thread coming to ANI was a forgone conclusion, Please check the thread linked below BusterD. The ANI posting was ready. The thread created by folks at WT:DYK uses a table with twisted timelines to build a false case against me. In this thread I have shared a clear timeline of the events so that folks can see that certain events I am being accused of happened in a certain sequence, when the rules were something else than what they are right now. If it helps you, I am willing to close this thread, since I am not pursing anything other than peace for myself and others. But all signs at WT:DYK show that the post "shooting for topic bans" was imminent, and if it does, then I would rather that this thread remains open. Venkat TL (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems likely that User:Venkat TL has seen this topic ban being drafted by DYK regulars and is trying to make their case before such a ban is discussed. I have had little direct contact with the user, but have seen sufficient to think a DYK topic ban is becoming necessary. DYK (like everywhere else on Wikipedia) is staffed by volunteers; if those individual volunteers were to choose to simply ignore any further DYK submissions from this troublesome contributor, it might be POINTY, but not totally out of line. BusterD (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  I was pinged on that draft thread. In my original post I have said "And now I see another attack thread based on misleading timelines and changed rules to confuse the readers and to seek sanctions against me on ANI." The diffs are in the table. Yes I am referring to it. Venkat TL (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG

• Proposal: Topic ban, of duration to be decided, from all things WP:DYK, until Venkat TL can demonstrate proficiency elsewhere on the 'pedia, preferably mainspace, and a willingness to drop both the issue with DYK and their less than collegial approach to other editors in such a small corner of the project. Let them adjust to a project-wide perspective before returning to procedural minutaie. SN54129 19:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  [93][94] You are proposing a topic ban without any ongoing disruption or evidence of disruption. In the last 6 days I have not posted 'anything' on WT:DYK. How is that for a demonstration? In my opening post above also I have noted that I am not pursuing either of the said issues. Those issues and incidents from 2 weeks ago and earlier, were only posted here to give a context, not to re-litigate anything. I have moved on. . So please clarify what "ongoing disruption" do you seek to contain by proposing this topic ban? If any type of BAN is imposed without clear evidence of ongoing disruption, then I assure I will abandon editing altogether. I am not contributing here for any sort of winning or defeats. Perhaps my retirement is what Narutolovehinata5 and friends intend to achieve from all this targeting. I believe a retirement would be ultimate demonstration of WP:DROPping the WP:STICK. --Venkat TL (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Personally when I move on from things I do it by not opening threads at ANI, and then not responding to every critical comment. --JBL (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Shouldn't you ask folks who are building up ANI case at WT:DYK (using events that happened 2 weeks ago) to move on like me? This ANI thread would never have happened if I had not been pinged yesterday at WT:DYK. Venkat TL (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Notice that those people aren't here making absolute fools of themselves trumpeting how they've "moved on" while responding to every single comment critical of them? Here's how you can prove me wrong: by writing "You know, you're right, my behavior here is the exact opposite of what the phrase 'moving on' denotes; I'm going to stop now and let this thread run its course without any more input from me." (And then doing that.) --JBL (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban of limited duration as suggested above (ALL things WP:DYK, including new content submissions). Gaming and battleground behaviors are undercutting the energy and industry of this otherwise promising new editor. I want to encourage Venkat TL to think less of winning, and more of helping. BusterD (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Venkat TL displays a combative attitude, wikilawyering, refusal to drop the stick (while hilariously proclaiming to have done so). I think BusterD is spot on with his comment about "winning". I'm not sure a DYK topic ban is the best possible remedy for this, but I can't think of anything better right now. —Kusma (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  You can count me as a supporter of the developing consensus for an indefinite topic ban with appeal no earlier than six months. —Kusma (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I also support (and agree with both of the above that a time-limited ban might be appropriate in this case). Venkat TL seems to need some assistance with moving on. --JBL (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) *I have to note that the editor's civility issues on DYK were not just limited to the diffs link above. For example, on one of his DYK nominations, Template:Did you know nominations/Mann ministry, he removed comments I made on the nomination regarding QPQ as well as a concern unrelated to QPQs (in this case, me noting that his preferred term at the time, "greenhorn", was jargon and probably needed to be replaced by a more easily understandable phrase). In another of his nominations, Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Hijab row in Karnataka, he accused DYK editors of having, quote sadistic pleasure in closing the DYKs and trimming the DYK list after it was noted by me and other editors that the article was unstable at the time and was unlikely to pass DYK. After I closed said nomination due to stability concerns, he started Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 185#DYK closed without proper review, where he continued making bad faith comments against me and others. To be fair, in said discussion, other editors did note that my closure was perhaps out of process as I had previously commented in the nomination and thus may have been too involved to make a proper closure, to which I apologize for. Nevertheless, other editors, including those same aforementioned other editors, noted that Venkat had engaged in bad faith and/or personal attacks throughout the proceedings, with quotes such as Please do not make this an ego issue and all you did was close the DYK with prejudice based on past interactions or my comment on DYK. In addition, during said discussion, the editor referred to all comments regarding their behavior as "off-topic" rather than addressing them.

To me, what is shocking about the editor is their lack of good faith when discussing with other editors, not to mention making personal attacks over disagreements. At the very least I'd support some kind of restriction such as a topic ban from DYK, mainly for the incivility shown and how it appeared that they continued to engage in such incivility and problematic behavior despite multiple warnings. As for the length, I don't know if indefinite would be advisable given that the editor had nominated some nominations that largely followed the processes and he has even started providing QPQs. I'm actually leaning more towards a temporary ban (perhaps at least six months), but my concern is that this limited topic ban would not address the wider attitude issues the editor has expressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I just realized that just on this very thread he has been expressing the behavior that other DYK regulars had expressed concerns above, as seen by the above comment Perhaps my retirement is what Narutolovehinata5 and friends intend to achieve from all this targeting. For the record, his retirement from DYK was never our intention, and the only reason ANI was ever considered on WT:DYK was due to the aforementioned battleground behavior that multiple editors, including several admins, had observed. If anything surprises me, it's that this wasn't brought up at ANI sooner. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If you would have wanted resolution you would have opened threads on my User talk and not on WT:DYK which is sort of noticeboard for all things DYK. From my perspective, there was never ever any battle to fight. There was a Procedure disagreement that I had clearly WP:DROPed 2 weeks ago. Venkat TL (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You are missing the point here. The reason you ended up in this situation wasn't your opposition to the QPQ rule or even your disagreement of the Hijab nomination being closed. It was your attitude and lack of good faith, as seen by your multiple comments accusing editors of "pushing" you to retire from DYK, or accusing DYK editors of having an "ego" and failing nominations for "sadistic pleasure". Indeed, multiple editors had requested you to apologize for your comments, something you have repeatedly declined to do. Had you made an effort to apologize for the "sadistic pleasure" comment and made an effort to have a less accusatory behavior, as well as heeded the advice of multiple editors regarding your attitude, I don't think Schwede66 and the others would have considered a topic ban in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

None of the stuff you commented here are recent. I am not revisiting month old comments. If there is something that 'I had done' and you found disruptive and worth BLOCKS and TOPIC BANs in the last 2 weeks, I will be happy to discuss. Venkat TL (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, even when those comments were new you declined to acknowledge them or apologize for them, even going as far as calling the requests for apology "off-topic". For example, Schwede66 and BlueMoonset both asked you to apologize for the "sadistic pleasure" comment (and may I add that both requests for apology were made less than a week after the comment was made). The "sadistic pleasure" comment was most certainly not a "month old" when it was brought up by those two editors and yet you didn't apologize for it even then. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

As for actions comments that can be considered disruptive or worth blocks within the last two weeks, your comment removal from the Mann ministry nomination (which was done on April 8th, so within the last 14 days) could at the very least warrant a warning, not to mention the battleground behavior and assumptions of bad faith in this very thread, notably with comments such as Perhaps my retirement is what Narutolovehinata5 and friends intend to achieve from all this targeting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

As noted in my edit summary, the comment was 'moved' to Article talk page, you raised this diff, by starting a thread on the WT:DYK noticeboard (instead of my user talk) and I replied there. I did not contest it when it was restored. If you would have asked this on my user talk, then also I would have self reverted. I have nothing new to add here than what I already said in that thread. Venkat TL (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You should not have moved the comment in the first place, even if you disagreed with it. The comment was on-topic to the DYK and raised concerns about the hook wording. Why did you move the comment in the first place? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

As I replied in the diff, I linked above. At that time, I (wrongly) assumed that thread to be offtopic from DYK as it was about QPQ and you explicitly noted that you were not reviewing the DYK. QPQ was being discussed at WT:DYK. Article talk page is the place to discuss article improvements, so I had moved it to article talk page. When others restored it and disagreed with my wrong assumption. I agreed with the restoration. I apologize if my moving of comment caused you any trouble. Would I do it again? No. Venkat TL (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

there was a context to my comment you quoted, that is being ignored in this thread. My observations for which you are taking an offence were made more than a month ago, in that thread, I was upset that my DYKs were being closed without getting proper 'review-and-fix-cycles' as is expected with DYK nominations. Looking at the hindsight, I think I shouldn't have made it, I have not made any such comments since, and I will never make such comments again. Your objections about moving the comment to the article-talk-page, is valid, and I have agreed, but I believe it is probably an over reaction to use that incident to ask for blocks and bans on what admin Maile66 called "a prolific editor". In summary, I have moved on from what has happened in past. Neither have I repeated, nor do I don't expect those things that you found offensive to be repeated. --Venkat TL (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

In regards to where Venkat_TL has linked my calling him a "prolific editor". What he links that to, the reader needs to scroll up to where Schwede66 says "It does not usually happen that we have a newby with so many active nominations just as the QPQ requirement is about to kick in." My comment was in reference to her statement. — Maile (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• I generally think "indefinite with appeal no sooner than six months" is better than a six-month topic ban but I support either per mine and others comments above. Levivich 20:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef DYK topic ban with appeal no sooner than six months. It was me who drafted the ANI notice at DYK but Venkat has beaten me to it by posting something themselves. Schwede66 22:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Like Kusma said in this subsection, Venkat TL "displays a combative attitude, wikilawyering, refusal to drop the stick", I can confirm this with my first-hand experience with them. From that experience I can also say that they either look down on other editors, or consider themselves superior than others. Because of such attitude, they had taken me to ANI not so long ago, where Abecedare had mediated. I support indefinite topic ban with appeal no sooner than six months. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, it's this doofus! Makes it seem less likely that a topic ban will be sufficient, unfortunately. -- JBL (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Jet Bropulsion Laboratory then there was this encore special:permalink/1077702496. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  also, this doofus who chastized me for using plain texts and not links...by doing the same. I'm not active at DYK, but I concur that a topic ban will just move the problem elsewhere vs. solving it. Would support one though based on evidence here. Star Mississippi 01:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out in conjunction with what JBL said above, this is clearly a user whose battleground behavior extends far beyond DYK. Just on these noticeboards, there are numerous examples ([95] [96] [97] [98]) displaying clear battleground behavior, bludgeoning discussions, and making everything personal; all of this can even be seen in this thread. Curbon7 (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support any kind of topic ban although I generally favor indefinite to be lifted on an appeal showing clue. DYK is a very important part of Wikipedia and should be protected from people who devote too much time and energy to arguments. Whether the details of Venkat TL's statement are correct is not relevant—life is not always smooth and we have to live with what happens. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from DYK, to be appealed no sooner than six months. Venkat TL is warned that taking this type of behavior to other areas of the encyclopedia is likely to lead to an indefinite sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. Venkat TL seems entirely unable to grasp that DYK is supposed to have a collegial atmosphere and is completely incompatible with their battleground attitude. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban/appeal in 6 months possible. Evidence is clear that Venkat TL's battleground mentality and incessant wiki-lawyering over what is supposed to be a light-hearted part of the encyclopedia is creating a hostile working environment over there. --Jayron32 17:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Commnet I do not support an outright ban. A limited ban is appropriate. I also think that if Venkat TL agrees to abide by the rules and stop being argumentative, it would go to greatly shorten the ban. --evrik ^(talk) 00:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as above. I already suggested this on the DYK talk boards, but I had been leaning towards the thought that maybe the discussion there might have convinced Venkat TL that their battleground approach was unproductive and to back down, making this step unnecessary. Unfortunately, Venkat TL's behavior in bringing this to ANI preemptively before someone else brought them there makes it clear that the battleground behavior is still ongoing. That is incompatible with the cooperative process needed to make DYK (or really any of the rest of the encyclopedia editing) work. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban from DYK or Support topic ban from South Asia per diffs provided by Curbon7. The battleground mentality and comprehension problems with the user extend beyond DYK. I don't think that letting him off with a topic ban from mere DYK will do enough good given the continued display of WP:IDHT and battleground mentality in this sub-thread alone. GenuineArt (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Note I have made a recent reply hereVenkat TL (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  and before that comment, there was this. It looks like Venkat TL is using words of Vice regent. It also looks like they are under impression that this thread is about only the incident of comment removal. From their comment, and Maile's response, it looks like either: Venkat TL is taking the comment out of context, or: they still have mentality "admins are above everything, and everyone, rest of the editors are worthles and/or idiots". —usernamekiran (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Given that their apology only talked about the Hijab nom closure discussion but not about their attitude in other places, including this very discussion, I think the comment is a case of too little, too late. Had he realized it earlier and apologized for all his words, I don't think this discussion would have happened in the first place. In addition, I would note that although he mentioned that "I have not made any such comments since", he continued showing battleground behavior in comments made after that discussion, including in this very thread. At the very least I am inclined to support the topic ban with the possibility of appeal; if Venkat is sincere that he has learned from his experiences and has vowed to change his on-wiki attitude, he can prove so in other areas of the Wikipedia, then when he has successfully proven it in practice, he can always appeal. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

yup. I think they are failing to understand the difference between incivility and battleground behavior, or the reason for topic ban proposal (this subsection, and the discussion on DYK talk). —usernamekiran (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• I hope the admins reading the 'entire' thread are able to see this slander campaign being run using over exaggerated recycled old stuff by users having an axe to grind. --Venkat TL (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Battleground mentality unabated, I note. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Despite the comments above claiming that they have moved on or have learned from their experience, their comment above still showing the incivility and lack of good faith that got them into trouble in the first place only further makes me feel that a topic ban is necessary. In fact, given their attitude in this discussion despite the promise to change and improve their behavior, not to mention the diffs raised by other editors, I'm wondering if a DYK-only topic ban is sufficient or if a topic ban from Indian politics broadly construed is also necessary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• @Venkat TL: Do you know what a topic ban is? Or what this particular proposal is about? Your recent comment confused me. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs is not pertinent to QPQ

I see this list used in error at the top of this whole thread. Please be advised, that this is not a list used to calculate who is eligible for QPQ. This list is compiled by individual editors of how many DYKs they have already had on the Main Page, and the list is used to award the editors according to the numbers they have there. On the far right-hand side is a column where the editors link to their user space pages where they've done their own list of what they have created.

The tool used to calculate QPQ can be found by opening any nomination, and selecting "QPQ Check' from the upper right-hand corner toolbox. Then input the user's name, and it returns the number of DYK's they have been given credit for. I believe there is also another tool, but someone else will have to list that. The one for Venkat TL says he has five credits already. — Maile (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The new tool, which counts nominations rather than credits, is at [99], although it's still a work in progress. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Maile66 I have copied the quote about WP:DYKRULES as it is, from the link I indicated in the original post. this is the link I copied the quote from. I have already shared the link of the tool to check successful DYK Credits. That link can be found as a diff on top of the table of successful DYKs. Venkat TL (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Understood. Just so you know, that list that Wikipedians update themselves is not the gospel of stats. I haven't updated my own stats there for a while. Some of those people listed haven't participated at DYK for years. — Maile (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL has retired from Wikipedia

Venkat put a retirement template on his talk page and appears to have retired from Wikipedia. I do not know if this makes the topic ban proposal moot or if it will continue regardless, I am just mentioning this here out of transparency. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

ANI flu. Star Mississippi 01:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

If somebody compiled a list of Wikipedia editors who posted a retirement banner and then came roaring back, it would be a very long list. Nobody should place much credence in a retirement notice by a Wikipedia editor or a rock and roll band. Cullen328 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

or an NFL QB with five letters in their last name? Star Mississippi 01:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I would have chastised you harshly for using plain links and not WP:ANI flu, but the only reason I am using soft words is that you are an admin. ^{/end rhetorical sarcasm.} —usernamekiran (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hah! Had no idea about the actual page. Well done @Ritchie333 @EEng et al and thanks for flagging it @Usernamekiran. Back to my corner for me. :) Star Mississippi 13:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Nixon loses 1962 election: "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more." → Richard Nixon 1968 presidential campaign — Maile (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• Would it be time to close this discussion? It's been almost a week since it started and the consensus seem to be largely in favor of a DYK topic ban for Venkat. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it will get closed soon. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Repeat violations Qaumrambista

• Eastern Catholic Churches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Syro-Malabar Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Epiclesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Qaumrambista (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There have been repeated incidents wherein editor Qaumrambista has demonstrated inappropriate behavior, violated Wikipedia rules, lied about engaging in sockpuppetry, and circumvented blocks. The user in question initially came to my attention regarding edits to the page Eastern Catholic Church, their first being an IP edit on 14 April that was reverted by Vif12vf. A series of repeated efforts to insert this information into the page ensued, with the editor violating the 3RR standard from multiple IP addresses (including IP 1, IP 2, and IP 3. Another IP has been blocked, but I do not know if this IP is the same editor). The IP editor received a block from editing Eastern Catholic Churches following a request for protection I initiated. The editor promptly created an account, Qaumrambista, to circumvent the block (a charge they unintentionally admit to here). The block was extended to this new account on 15 April.

A new incident was initiated after I performed cited edits to the article Syro-Malabar Church. The editor started a conversation on the talk page, to their credit, but from an IP address. This same IP edited the articles Epiclesis and Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites, (edits for Epiclesis, rites). On the edits on the rites page, the IP editor cited the initiated conversation on Talk:Syro-Malabar Church. Part way through the discussion on the talk page, the editor swapped to their account (it appears the editor is logged in only on their phone and not their desktop). The editor has deleted sourced information, inserted improperly sourced information, and ignored the discussion when it suits them. Most impressively, they have claimed it was not them who performed the edits on other articles, suggesting an intention to use the IP as a future sockpuppet. When pressed about the issue further, the editor evaded.

Besides the technical violations, the editor has behaved inappropriately towards me more than once. The most frustrating incident of this was referring to my edits as "ignorance" and "stupidity" on my talk page. The conversation devolved further, despite my repeated efforts to remain cordial. I request administrator action to at the very minimum protect the pages listed above, and more if possible. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I neglected to add a warning from admin Yamla, who declined a request for unblock and offered advice to the editor in question to avoid editing religious articles for a short period until they had developed their editing abilities further. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, since nobody seems to have looked into it yet, here's an example of why we should also suspect this editor of WP:NOTHERE: [100]. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Let me answer the allegations one by one. First of all, I acknowledge that before creating this account I used to edit with an ip address. But since the account creation, I have edited only with this account. I haven't edited in Epiclesis and Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites. And the alleged desktop ip address that initiated the discussion in Syro-Malabar Church is not mine. Secondly, the block was extended to my new account only in the article Eastern Catholic Churches, and it was due to a misunderstanding. I thought I was allowed edit if I created an account as the message that I got from Wikipedia implied. Meanwhile, Pbritti is constantly and continuously vandalising articles related to Syro-Malabar Church. For example, Pbritti was repeatedly removing the sourced content in Eastern Catholic Churches and reverting to an erroneous date 1663 which one new user had added very recently. The article actually had the correct version before these erroneous edits from some ignorant users. I tried to correct it but was again reverted, this time by another user due to block evasion accusation placed by Pbritti. I urge Pbritti to avoid these kinds of vandalisms and request administrator intervention into these matters. Thirdly, I have no plan to do any sort of sockpuppetry anywhere.Qaumrambista (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qaumrambista: I see no evidence that Pbritti is editing in bad faith; please do not label their edits as vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the IP that the user claims is not them appears to be a dynamic IP and when Qaumrambista was tagged, that IP ceased editing entirely and the logged in user joined. This is by no means absolute evidence, but compelling enough that I had felt the need to include it. Almost too pointedly, they can't refrain from calling a user "ignorant" in this thread. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Well, I'm ready to drop that accusation of vandalism. However, I have no doubt that Pbritti's edits on the articles related to Syro-Malabar Church are mostly disruptive.Qaumrambista (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think either user in this scenario acted perfectly well. Per this source, I have restored the 1923 date. I think it is.. odd that Pbritti was insisting on the 1663 date. That isn't reflected in the article on the Syro-Malabar Church nor cite_note-93.
Don't get me wrong, Quamrambista has a lot to learn (especially in the way of Civility), but Pbritti is a major contributor to the article for the Syro-Malabar Church. They should have known when the modern day church hierarchy was set up (or at least have been willing to double check). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect to MJL, the 1663 date is the documented as the return/reestablishment of the Syro-Malabar episcopacy within the Catholic Church, which is the way other particular churches have their foundational date reckoned. The date the user offered was either the arrival of Christianity in India (irrelevant) or the latter date of a reordering of Syro-Malabar structure. The "current hierarchy" as described for the 1923 date has more relevancy to a debate over whether the Syro-Malabar would be insular to the Chaldeans or otherwise–something I can elaborate on in the talk page for this topic if you'd prefer. All of this is rather irrelevant to the matter here, where I am requesting intervention after a user repeatedly behaved uncivilly and against the standards of this website. If they disagree, they can go about it the proper way without issuing false accusations, which they have done in this thread and every other thread. They have ignored admin encouragement to improve their editing ethics. They have repeatedly demonstrated a personal agenda and engaged in personal insults. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It is a relief to know that some people are agreeing with what I have always said. At the same time, Pbritti denial does not surprise me. That is Pbritti's usual behavior. They do not agree with anyone else but insist on their own pov. At the same time I have one more thing to say: I have not yet had an uncivil conversation with this user in my account. When I was editing with my ip address, I didn't know the general guidelines of Wikipedia. But now I am aware of it and feel bound to it.Qaumrambista (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

See these two discussions. Pbritti is pushing their pov. [101] [102] The last discussion was initiated when I was editing with my ip address. There you can see Pbritti blindly lying. They said that the source provided backs their statement in that specific page. In reality it doesn't.Qaumrambista (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to the POV you claim I am pushing. I say the articles suggest that the Syro-Malabar episcopacy was restored in 1663 and that this is generally the way the establishment date of particular church is reckoned. Similarly, I point to ecclesial documents and RSs for the official naming convention, which you dismissed out of turn. This is all without addressing your rudeness and apparent evasion over the use of an alternate IP. If there is an admin willing to mediate here, please intervene. It has been two days, for goodness sake, and the only one to show up ignored a talk page discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qaumrambista: Pbritti has done nothing that can be considered blindly lying so claiming that's what he is doing would be uncivil.
Literally, just stop assuming Pbritti is acting in bad faith, apologize for what you have said to him thus far, and focus on content rather than the contributor. Do all that, and you will have a better time getting your arguments towards consensus. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: just for consensus sake, I am not going to agree with anyone's lies. Pbritti is undoubtedly lying there [103] [104] [105]. Otherwise from where did Pbritti get the date 1663 from that book. There is not even single mention of 1663 in that book as google shows. Then, from where did Pbritti alone find it.Qaumrambista (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Because I would like anyone passing by to know I am in a disagreement over definition, rather than reality, I'll engage with this accusation by referring to Donald Attwater's 1937 edition The Christian Churches of the East: Volume I: Churches in Communion With Rome, specifically page 213. While the date "1663" is not typed out, the phrasing used refers to the year 1662, followed with "In the following year". While I will not go so far as to call the user accusing me of "lying" as lying himself, I might encourage him to do better than pressing Control+F before impugning the character of a stranger. As an aside, I don't think I ever mentioned this message he left for me, but suffice to say that sums up my engagement with Qaumrambista. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: at the same time, you can find 1923 date in the same book page 203. However I did not find 1663 anywhere there. Pbritti said that they found the contrary, the date 1663, in page 213. They also said that they have the book in front. When asked to show the citation, they stopped the discussion.Qaumrambista (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, @Qaumrambista: Now I see why you accused me of lying. Rather than assuming good faith when you failed to see something in a photocopied book you lack access to, you accused me of lying. Simply searching a book with the word-search feature of Google Books is an inefficient way to fully examine a text. While I would share a free PDF of the book, none seems available. Willing to post a picture of the book if needed! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: you were not ready to add the quotation and now you are ready to share the pdf? First add the specific quotation from page 213 of that book. Meanwhile the conversation that you have linked is mot from my account. It is an ip address only.Qaumrambista (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qaumrambista: As I just mentioned: a PDF is not freely available. I, being a massive fan of David Attwater and having made a point of owning nearly every book he (and his wife) wrote, own that book. I refrained from continuing that conversation because I went to bed (I live in the United States) and because I rather felt like I did not feel like typing out a full page to convince you when you had been anything but polite to me and accused me before even considering you could be wrong. However, since I'm feeling especially done with your accusations, deflections, and crassness:

"...and by 1662, 84 of the 116 Indian 'parishes' had returned to Catholic unity. The remained became the schismatic body now known as the Malabar Jacobites (see Vol. II). In the following year the Dutch drove out all other Europeans from Cochin. Before he went, Mgr. Sebastiani consecrated bishop, as administrator for the Indians, a native priest..."

~ Donald Attwater, The Christian Churches of the East: Volume I: Churches in Communion With Rome, Pg. 213

Additionally, I would like to point out that the IP edit I linked to is you, something you've previously admitted to. What is up for discussion is not the account Qaumrambista, but the person that is behind the IP and the account: you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere in the quotation says that the Syro-Malabar hierarchy was established in 1663. Pbritti claimed that the present hierarchy of the Syro-Malabar Church originates from 1663. Pbritti is pushing pov out of nowhere.Qaumrambista (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. @Qaumrambista: WP:DROPTHESTICK. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: This editor has been abusive from the get-go and has ignored multiple other warnings/requests. Can't more action be taken? ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I'm not an admin, so I can't really do much on the conduct side to resolve this. I've opened up a new section of the talk page to try and get clear consensus for the date.
It's hard to figure out what the remedy for the conduct issue is here. If Qaumrambista makes another personal attack, I would just suggest finding a random admin to apply an indef block. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: Thanks for the advice, sorry for presuming you're an admin! Thanks for starting that discussion. There are some other details that could be hashed out, but your proposal seems more than sufficient until the day there are more editors who focus on this topic who are willing to contribute to a new consensus. More of a question about how all this works because this is the first time encountering a repeatedly mean editor: how does one go about getting the attention of admins? I sourced some very flagrant diffs and priors, and all I received was your input (no offense, yours has been substantive, efficacious, and patient input). ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Guerillero could you help here possibly?

Maximilian775 (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I have been summoned. Thank you, Maximilian775, for alerting me to this. @Qaumrambista and Pbritti: I just formally alerted you both to the existence of discretionary sanctions that apply to all India-related topics. These sanctions allow administrators to unilaterally impose topic bans and blocks. I also just full protected Syro-Malabar Church for the next month. That means neither of you will be able to edit the article. Please come to a consensus on the talk page. My talk page and the arbitration enforcement noticeboard are open if either of you stonewall the conversation, bludgeon the process, use an IP address to edit improperly, or are otherwise uncivil. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not abused anyone in my account and I have not edited via ip address since this account creation or alternatively created another account. Hence Pbritti's unnecessary complaints are aimed at getting rid of me so that they can edit without being checked or questioned. Qaumrambista (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Requesting immediate admin action for an Indef

As detailed in my above messages and by Qaumrambista themselves here, they are unwilling to treat editors in a polite manner when they disagree. Further, the editor is willing to ignore 18 years of precedent because their edits were left up for a day. They have told me to "piss off," called my edits "ignorance and stupidity," wrongly accused me of "brazenly lying," been deceitful about IP usage, and been unreasonable when mediation was offered. Per the advice of MJL, I am seeking an indef. I will remain outside of deliberation unless there are questions–I'm at the end of my straw. Taking the random admin recommendation to heart, is there any way @Yamla: could intervene? ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I deny Pbritti's allegation. I haven't done any personal attacks on them. When I have raised the contradictions in their argument, they are calling it "unwilling to treat editors in a polite manner when they disagree". In reality, Pbritti is hesitant to create a consensus in the article talk pages and is pushing their pov. I am only requesting status quo ante that prevailed for years before Pbritti's questionable edits in both articles. Pbritti is, meanwhile, pushing their pov despite after other users having opposed it. Qaumrambista (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

There has been a very long discussion about this before and a consensus was created, which Pbritti, alone is challenging.Qaumrambista (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Trolling, possible compromised account or just an editor with an agenda?

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

---

I came across what I assumed to be vandalism from a new account at Jack Posobiec by Npsaltos62. I was surprised to see a long term editor thought inserting their personal commentary ([106][107][108]) into a mainspace article was appropriate, so I left them a warning, which they responded with some pretty nasty statements, including some anti-semetic remarks.

• • Slanted political opinions are dripping from every word. Do you truly lack self-awareness? Disgusting, Disgusting, Disgusting, Disgusting. Your day is coming. The world is not taking this crap any longer.[109]
  • Grow up, you childish, petulant, globalist drone. There is no originality, critical thinking or open-minded acceptance of opposing opinions. You are driving our society directly into the evils of authoritarian control. No debate means no originality. [110]

I'm asking for an idefinite block at this point because it doesn't appear they're here to contribute meaningfully and only here to support their personal agenda, as evidenced by their past edits and block history CUPIDICAE💕 18:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't think we can just ignore that. This is laced with WP:NOTHERE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I would support an indef, but prefer it be a community decision. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Especially given their most recent response...I'd say a cban is warranted. CUPIDICAE💕 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems kind of weird. I went through their contribution history (last 1000) and they seemed to make anodyne edits until suddenly going off the rails today. Schazjmd (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: is there a possibility of a compromised account? This seems like a weird time, place, and manner for an editor to just snap that way... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I suspected the same but I'm fairly confident they're not actually compromised, but given they gave their real identity, a quick google search shows this to be...part of their personality to say the least. CUPIDICAE💕 19:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

ah. that's a real shame. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

A cban would definitely be overkill here, there is no long history of problems. This was sudden, but severe. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a cban is ever inappropriate for someone who is spouting racist and anti-semetic dogwhistles (really, it's a vuvuzela.) CUPIDICAE💕 20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: erm... Whats racist dogwhistles? —usernamekiran (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I linked it in my opening statement, the use of globalist is a known alt-right/far-right/right-wing dog whistle usually referring to Jews. More context, and more and even moreCUPIDICAE💕 12:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

On the chance you're asking what a dogwhistle itself is, there's an article for that: Dog whistle (politics) - Purplewowies (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked. GiantSnowman 19:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Post close comment, for the record should the user request unblock in the future. This is not the first time they have added unsourced commentary and/or unsourced personal opinion into articles. See their edit warring at Patrick Moore and at Greenpeace in 2019 (repeatedly reinstating various versions of this and this), and their 2020 addition to Intimate partner violence. It's an occasional problem, but there is something of a pattern there that would need to be addressed. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Baseball Bugs

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've asked this editor multiple times to leave me alone. The editor continues to stalk my edits, either undoing my edits or by editing pages the user has never edited prior to my edit, or by leaving messages on my talk page about my own edits.

This stems from several months ago during an issue at a television show article. Since then, the user continues to leave messages on my talk page following edits I've made and undoes edits where I've removed content that does not meet WP guidelines. The user then labels my edits "ownership" in edit summaries.

The user has been blocked six times for personal harassment and personal attacks, and has other topic bans based upon disruptive behavior. [111]

Earlier, the user made this edit to Talk:List of The Mary Tyler Moore Show episodes—a page never edited by the user—immediately after my edit. The user made this edit to The Mary Tyler Moore Show—another page never edited by the user—immediately after my edit.

I edited The Beverly Hillbillies on 11 and 15 April, removing cruft about character "abilities" and in-universe details about a fictional house. [112] Later on 15 April the user left a message on my talk page about a person I removed from the "guest stars" list of The Beverly Hillbillies. [113]. The user had not previously edited The Beverly Hillbillies article.

I asked the user to leave me alone and stop stalking me on the same day. [114]. On 17 April, the user undid my edits to The Beverly Hillbillies with the edit summary "Reverting attempts to own the article." [115] The user then left a message on my talk page stating "Every editor, me included, has the right to read your edits and comment on them." [116] After I again posted on the user's talk page asking him to leave me alone, the editor made another edit to my talk page "warning" me of ownership. [117]

AldezD (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

There is some history here [118][119][120][121]. There is a lot of incivilty in that from both sides. On the 13 August 2021 Bugs asked Aldez not to post on their talk page[122]. Since then Aldez has posted five times that I can work out with two of them ANI notices. Over the same time Bugs has posted 17 times on Aldez's page (Excluding Aldez there are only 6 other non automated posts during that time). Yes I guess asking someone not to post on your talk page does not mean you can't post on theirs, but this is taking the piss a bit. And seriously both of your archiving systems are terrible. This seems to fall within the scope of WP:Hounding. And some of the other edits clearly show following. Maybe just 2-way iBan both and be done with it. Aircorn (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, so Bugs has posted 17 times on my talk page despite my repeated asks to leave me alone. And the user continues to WP:HOUND and WP:STALK me. I want this editor to stop this behavior. It's Wikipedia—a free encyclopedia/#hashtag repository of minutia. This editor is going out of their way to bother me, revert edits, and labeling my removal of cruft as "owning" an article. It's a long-term pattern of behavior that the editor has been previously been blocked multiple times. I'm responding on the editor's talk page when they confront me. I'm not stalking the editor's revisions. Now the editor labels my edits to a page I've never edited previously as "ownership", and continues to harass me. Nonsense, stalking, obsession. AldezD (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

In the spirit of full disclosure as an administrator, I have a very peripheral involvement in this content dispute, as the primary author of Sierra Railway 3, the actual operating steam locomotive that portrayed the fictional Hooterville Cannonball in the related sitcom, Petticoat Junction. So, I am curious why a beat up fictional pickup truck is described as a "character" in the article about one 60 year old situation comedy, while a fictional steam locomotive is excluded from the character list in another 1960s sitcom. That is perhaps worthy of debate elsewhere. "Should mechanical machines be included in character lists for works of fiction?" So, the solution is to discuss the content issues at the articles about the various American 1960s situation comedy shows mentioned here, informed by an awareness and an understanding that this is an argument about obscure trivialities, and that disruptive editing about trivialities is especially unacceptable. The OP should, of course, take to heart the advice at WP:OWNERSHIP, and Baseball Bugs should back off, and instead ask for input from other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) AldezD is correct that Baseball Bugs never touched The Beverly Hillbillies until AldezD edited it and only found this by going through AldezD's edits. Baseball Bugs continued to hound AldezD ([123]) after AldezD told him to stop ([124]). Most of the hostility (from what I can see) is being perpetuated by Baseball Bugs. Given the history, Baseball Bugs should not have been going through and reverting AldezD's edits, and seems to be carrying on a dispute with AldezD from months ago. I see in the previous ANI thread, user:Ched suggested that Baseball Bugs and AldezD avoid each other, but that sort of suggestion is ineffective unless both users are willing to abide by it (or forced to abide by it). That being said, I agree with Ched that both users are better off avoiding each other, but I also think there should be a discussion about whether Baseball Bugs is baiting AldezD. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mythdon: I have avoided this user. The interactions are one-sided. I've repeatedly asked the user to leave me alone. The solution from Ched is ineffective since Baseball Bugs continues to harass me. I haven't interacted with the user outside of asking the user to leave me alone. Re: "that sort of suggestion is ineffective unless both users are willing to abide by it", one of us is abiding by it. Baseball Bugs continues to stalk my edits, post to my talk page, and revert edits to articles the user has never touched. It's a long-term evidenced pattern of harassment and personal attacks, previous behavior that has led to multiple blocks for the user. AldezD (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• simply noting that I've seen the ping. However, I'm not up to speed on this particular .... debate. I'm also not active enough, nor inclined enough, to get up to speed. Therefore I can't offer any substance of value. — Ched (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe both would be happier with a no-fault 2 way tban with autoexpire in a year. I was once a victim of stalking when I was new and it was really harmful. Easily disguised as "just following the rules" where it reality it was going far beyond the norm. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: I don't feel this should be a two-way ban since I am explicitly going out of my way to avoid interacting with this user. The only time I communicate with the user is when the user stalks me and posts warning messages on my talk page. Banning both of us from editing each other's talk page doesn't stop the user from continuing to stalk me. AldezD (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Stalking your edits would definitely be in violation of an interaction ban. --JBL (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Circling back to the Beverly Hillbilly edits - AldezD's first edits to remove the trivia are on 4/11, (MOS:TVCAST, unsourced nonsense), then more on 4/15, (A prop is not a member of the cast. recurring/MOS:TVCAST). 2 days later Baseball Bugs reverts all that, citing "Reverting attempts to own the article". How is this possibly an issue of WP:OWN when the person has only ever edited the article twice over 4 days? 4 minutes before B. Bugs reversion, they posted this. I have certainly looked at an editor's history to see what they're up to, but it invariably stems from an actionable reason, like they made a bad edit on a page I'm on, an untowards talk page entry, and so on. I'm not getting any "this guy is sus" vibes from AldezD's edits that'd call for a combing. On its face this is kind of coming across as stalking. Zaathras (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It is definitely hounding, but Bugs has over 100k edits, so we should allow it like we would for other experienced editors. 2600:387:F:4011:0:0:0:4 (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Experienced editors get sanctioned too for hounding. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is an IP editor who has not edited since 29 September 2021 now randomly finding this specific ANI and commenting, supporting Baseball Bugs? Similar edits were made by 174.244.243.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in August 2021 supporting Baseball Bugs. AldezD (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It's one of my "fans" trying to dupe you into (again) falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry. I've been stalked for over a decade. You have no idea what real "stalking" is. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The IP is trolling and is not supporting Baseball Bugs. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Could you please respond here to the substance of this thread? Unless I've missed it, you've commented about the IP, but not about the original concern that was raised. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The OP's complaint has no substance. To use one of his favorite terms, it's "nonsense". The general issue is the same one as last summer: The OP wants to take ownership of articles and resents any scrutiny of his efforts. What started this particular one is his mass deletion in an article,[125] which he termed "unsourced nonsense". First, the specific episodes were listed. But if he had said simply "unsourced", that could be a reasonable argument. The problem is the "nonsense" part. The first item on the list happened to be Leo Durocher. I posted 3 examples of Durocher's appearances on TV sitcoms of the early 1960s, including the one from the Hillbillies. He also called those items "nonsense". Considering he doesn't seem to know what real stalking and real sockpuppetry are, it's possible his definition of "nonsense" is similarly warped. But even forgetting that, too often he reverts stuff without giving any rationale at all. To me, that's article ownership. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

What I removed in this edit does not make sense and is mostly ungrammatical fancruft.

This edit removed content that fails MOS:TVCAST ("Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary") nor Wikipedia:Notability (fiction):

Extended content

====Other Well Known Guest Stars=== Leo Durocher – in Series 1 Episode 29, the coach of the LA Dodgers appears as himself. Jim Backus – in Series 1 Episode 31, the Gilligan's Island and Mr. Magoo star appears as Mr. Drysdale's boss, the chairman of the bank board. He ends up at the Clampetts for dinner and a hoe-down, something he really enjoys. Natalie Schafer – Backus's Gilligan Island co-star appears in Series 2 Episode 29 as a dress store owner. Kathleen Freeman – She appears in Series 1 Episode 32 as the wife of a conman who both try to get $100,000 off Jed in a court action claiming they were injured when Jethro ran into them outside the bank. She also appears in Series 4 Episode 9 as a new neighbour's maid. She also appears in six episodes in Series 8 and 9 as Flo, the wife of Honest John Shafer (Phil Silvers – see above). Roy Roberts – He appears in the same episode as Kathleen Freeman as the judge. Later he appeared in a number of episodes as John Cushing, President of the Merchants Bank, a rival to Mr Drysdale's Commerce Bank. Rob Reiner – played a college protester in the first two episodes of season 8, "The Hills of Home" and "Back to the Hills" (1969). Hayden Rorke – the star of I Dream of Jeannie star plays a chauffeur in Series 1 Episode 36. Henry Gibson – plays the part of Granny's television idol, Quirt Manly. He is supposed to be a big western star but is revealed to be short and very unmanly. Robert Cummings – was an announcer in Series 2 Episode 20. Mel Blanc – the cartoon voice appears in Series 2 Episode 33 as a taxi driver. Sheila James – later a star in The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis and a politician, she was in Series 2 Episode as bank employee Ginny Jennings. She also appears in Series 5 Episode 19 as the same character, but this time she is a college student. Don Rickles – appears in Series 3 Episode 20 as Fred who gets Granny into gambling. Alan Soule – the star of Jet Jackson appeared in Series 4 Episode 15 as a drug salesman. John Carradine – appears in Series 4 Episode 23 as Marvo the Magnificent, a magician. Julie Newmar – appears in Series 4 Episode 27 as actress Ulla Bergstrom. Wally Cox – appears in Series 4 Episode 28 as Miss Jane's date, birdwatcher Professor Biddle. Gloria Swanson – appears as herself in Series 5 Episode 12, she is selling her house and some possessions and donating proceeds to charity. Edy Williams – appears in "Luke's Boy" (season 3, episode 31) and "Jethro's Pad" (season 4, episode 28) along with Phyllis Davis. John Wayne – appears as himself in Series 5 Episode 20 when Granny thinks Indians have attacked Bug Tussle. Two come to Beverly Hills to make peace with Jed. Mr Drysdale gets some actors to attack the house so Granny can fight them off and not go back to the hills. Ted Cassidy – former cast member of The Addams Family, he appears in "The Dahlia Feud" (season 5, episode 30), as Mr Ted, a celebrity gardener. Granny thinks he is a hitman. Paul Lynde – appears in Series 6 Episode 1 as an immigration agent as the Clampetts leave LA for London to visit their castle. Alan Napier – best known as Alfred from Batman, appears as a chemist in "The Clampetts in London" (season 6, episode 2). Dave Draper – Mr. Universe in 1966, he appears as himself in Series 6 Episode 8. Granny thinks his muscles are some sort of disease. Richard Deacon – appears in Series 6 Episode 9 as a cemetery plot salesman and Series 9 Episode 6 as Dr Klingner. Mike Mazurki – appears in Series 6 Episode 23 as the father of a TV wrestler, The Boston Strong Girl. Granny beats her and her parents in a tag team wrestling match. Hans Conreid – appears in Series 6 Episode 25 as famed classical violonist Stromboli. John Denher – appears in Series 6 Episode 26 as a soap opera character, Dr Rex Goodbody. Pat Boone – the singer appears in Series 6 Episode 26 looking to buy a house. The Clampetts think he is a down and out singer. Sammy Davis Jr. – appears as an Irish New York cop in Series 8 Episode 8. Charles Lane – appears in Series 9 Episode 20 as landlord. Mike Minor – as well as appearing as his Petticoat Junction character, he appeared in Series 9 Episodes 22–25 as Dick Bremerkamp, a penniless actor.

...and removed in-universe fancrucft and non-sensical descriptions such as "*Owl Soup – made from owls obviously", "Features of the Clampetts' House", "Clampetts' Abilities", "Misunderstandings", "Clampetts' Food" and "Granny's moonshine"...

Extended content

==Features of the Clampetts' House== Cement Pond – this is what the Clampetts' call their swimming pool. They pronounce it "SEE-mint". Root Cellar – this is where Granny keeps her "vittles" and moonshine. Jed and Jethro dug it early in the first series. Fancy Eat'n Room – this is actually the room that the Clampetts eat meals on special occasions and with valued guests. They eat on the fancy eat'n table, actually the billiard table (pronounced billyard). They use "pot passers" (billiard cues) to pass various pots across the table. On the wall is the head of a rhinoceros which they think is a "billyard", hence the name of the room. For some reason, the billiard table has no pockets for the balls. The balls are thought to be huge eggs. Oven – in the first few episodes, Granny tries to light a fire in the gas oven using wood. She is not impressed by the lack of a flu. Water Taps – in the first few episodes Granny and Pearl are unimpressed that the water pump does not work. The "pump" is actually the water outlet in the sink. Refrigerator – when they first move in they cannot understand why there is frozen food in the cupboard. This turns out to be the "cooler box". Tennis Court – in Series 1 Episode 5 Jed buys some stock and puts them inside the tennis court as he thinks it is a stockyard. He is not happy with the middle fence though (the net). Chandelier – the chandelier in the main lobby is thought to be a broken object; they do not appear to be aware it is a light. Television – Mr Drysdale gives the Clampetts a TV for Christmas. Granny thinks it is a washing machine. Telephone – at first the Clampetts do not understand how a telephone works, they eventually realise you have to "spin the dial" and someone will answer. They pick up how to use it pretty quickly. Clampetts' Abilities Shooting – All the Clampetts are excellent shots, being able to light matches at 200 feet (60 metres), even shooting over their shoulder and using a mirror. They can shoot clay pigeons using rifles and sling-shots (Elly May). Throwing – Jethro and Elly May are expert throwers of rocks and other things. Jethro impresses the LA Dodger coach, Leo Durocher by throwing a baseball at a golf ball caught in a tree hundreds of feet away and then putting a baseball into a tree trunk knot at the same distance. Jethro later throws a ball at Mr Durocher who is knocked into the cement pond by the force of it. Elly May also knocks him into the cement pond by doing the same thing. Misunderstandings Civil War – Granny believes that the South did not lose the war and it is still going. She does not believe that Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant or that General Grant later became President. Confederate Money – Granny thinks this money is still valid for use in the USA. Film Stars – the Clampetts believe that film stars from the silent era of the 1920s and 1930s are still the current stars. They also do not know about talking movies till the series are well advanced. Golf – In Series 1 Episode 29, Jed and Jethro are invited to "shoot" a round of golf with Mr Drysdale and Leo Durocher the coach of the LA Dodgers. They surmise that "golfs" are some animal that lives in the holes and can fly (since Mr Durocher shot four birdies one day) and lays eggs (golf balls). Golf bags are used to carry the dead golfs and golf clubs are used to club the golfs after they are shot. Skeet Shooting – The Clampetts are roped into an interbank skeet shooting competition by Mr Drysdale. They think that the skeets are some sort of bird or animal. Once they see them, they think they are not worth shooting to eat. Of course all four of them are experts, Jed and Jethro using a rifle, Granny a shotgun and Elly May with a sling-shot. Door Bell – In the first two series, whenever someone comes to the front door and presses the doorbell, a chime plays throughout the house. At first they do not know why it is playing, but eventually they declare that whenever the music plays, someone comes to the front door stopping them from finding the source of the music. MD – Whenever anyone talks about an MD or Doctor, Granny says she is an MD as she is a "Mountain Doctor". Jethro thinks "MD" means "Mr. Doctor". Mrs Drysdale – In the first series, the Clampetts think that she is a drunk but really she is a hypochondriac. Granny tries to treat her to stop her drinking. Buy Good Stock – In Series 1 Episode 5, Jed buys cows, pigs, chickens and goats when he misunderstands Mr Drysdale's advice to "buy good stock". He puts them in the tennis court which he thinks is a stockyard. Halloween – At Halloween they see some children with masks on and think they are the homeliest children they have ever seen. They are also mistaken as being in Holloween costume when they go visiting their neighbours and return with lots of "presents". Double Barrel Sling Shot – Elly May is given a bra to wear with good city clothes. She thinks it is the best "double barrel sling shot" she has ever seen. Flamingo – They mistake a flamingo in their grounds as a strange chicken. Topless Restaurant – The Clampetts think that this must refer to restaurants where the staff do not wear hats. They open one to serve mountain food. Parking Tickets – Jethro gets a $5 parking ticket from a Police officer for parking in front of the bank. He tells Jed it lets him park there now. Aircraft – when the Clampetts go back to the hills by plane, they think they are on a bus. When it goes very fast Granny says if it goes any faster, it will take off. Possum Day – the Clampetts believe that LA celebrates Possum Day but a day later than they do back in Tennessee after Mr Drysdale puts on a Possum Day Parade for them. Kangaroo – a kangaroo escapes from a zoo and Granny thinks it is an over-sized jack rabbit. The others think she has been drinking moonshine. Frogman – Granny believes that Mark Templeton who is courting Elly May is half frog, half man. He is really a Navy frogman. Jethro's Professions and Inventions Over the series Jethro Bodine decided to use his "sixth-grade education" to take up various professions. Double Naught Spy – he decides that as 007 James Bond is so successful with women, he will become a "double naught" spy. This is in Series 2 Episode 21 and Series 4 Episode 4. Brain Surgeon – another of Jethro's short term profession aims. Car Telephone – Jethro decides to add a phone to his truck. The only trouble is the wires that run from the phone pole he mounts in the truck run out just after leaving their property. Talent agent – from Series 7 Episode 17 to Episode 19 Jethro runs JB Enterprises on the 5th Floor of the bank building. As usual, he is not successful. Clampetts' Food Owl Soup – made from owls obviously Grits and Jowels – Grits are made from ground corn, typically from less sweet, starchy varieties often referred to as dent corn. Grits were originally consumed by Native Americans and have been a long-standing staple across the American South. Jowels - Pork jowl is nearly identical to belly bacon in terms of look, texture, and flavor profile. Similar to pork belly. Possum Pie/Baked Possum – one of their favorites Collard Greens – Collards have dark green, fan like leaves with tough stems. They're a member of the same group of plants that includes kale, turnips, and mustard greens. Granny's Moonshine Granny makes her moonshine in a wood-fired still next to the cement pond. Two sips will cure you of whatever ails you, although she says it will not cure you of rheumatiz, but it will make having it pleasurable. She is forever afraid of the "revenuers" coming and catching her at it. She has dozens of names for moonshine. The following are some: moonshine, mountain dew, rheumatiz medicine, Tennessee tranquiliser, white lightning and more.

...and an entire section of crossover episodes left unreferenced for six years, and which should be in the article:

Extended content

== Crossovers == Season seven (1968–69) was packed with strategically placed, multiple-episode crossover stories in which the fictional worlds of all three Paul Henning series overlap. The Clampett family makes several trips to Hooterville (which was first mentioned in season one episode six when Jazzbo Depew attempts to sweet talk Jethrine Bodine), Sam Drucker visits Beverly Hills, and Granny does two guest appearances on Petticoat Junction. In season eight (1969–70), the Clampett family visits Hooterville one last time for a two-part episode. "Granny Goes to Hooterville" (season seven, episode six) – Granny leaves for Hooterville upon hearing distant cousin Betty Jo Bradley (Linda Henning) just had a baby. The only Petticoat Junction cast members in this episode are Sam Drucker (Frank Cady) and Uncle Joe (Edgar Buchanan), seen talking to Granny on the phone. (The story continues on the Petticoat Junction episode "Granny, the Baby Expert".) "The Italian Cook" (7:7) wraps up the three-episode Hooterville story arc featuring Betty Jo, her husband Steve Elliott (Mike Minor), and Sam Drucker. "The Thanksgiving Story" (7:10) – The Clampetts visit Hooterville and mingle with the Petticoat Junction cast. This includes a silent, split-second insert of Eddie Albert and Eva Gabor of Green Acres. Jethro pretends to be a Hollywood producer and tries to romance Billie Jo (Meredith MacRae) and Bobbie Jo (Lori Saunders) Bradley. This arc continues in the next episode, "The Courtship of Homer Noodleman" (7:11), with the Clampetts leaving for home following Eb Dawson's (from Green Acres) falling for Elly May. "The Week Before Christmas" (7:13) – The crossover aspect is limited to two scenes in Sam Drucker's general store with the Bradley sisters and Drucker talking to Granny over the phone. The same broadcast week, Petticoat Junction aired "A Cake from Granny" with shots of Granny and Jane Hathaway (Nancy Kulp) in Beverly Hills baking a cake. "Christmas in Hooterville" (7:14) reunites the Clampett family with the Petticoat Junction cast. The follow-up episode, "Drysdale and Friend" (7:15), has appearances by Sam Drucker and Green Acres regular Fred Ziffel (Hank Patterson). "Sam Drucker's Visit" (7:23) – The final season seven crossover with Sam Drucker dropping in on the Clampetts in Beverly Hills. Drucker and Betty Jo share one scene set in his Hooterville General Store. In season eight, "Buzz Bodine, Boy General" (8:15) and "The Clampett-Hewes Empire" (8:16) comprise the last two-part crossover of the series. The Clampetts return to Petticoat Junction in a story featuring Steve Elliott, Betty Jo, Sam Drucker, and a rare Hooterville visit by Miss Hathaway and Mr. Drysdale (Raymond Bailey). During season nine, after the cancellation of Petticoat Junction, Lori Saunders appeared in three episodes playing a new recurring character, Elizabeth Gordon.

@Baseball Bugs: Removing this unsourced cruft and content that does not follow WP guidelines is not taking "ownership of articles". If you have an issue with something removed, WP:BOLD, revert and discuss. Instead, you revert, post messages on my talk page that you're watching me, and then continue in the same evidenced pattern of behavior. You only first responded here after I pointed to the similarities of your edits to unregistered IP users. Your lack of response to Newyorkbrad's request that you respond here to your WP:HOUNDing and stalking further demonstrates WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:GETOVERIT, and that you will likely continue this long-term evidenced pattern of behavior. AldezD (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Bugs you cannot claim that WP:OWN applies based on a single edit, is applies to a pattern of behavior, this is a strange misreading of a policy page. Also, the defense against stalking the users' edits seems to be "it can't be called that since I've endured much worse". Bad behavior isn't a win-or-lose footrace, there can be degrees of badness. Zaathras (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Going back to where I first ran across this character last summer, in List of Jeopardy! contestants and the debate over Matt Amodio, if someone were to add current champion Mattea Roach, who has now won 12 straight games [now 14] and is in 11th [now 10th] place in regular game play, I can imagine the OP would fight it on whatever grounds he can think of that day: that Mattea is a nobody, that it's uncited, that the citation is not properly constructed, that her run isn't over yet (because he is the sole arbiter of what criteria can be used)... or that it's "nonsense". --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

None of the talk page there looks like ownership, as multiple editors seemed to agree to hold back including Amodio until the run was complete, as well as making sure a minimal attempt at MOS standards were met (BB apparently not knowing how to format citation templates seems very odd). I'd argue from that view, BB is being obstinate here and seems to have a chip on their shoulder rather than reviewing the merits of the changes. --Masem (t) 14:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

If I have a chip on my shoulder about this user, maybe it's because he accused me (twice, now) of sockpuppetry, and never apologizec for it or acknowledged his error, despite being told by other users that it was a false accusation. (Like the one a few lines above.) If there's to be any sort of Iban, it should be two-way. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

"Going back to where I first ran [this] this character", BB is stalking my edits following Talk:Jeopardy!#Inclusion of Mike Richards in infobox and Talk:List of Jeopardy! contestants#Matt Amodio. The user has WP:HOUNDed me, newly edits pages following my edits, and threatens me on my talk page. I've repeatedly asked this editor to leave me alone, yet the editor continues to post messages to my talk page and revert my edits labeling them as "WP:OWN". Editor has been blocked six times for the same behavior. AldezD (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Where's your apology for your false accusations of sockpuppetry? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Bugs, I like you, but the best time to stop arguing about this is now. You did well, for a while, to a degree, by not responding, but all you're doing now is confirming the accusations. Ask me? The OP has a point and you should stop being a dick. Regardless of that you should be clever enough by now to know that mud-fighting won't end well... Begoon 13:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

How is he allowed to get away with false accusations of sockpuppetry? As I recall, I told him last summer that if he apologized for that, he would never hear from me again. He was advised by an admin to open an SPI. He never did. And he didn't learn from it, either, as he repeated the same accusation earlier this week. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the are many components to this. Maybe overly high-handed editing by AldezD mis-identified as ownership, some two way history. Baseball Bugs somewhat admitted that such may be fueling whatever they are doing now. And yes I think Baseball Bugs is hounding which IMO is a very harmful thing. But probably nobody here has the hours to totally learn the history. I think a two way voluntary no-fault 90% Iban for a year or an official no-fault-determined one autoexpiring in a year would be a good move. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No comment on the specifics of this case (I've had too many run-ins with one of the participants to be impartial), but as a general principle, I don't think that 'voluntary Ibans' are appropriate solutions for such situations in general. Since they are voluntary, all too often they tend to get ignored as soon as a participant finds it convenient, leading to a recurrence of the original problem, only with added drama as people argue about whether the 'voluntary ban' has been breached etc. If an Iban is necessary, it should be imposed, and enforced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

A one way IBAN would probably be preferable, seeing as Baseball Bugs is the only one (still) going out of his way to follow AldezD around and that he's the one not willing to drop this and let all of this go. Insofar, all of the evidence provided shows that AldezD did not interact with Baseball Bugs again until after Baseball Bugs started reverting AldezD's edits and posting on AldezD's talk page and all of the interaction by AldezD (leading up to this thread) was AldezD telling Baseball Bugs "leave me alone". I fail to see why AldezD should be banned from anything regarding Baseball Bugs when Baseball Bugs is the one not letting months-old events go and continues to hound and follow AldezD around. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Also agree with @AndyTheGrump that if such a ban is proposed, it should be a forced measure, not voluntary. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree that nothing actionable by AldezD has been established or even hinted. That's why I said a "no fault" one, and the only reason I brought it up is hints there might be some type of two way battle going on and possible complexities from dropping a one way ban into that situation. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

How do you figure that false accusations of sockpuppetry are not actionable? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I should have not included "or hinted" in my post, I should have said "Agree that nothing actionable by AldezD has been established" And what I meant by that at this point there has been no sufficient process / discussion here to even conceivably support/justify an "at fault" finding/restriction. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

TomStefano

• TomStefano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Planck units (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TomStefan's first four edits were to an article, Planck length, that was soon redirected to Planck units per discussion at Special:Permalink/1083115831#Do_we_really_need_both_Planck_units_and_Planck_length?. This follows several other Planck units that were redirected starting in 2020, such as Planck time and Planck mass, following agreement that these articles had no nontrivial content that couldn't be covered in one place. See Talk:Planck_units/Archive_4#Individual_articles for background information from around the time Quondum (talk · contribs) redirected most of the articles. Aside from that, the topic attracts fringe edits and original research because it's quantum gravity, and such content has been greatly cleaned up from Planck units over the past two years.

Their only edits since then thus far have been mostly uncivil comments at Talk:Planck units regarding a perceived decline in quality in the article, and that the other articles on specific Planck units have also been redirected. He squarely blames that on XOR'easter (talk · contribs), who is experienced in the topic area of physics, and several other unidentified editors of the article. He cites a mathematical error (no longer in the article) where the Planck length is stated to be equal to the Schwarzschild radius of a Planck-mass black hole, instead of half that. For reference, Special:Permalink/1083085312 is the last revision before JayBeeEll (talk · contribs) redacted several personal attacks and rants. The IP users 178.120.21.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 178.120.71.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are likely the same person — both IPs geocolate to Brest, Belarus and made similar edits at Talk:Planck units.

Here are some snippets from the user's comments, including the suspect IP editors; one quote per paragraph:

• statement is too exact, and hence wrong:
  • You [an IP editor from Lanark Highlands, Ontario] are perfectly right [about the mathematical error]. This is my point, several of the editors working on this page now have too little knowledge of the topic.
  • As it stands now the page is incorrect and is worse than it used to be some years ago.
• Quality down:
  • I believe that deleting the separate article on the Planck length deprives readers of all information about this problem.
  • Regge, Migdal, Hawking, - these are all world-famous physicists. What other sources do you need [for a new version of the Planck length article]?
  • Moron.
  • If a person is not competent in the topic, do not go where you are not asked.
  • Sadly several of the editors working actively on this page clearly do not know the field [of quantum gravity] very well.
  • the page is now dominated by editors doing as they want without requirements for solid documentation
  • Some condom accused me of plagiarism. Who are you to judge? Ignoramus.
• On the Planck length:
  • Looks like [XOR'easter] is here to promote researchers [sic] friends and his own subjective views. Even things mathematical [sic] wrong they will let stand as long as it promote someone in their circle.
  • But I would never bother even touch a sentence written by XOR'easter as it will be quickly overridden.
  • The real expert will never have time to waste loads of time on wikipedia
  • Okay, a quick search only show that on this particular page you promote friends of your wikipedia editorial friends (one that like to block others and accuse other for such, one that has been on this page recently to block others from edit, and yes he is promoted by one of the researchers you here promote papers from.)
  • Several comments also quote XOR'easter's comments verbatim.
• Smaller than a Planck Length?:
  • [Weyl's tile argument about discrete spacetimes] should be linked in to this page perhaps as it is highly relevant in relation to the Planck scale (I missed this discussed here also), but I won't even bother as one so easily get overridden and work deleted by XOR'easter. Actually it seems like XOR'easter is clueless on the Planck units, but is dominating also this page now, and has been deleting lots of pages that gave much more in depth information about many topics that could have evolved even further.
  • The current page has much less depth, and is much more confusing than the old system we had.
• Comments at Smaller than a Planck Length? after the redaction by JayBeeEll:
  • Weyl's tile in relation to the Planck scale is not "every idea on every topic", it is clearly a very central problem related to if the Planck scale is unique.
  • But what can I say, what should be on some wikipedia pages is now totally dominated by a small circle of very active wikipedia editors that back each others, block others, delete others. They abuse the consensus system.
  • "and doesn't make speculations/hypotheses come across as established facts." sorry to say it to you XOR'easter but that you mention "established facts" says a lot about your type of editing. For example this page mention that "spacetime becomes a foam at the Planck scale" is in reality only a speculative hypothesis.
  • It seems like many published papers on a hypothesis and that many researchers think the hypothesis is good seems to be mistaken as facts. Often this are just that the problem is not yet solved and the hypothesis is old and well established.
• Talk:Planck_units#Planck time (after final warning by JayBeeEll (talk · contribs) at Talk:Planck units and the user talk):
  • Also some of the worlds most famous physicists have claimed the Planck time could be one of the most important things in physics to understand, and here instead of extending much more [about the Planck time] in a page one have one have [sic] limited this to 5 lines. Clearly if not cleaned up in and improved then someone should seriously look to fund something better, something more similar to what wikipedia once was. There is a massive problem if a handfull of frequent editors suddenly can remove pages others worked on for years.

That last comment has a legitimate concern about the section being focused on the wrong aspect of the topic, but that is the final straw. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• TomStefano, I have reverted your comments: there is no way we can pull out your comments to put them in their proper place--separately. Do NOT put your comments inside others' comments please. User:JayBeeEll, I'm sorry I had to revert you too. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

As I have commented on above, several of the examples given of what I have said are not me. So it is then lies about what I said. This is actually quite serious when someone claim one said something that another person said. For example it is claimed I said "Moron". I never ever said so. It was another user. Other examples to. Is this really how wikipedia a small circle of established wikipedia editors go ahead to block someone, to pick even saying from other users I do not know who are, have no affiliation with etc. And then in addition cherry picking saying I have and take them out of contest, and in addition deleting some of my sayings so they not are easy to find. Okay so I understand I soon will be blocked, and the methods are documented. It will all be filed. TomStefano (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I moved this to the correct section seeing as TS was unable to do so.CUPIDICAE💕 14:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Tom: It will all be filed. Where and with who will it be filed? — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 14:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• User:LaundryPizza03, there is no technical evidence to connect TS to the 178 IP. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Then I have struck out the quotes from the IP user. However, their conduct is equally unacceptable for the same reason, and under the assumption that they are actually a different user, I will post another ANI notice. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
    • From their writing styles, I presumed they were different people. There was an oddity where the IP user removed some comments and TomStefano restored them, but that might just be due to editing an old page version, and I didn't make much of it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • TS's first edit to Planck length was to restore content that I had removed, invoking the same rationale as the since-blocked SPA who inserted it before. The rationale is odd: journal quality is usually judged journal-by-journal, not publisher-by-publisher, except in the case of known predatory publishers. That SPA, blocked by Drmies, was restoring a blurb that had been removed before (not by me), after it had been added with a misleading edit summary by another SPA. As noted by StarryGrandma, the citations to it have come from the author himself, and no substantial commentary or signs of wider influence exist. The author, incidentally, is Espen Gaarder Haug, who had an article here until it was deleted in 2018, and whose work has been promoted by sockpuppets here before, including the same claim. I have no idea if any of the more recently active accounts are related to the earlier sock farm. Some of the accusations sound similar: People spending lots of time editing on wiki have likely high status among other active wiki editors, backing each other, so yes I think we know how this ends (blocked sock MetricoGeo on Talk:Squaring the circle). Is this how wikipedia work these days? Has it become corrupted with circles of people spending much time here, becoming buddies defending each others editing, rather than trying to get the best out of wikipedia? Just asking, please explain to us non frequent visitors how this now will work? (likewise). And this was not a new page, this was a page that had been on wikipedia for 10 years (likewise). Maybe that's just illustrative of having the same mindset, though. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Oh this definitely is the same person as User:EntropyFormula who was all up in that AfD. --JBL (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Hmm. But clearly it is a few wikipedia editors that think they have monopoly on editing and deleting other editors posting, possibly because they have been here for some years (from User talk:EntropyFormula) does sound familiar. XOR'easter (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
        • XOR'easter, I hear you--this should probably simply be entered in a new SPI. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

          Now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/QuantitativeGeometry for anyone who cares to take a look. --JBL (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

          The person that claimed I said this and this, many false claims had several days to edit and remove things I not have said. But this is not done. For example I also never said this "I believe that deleting the separate article on the Planck length deprives readers of all information about this problem.", That I agree on that this page not should be removed is totally different thing that I must be allowed to hold. It could backfire at some point to lie about what someone have said (with references to exactly what they supposedly have said). Please remove what I not said. Please show decency. Block me if you want, but for what? Have I not been accused for being personal and not on the page task. And what are some editors here doing, coming with many many citations of things they claimed I wrote that I never wrote. It is something in that one not should treat other people worse than one expect other to treat one back? And please stop mistake decent probability of something seems very similar to mean it is the SAME. People from same country are not the same person, that is racism! What have I done? being critical to how some editors are operating. Such as evidently also here, where one accuse someone for having written this and that without even bother to check if it is the same wikipedia user. Other things have been cherry picked out of contest. All is filed !! TomStefano (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

          Assume now for a moment I had come with accusations that for example XOR'easter had said this and that and given quotes of what he wrote and put it for example here. But that he never had written many sentences I claimed he had written. How would that be looked upon? And even after making you all aware that there where multitudes of false claims about what I had written, even then no one bothered investigating those few claims and really correct them. But if one quickly want to block some then naturally one will even Lie to get through with that. Look at yourself in the mirror before judging others to hard. If some editors are so eager to judge others that they come with lies and not even remove those lies even after I have pointed out incorrect putting others words in my mouth, then perhaps one should take some self criticism before judging others. Think now carefully what you do and how you judge others before you do so! TomStefano (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

          Thirdly please check carefully the editing of some of the users you accuse for this or that. See if you see a very serious error, a very unethical "error" done by a senior editor on one of the many pages that have been edited. Look carefully! It has all been filed by the way!! TomStefano (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

          You keep saying this has "been filed," but it's very unclear what you're trying to say. I'm assuming English is not your first language, it would help if you could clarify what you're trying to say. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

"You [an IP editor from Lanark Highlands, Ontario] are perfectly right [about the mathematical error]. This is my point, several of the editors working on this page now have too little knowledge of the topic." And this was correct, there was a mathematical error that XOR'easter removed, or at least improved, considerably. TomStefano (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I repeat I have never said for example this "I believe that deleting the separate article on the Planck length deprives readers of all information about this problem." as it is claimed on this page I have said so. The responsible please remove such false claims! TomStefano (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

User talk:BobNesh impersonates admin to libel, threaten, intimidate

User talk:BobNesh left realistic-looking warning complete with stop symbol and false libelous accusations of policy violations on my talk page threatening I will be "blocked from editing without further notice" if I do not obey. The user is not an admin. I never interacted with user before. BobNesh made his first edit of article he mentions to remove content he personally did not like, then left message appearing to impersonate admin to intimidate me from editing with threats of administrative actions he has no authority to make. Some people might fall for such deceit and be intimidated into silence out of fear of being blocked, when user has no right to engage in such bullying and deceptive threats over any apparent personal content dispute. (To be honest, based on user's past, and due to my edits pertaining to Ukraine/Russia current events—like merely creating the article in question: this seems to fit a recent pattern of being ganged up on and targeted by politically-motivated pro-Putin/Moscow-biased users trying to game system using technicalities to harass and intimidate as part of Kremlin information war to shape message on Wikipedia...) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Inqvisitor (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't yet examined this matter but I can say that one need not be an admin to issue warnings. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I've provided the required notice for you; it appears you placed it on this page by mistake, instead of the editors talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think libel means what you think it means. I recommend the op heed warnings and get a big ol' trout. This is a pointless thread. CUPIDICAE💕 15:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in our guidelines prohibits non-admins from using user warnings, not even the highest level 4 and 4im ones. To paraphrase a comment I made from yesterday time, writing what you don't want to hear ≠ libel. If you really do have any valid complaint of that, you're free to take it to court (since libel is actually criminal); just don't expect to be able to edit Wikipedia if you do. As demonstrated, aspersions such as accusing editors against you of being Kremilin POV-pushing without evidence is incompatible with how we work here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG for Inqvisitor. I've looked into what led the OP to get warned, and discovered the following:

• Between April 11 and 14, Inqvisitor got into a bit of a content dispute at Denys Prokopenko. I haven't looked too much at the content dispute itself, it's the behaviour afterwards that is concerning.
• On April 14, the other editor in the content dispute started a discussion on the talk page about their content dispute with Inqvisitor. In an initial reply, Inqvisitor called the the other editor a "Kremilin POV-pushing" editor, a "biased Russian imperialist", and concluded his reply with "And don't give me orders, I ain't your serf.".
• The other editor raised WP:NPA and said they were politely asking Inqvisitor to strike out their personal attacks. Inqvistitor replied by continuing to infer the other editor was pushing a POV, without addressing the personal attacks.
• It turns out the subject of the article's grandfather fought for Finland Soviet-Finnish Winter War. So over the next few days after the above discussion, Inqvisitor decided to add a very lengthy content about the history of that war even though that has nothing do with the subject of the article.
• BobNesh reverted those edits, noting in the edit summary that it had nothing to do with the subject of the article, and placed the warning on Inqvisitor's talk page.

All in all, not great behaviour from Inqvisitor here. Singularity42 (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Only reason I made edits to add sourced historical details (which I had always thought should just be referenced by links to articles about the subjects, e.g. Winter War) was because it was demanded by other editors disputing the historical events which the article's subject (Denys Prokopenko) alluded to in referenced quote. It's not so widely known history what happened during and after Winter War, and I assumed the critique was made in good faith even though it wouldn't apply in most other cases where history is referenced. It would be like if an article subject who had relatives killed in Nazi Holocaust says in a quote they are angry at what Nazis did to their grandparents—and some editor comes along demanding sources proving what did Nazis do.

But in any event this was not about any article edits—I did even not revert Bob's edit or anything. Bob never said anything to me; we never interacted. Bob just dropped warning on my page of being blocked without further notice, while making false accusations of violations (which Bob did not even explain) broadcast on my talk page. I do not want controversy. I rarely even create pages outside of Wiktionary. I just don't see how Bob's conduct was meritorious—user could have left normal talk message. Other younger editors might get scared away by such ominous warnings dropped out of the blue with no explanation on their talk page by someone with whom they had never even interacted—having a chilling intimidating effect. That's all. Thanks. Inqvisitor (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Inqvisitor, invoking a Think of the children argument does you no favors. To avoid a WP:BOOMERANG I suggest that you withdraw this complaint. Now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Noting also that your deletion of the warning message (plus another editor's helpful comment) with an edit summary that reads, in part, removing deceptive "only warning", further undermines your position. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Just chiming in to clarify something: I believe what Inqvisitor is referring to by other editors disputing the historical events which the article's subject [...] alluded to in referenced quote is when I put a {{fact}} tag on a sentence referring to the Winter War. That seems like an unfair characterization of my actions, given that I actually made sure to specify in my edit summary that I wasn't disputing the historical veracity of the events, and was just putting the maintenance tag on there so that an editor more knowledgeable about the event could patch up the text-source integrity. If I had been less busy, I probably would have found a source myself. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• BobNesh left Template:Uw-biog4im on your page, Inqvisitor. Anyone who feels that a template warning is needed can utilize that template, not just administrators, and I've done it many times with the other templates at WP:WARN and WP:WARN2. So no, there was no 'administrator impersonation', 'Kremlin information warring', or 'libel' from what is a common warning template, and like JJA said, you need to withdraw this complaint, because this is an extreme overreaction to a template warning. Nate • (chatter) 21:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• As mentioned, in the talk page of that article Denys Prokopenko a few days ago, I explained to Inqvisitor why I removed some of their edits. In response they resorted to personal attacks against me and even though I asked them not to do that and very clearly reminded them of WP:NPA, they continued with this. Now I see that this behavior has not changed by still calling other editors politically-motivated pro-Putin/Moscow-biased users who are part of the Kremlin information war... instead on ANI. Mellk (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• I personally think it's better when warnings are issued by someone who isn't actively involved in the dispute with the editor so the fact there was allegedly no previous interactions between Inqvisitor and BobNesh is probably not the bad thing Inqvisitor is making it out to be. As others have said, anyone is free to leave warnings, it's not something restricted to admins. And if an admin is involved in the dispute most of the time they shouldn't block the editor themselves anyway. So warnings should not be taken as a threat to personally block the editor, unless the editor makes it clear this is what they are saying. Even if the are, it's IMO mostly moot. The warning is either justified and the behaviour may lead to a block if continued or it's not, who will do the blocking doesn't matter. I have not looked into the content dispute but BLP is a serious issue and I personally often issue 3im or 4im warnings when people make serious BLP violations. Especially if they've done it more than once but not been warned yet or at least not warned in a clear way. So if Inqvisitor did violate BLP and to be clear I'm not saying they did, they should not be surprised to receive such a strong warning. Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Well, Inqvisitor once again refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing. In my eyes, this aggressive behavior including personal attacks will only continue since this editor refuses to take responsibility. Mellk (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• This whole thing needs to be read in the context of the diffs at Denys Prokopenko. First direct attacks were by Mellk, characterising Inqvisitor's language choices as "propagandaistic" in edit summaries here and here and as "puffery" in an edit summary here. Mellk then opens a talk page discussion with this and I invite you to read it for yourselves. Inqvisitor, who's clearly new to Wikipedia, proceeds to respond with a similar level of hostility that he's been shown by those he's met and I think that's understandable.—S Marshall T/C 16:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

3G article problems

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

---

• Nightwalker-87 (talk · contribs)
• 3G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been dealing with the user Nightwalker-87 on the article 3G; where he is insisting on reverting to an older, somewhat outdated version of a table and making completely incorrect comments about policies/guidelines.

It starts when I attempted to add a table about 3G shutdowns in various countries to 3G; I did not see or know of a table like this that already existed on the page (definitely was my mistake). However, I did put good effort into the table, and it was somewhat more up to date than the previous table (see my table vs. the current table that Nightwalker is pushing).

Another editor then reverts the duplicate table correctly (I thought they were wrong at first), but another IP gave me pointers and told me that I should merge it. So I decided to. (yes, I am the user of the IPv6 range that made these edits; yes, it is allowed, I'm not deceiving others and will happily connect me and my IP range if asked)

While I was working on the merge of the two tables, Nightwalker performed "formatting corrections" on the table that I was about to merge to. I merged the tables, not knowing about what he was doing, and then he immediately reverted saying that I was "messing up the table formatting" and "adding unnecessary descriptions" (not true at all). I figured he may have been confused, so I reverted again and left him a note in the edit summary basically saying that I was merging two tables and also trying to make another edit in the process (changing some original research dates).

He then reverts it again, saying that he was "updating several countries", the thing is that he reinstated the original version of the table.

I decide to leave him a talk page comment after this, about what I felt was wrong with the original table and why he should have not reinstated it, including that some of the dates were based on outdated information and not newer sources that had different, more up-to-date information (ex. in the Lithuania part of the table, it originally said December 31, 2022, which was cited to an older source, but a newer source from February of this year says by Christmas 2022 instead) and that the South Korea part of the section was actually about 2G and not 3G.

He then moves my talk page comment to Talk:3G and states that me telling him about some problems I have with his reversions is "misuse" of his user talk page. I do not know of any policy or guideline that states this.

He then posts a response, which I feel is underwhelming and wrong in many ways because:

• "Has there been an intervention from the administrative side" - There was no administrative action taken at all at that point
• "The two recent reverts I've been notified about seem to have vanished" - None of my reverts have vanished, they are still in the page history of the 3G article
• "All points can be verified ..." - Some points indeed could not be verified, were incorrect, or had no source, like the South Korean part of the table (which was about the 2G shutdowns there and said nothing about 3G shutting down) or how one shutdown date in Taiwan (Asia Pacific Telecom) had no source at all.
• "... and therefore were present in the list for a long time without any second guess by anyone though several contributors interacted in the meanwhile" - Sometimes incorrect or out-of-date information stays on WP even though edits were made in the meantime. It's a normal thing, and not a reason to reinstate said incorrect or out-of-date information.

I responded this time logged-in, addressing his points. I figured that it must be a mistake, but he responded saying that it was not, I felt as if this was wrong again because:

• "It is a matter of fact that a whole bunch of information vanished without any reason since 06 Mar 2022 in a sequence of obviously unorganised an chaotic edits - and that is definitely not in common interest" - Nothing vanished... I was merging two tables together, and removing some things that I found to be wrong or inaccurate. The purpose of my original talk page messages was to explain most of what I removed and why.
• "So against this background I clearly request to quit any further destructive approaches ..." - Nothing was destructive! I was simply merging my duplicate table with an existing one.

I'm lost as to what to do here; I'm unsure if this is just a weird language barrier issue, intentional bad faith, or WP:OWN behavior, but it's gotten past a point where I could use another opinion or some help; WP:3RR has probably been broken by this point at the main article already and I don't wish to cause more conflict.

wizzito | say hello! 08:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Wizzito, Your interpretation of WP:LOGOUT is plain wrong. You edited the article interchangeably as yourself & your IP for over a month. That is WP:LOUTSOCK sockpuppetry. You took no steps to contact an oversighter. Cabayi (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  I count 35 pages in which both you and your IP have edited, including four in which you have reverted the changes of another editor to the revision made by your IP. Three days is a customary first block for this level of sockpuppetry. Cabayi (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Not an admin, but just to comment, I don't see this as an ANI issue. It is a content dispute that should be handled in other ways. The poster's inadvertent outing of themselves as a possible WP:LOUTSOCK notwithstanding, the content dispute could do with attention from outside the current active editors of the page, and I've started having a look at it. Of course, to get this attention the issue should have been posted elsewhere. SamBC(talk) 15:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Block of Wizzito

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

---

@Cabayi: Why did you block Wizzito without giving him a chance to respond? Yes, he misinterpreted the policy. But we have an enormously productive editor, 1000x WP:HERE, who made a single mistake. I truly doubt he intended to engage in deliberate deception. This seems WP:PUNITIVE, and a complete failure to WP:AGF. Or have WP:LOUTSOCK issues been discussed with Wizzito before? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirded. Especially if there's no evidence of the user trying to act as if their logged out self was a separate individual (such as gaming 3RR that way or pretending to be separate people in a discussion). Silverseren^C 23:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Fourthed. In the discussion at that talk page they link themselves with the IP; while I can understand the concern that they might have been unintentionally misleading, as they have not tried to deceive other editors good faith should be been assumed and the issue explained to Wizzito rather than jumping straight to a block - they should be unblocked with a note stating that the previous block was in error.

I'm also not convinced they have breached LOUTSOCK; the closest they come to doing so is with the rule on Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts, but there is an exception for clearly linked, legitimate, alternative accounts and given they disclosed on the talk page that they were the IP I believe that exception applies - although it is generally inadvisable and would suggest that Wizzito avoid doing so in the future.

As a side note, whoever redacted the IP address in 3G may want to do the same on the talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

72 hours for an editor with no previous blocks and no warning on their talk page is out of line. IMO this is punitive rather than preventative. Please explain yourself @Cabayi:. MarnetteD|Talk 00:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Since Cabayi has on their user page a notice saying "Feel free to revert any of my admin actions without consulting me (we're all trying to enforce the same policies)", any other admin should feel free to unblock Wizzito. And I think there's enough of a consensus here for any admin to do so. Silverseren^C 01:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this one looks kinda questionable to me. I dropped a line on Cabayi's talk page asking them to either take another look or offer a more detailed explanation that addresses some of the above concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Per Cabayi above: "I count 35 pages in which both you and your IP have edited, including four in which you have reverted the changes of another editor to the revision made by your IP." If this wasn't a prolific editor, this would have been an indef, and nobody would have thought twice about it. A 72-hour block is being pretty nice about it. It's a pretty clearcut violation of LOUTSOCK, and is precisely the problem that LOUTSOCK is intended to address. There were zero contacts to oversighters from Wizzito about accidental log-out, although we have plenty of evidence that they know how to reach out to us. Risker (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Why would he contact oversight when he is open about the connection with the IP? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

What is this block preventing? We could just ask the editor not to edit logged out... Levivich 05:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Wizzito asserted above "yes, it is allowed, I'm not deceiving others" and linked to the policy on sockpupptry.

The policy's 6th example is "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts:" Wizzito did that on 35 occasions.

The policy's 1st example is "Creating an illusion of support" which Wizzito did on the 4 instances where he reverted another user's edits to restore the revision of his IP, with an interval of just one minute for one of those. That was neither accidental or casual.

The policy's most lenient outcome is a block. Three days is a standard block for a an account's first socking case.

I self-reported both the oversighting and the block to the oversighters' mailing list for review as soon as I was done. Cabayi (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

For the sixth example, there is an exception for clearly linked, legitimate, alternative accounts. As Wizzito has clearly disclosed the IP as his, I believe the exception applies. In general, though I haven't seen specific examples outside of the 3G article, I believe based on this request that most of their edits as an IP are by mistake, such as forgetting to log in, either in general or when switching machines. BilledMammal (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• This looks like a simple misunderstanding of the rules on Wizzito's part, followed by a punitive block due to an overzealous application of a rule which probably shouldn't apply in a case like this.  Tewdar  09:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• (Crocodile Dundee voice) That's not a sockpuppeteer! This is a sockpuppeteer!!!  Tewdar  09:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• The IPs have been OS'd (an action I'm not sure I agree with, for what it's worth), so I'm not sure how productive a block review by non-OSers will be, since we can only speculate about whether or not abuse occurred, and if yes, to what extent. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I believe the diffs can still be linked (such as this one) BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Cabayi can you please explain what you meant by The policy's most lenient outcome is a block. Three days is a standard block for a an account's first socking case.? Cuz WP:NOTPUNITIVE, etc. We don't do mandatory minimum sentences here, surely you're not suggesting otherwise. What is this block preventing? Levivich 13:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I've posted a note on Wizzito's talkpage with the hope of helping to resolve this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Cabayi: for the avoidance of accidentally getting myself hauled in front of ArbCom: this is not a Checkuser or Oversight block of any kind, right? It doesn't say it is anywhere I can see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Well, it looks like Cabayi isn't around right now, I've re-read this thread and Wizzito's talk page and they don't seem to be calling it a Checkuser block anywhere, they say on their talk page it's OK to undo their admin actions, and there's a very clear consensus in this thread to undo the block. So I'm going to unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Let me join the chorus of other editors who note that the block is not within policy here. Wizzito serves no continuing threat to the encyclopedia, there is nothing the block is preventing, WP:AGF should have been applied regarding accidental logged out editing, and Wizzito has been publicly owning the IPs they used. This block needs to be undone, if not by Cabayi, then by consensus demonstrated in this discussion here. --Jayron32 15:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• @Cabayi: Seriously, this was plain insensitive, and not at all "genuine". You blocked a kid, who has been a frequent target of some disgusting harassment, who has been a member of this community for a third of his life, for doing something he thought was right, without a hint of warning. And the next step is for you to sneer at his utterly understandable reaction to this by dismissively calling it a "ragequit". Have you lost sight of the fact that there is a human being at the end of every connection? I feel sick. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Unblock I appreciate Cabayi's work as an admin and I'm painfully conscious that we all make mistakes now and then. So this is not an indictment. Wizzito's editing was in fact dancing a bit close to being inappropriate. But there are several things that cause me to believe this block was too hasty.
  • I see no clear evidence of bad faith in their actions.
  • They made no effort at all to disguise their identity. Quite the contrary, they were totally open about it.
  • No warnings were given and this does not strike me as rising to the level of a no warning block.
  • There is no evidence that this block serves any preventative purpose. Wizzito is not a threat to the project and I have a high degree of confidence that they will be extremely careful about this sort of thing going forward.

I recommend they be unblocked with a notation in the block log to the effect that the block was overturned on review at ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Unblocked already since I may have buried this information when I noted it further up in the thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• No, Floquenbeam, it wasn't a CU or OS block.
• No, Jayron32, it wasn't "accidental logged out editing". 800+ logged out edits, with 35 overlaps over several months is in no way accidental. Using both account & IP on a page within a minute is not an accident.
• "Fuck it. I'm leaving this website" reads like a ragequit to me, Suffusion of Yellow. No sneering, just a straight reading of the edit summary. Cabayi (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Interesting perspective Cabayi. How's that going for you? --Jayron32 16:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Good unblock, thanks Floq. I hope Cabayi and anyone else on the OS team who thought this was a good block takes away that no policy's most lenient outcome is a block and there is no such thing as a starting block, because blocking is WP:NOTPUNITIVE. Except in extreme circumstances (and this was not an extreme circumstances), blocks shouldn't be issued unless a warning was first issued, because, and it's worth saying again, blocks are WP:NOTPUNITIVE. That means if you can get someone to stop doing something by asking them to stop doing it, you should do that, and not block the person. Until and unless you've talked to the person, you have almost no reason to use admin tools; this is especially true when there is already an ongoing discussion with the person about the conduct at issue. There are no minimum blocks, no starting blocks, no mandatory blocks, and a block is never the most lenient outcome of any policy. Everyone on the OS team who thought otherwise should read this discussion and take it on board. Levivich 16:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Initial report remains

Just wanted to point out that as the dust settles, the aftermath seems to be that a prolific editor has retired while his initial report has seemingly been forgotten. ^Zera/_talk 20:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Role account

Bobo.03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two years ago this account was changed to a role account.

I'm not sure what we're supposed to do in such circumstances, but it does seem to go against WP:ROLE. What are we supposed to do in such circumstances?

jps (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It hasn't edited for a while, but I'd suggest soft blocking it, and putting a polite notice inviting any individuals involved to create their own account, with a suggestion that they create usernames that indicate their involvement with the project (e.g. Joe@CMUHCI). Girth Summit _(blether) 12:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I realize this is tilting at windmills, but every time I see a report like this somewhere, I feel irresistibly compelled to point out that, while technically against The Rules, there is no rational basis for preventing this kind of account. IMHO, the correct response to "What are we supposed to do in such circumstances" is: Meh. Nothing. Don't worry about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair. However, then we should modify WP:ROLE. I don't know why that rule exists; maybe it shouldn't. jps (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Isn't there a CC copyright attribution issue with role accounts? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. CC requires attribution to the creator of the work, or attribution in accordance with the Licensor's wishes, and there is no reason the Licensor and/or creator couldn't be an organization rather than an individual. The CC Wiki says: Sometimes, the licensor may want you to give credit to some other entity, like a company or pseudonym. In rare cases, the licensor may not want to be attributed at all. In all of these cases, just do what they request. I don't see why a role account would be a problem from a CC standpoint.

I think a bigger challenge is verifying a role account. If there was a "User:Acme, Inc.", we'd have to somehow get some kind of verification that Acme, Inc. authorized the user account to be its official account (and to create copyrighted works in the name of the company, and to license them under our license, etc.). We'd have to have a "verified" status much like other social media, and then we'd have to have someone (volunteers? WMF?) to process verification requests.

Without verification, I'm not sure how we can rely on the license. I suspect that's the reason behind disallowing role accounts. Levivich 15:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this is an argument for making sure that attribution is to the username only and not any external identity be it individual or group! If an account is declared to be a "role" account and the account chooses a name against WP:UNAME policy, then that's one thing. But if it is a role account and has a username like Bobo.03, I don't see the problem being one of "verification". jps (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict, it appears I'm repeating much of what Levivich wrote) That's what people say. But I've never heard a good explanation of why that would be true, BUT it isn't a CC violation when a role account explicitly approved by WMF makes an edit (remember CC violations are legal, not local policy, so if it actually is a violation, WMF can't say "it's OK because it's us"). Also, that would presumably preclude IP edits, too, but no one is preventing those. If someone makes an edit from a shared IP, why is that OK, but not when they make an edit from a shared account? I really think the copyright issue is not true.

The only actual rational reason to prevent role accounts is, if we give one to Coca Cola Co., then we have to start policing them to make sure it isn't someone from the social media dept of Pepsi Co. having a troll. Or a disgruntled Coke employee changing the password and email and now Coke doesn't have an account anymore. We don't want to get into that large scale, I suspect. But this is not a concern for the current situation, hence my suggestion we simply chose to not worry about it. As long as everyone involved with a role account is behaving themselves, and understands that the role account will be blocked if any one of them acts up, it isn't an actual problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: dewiki does exactly that, see de:Kategorie:Benutzer:Verifiziert (most of these users are role accounts, many of them paid). I always weep when I see one of these accounts that have gone through the hoops of verification via VRT (see de:Wikipedia:Support-Team) blocked on enwiki. We have SUL, but behaviour that is encouraged on dewiki (editing from an authenticated role account) earns an instant block on enwiki. —Kusma (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This is an excellent argument for trashing the rule. We can discourage role accounts, but to eliminate them entirely seems like a rule that is causing more problems than it likely solves. jps (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I am writing an OER textbook right now and am pretty aware that a CC license does not care whether the author is an individual or a group. That this argument forms part of the WP:SOCK policy might indicate that it was a result of concern over weird gaming of the sort where people with individual accounts sockpuppet with role accounts? I could see this as a concern over someone perhaps trying to skirt around a block/ban... but that would be an illegitimate use of an account in any case and does not seem a justification for simply banning all role accounts. jps (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I have started a VP thread on this matter. Feel free to comment there: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Role_accounts. jps (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I see from the comments above that my initial suggestion seems a little out of step with the way me learnèd colleagues are leaning. I've always assumed that the policy enjoyed strong community support because, well, it was policy, and I've enforced it as such. If none of us can remember why it's policy, and we're happy to ignore it, then a move to change it is the way to go. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You're not just imagining things, the last discussion on this issue was here. That looked like pretty thorough agreement. Not that things can't change, but it certainly was strong at the time. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Weird that the proposal was to combine this with OTRS verification scheme. I don't understand why we can't just allow role accounts and leave it at that... but I'll defer to the Village Pump discussion to consider this question. jps (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Threat of violence

An edit-warring IP editor is making threats of violence at Greeks for the Fatherland: [126]. Can we please have the revisions deleted, and the page temporarily semi-protected? Storchy (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for making threats. Not sure we need to revdel and protect the page. Lets see where it goes. Canterbury Tail talk 14:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This is block evasion by Αθλητικά/Derzki. I'm not giving away any CU results there - I can't remember their IPs off the top of my head - but from the editing style and the choice of articles, it's pretty ducky. Feel free to report future occurences to SPI (or AIV when it's this obvious). Girth Summit _(blether) 16:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Frediemie

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

This is an editor who replaces WP:DEADREFs with working URLs, where any given day of edits from them has several neutral replacements of dead references, and one or two terrible affiliate-link blogs about household appliances, mostly air purifiers or dehumidifiers. They received a level 4 warning for spamming last July. Draft:Air Purifier CADR Determination was an article they created in October that got moved to draft space, and where five of its eight references point to affiliate-link blog entries on cleanairdeliveryrate.com. This is either a persistent spammer promoting the same few blog domains, or a well-meaning affiliate blog fan doing as much damage as one. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, are they replacing the entire source or only the URL? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes just the URL, sometimes the website field as well. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, they are clearly are not attempting to fix these dead links before replacing them, since I quickly found this for the second diff, and they need to change the entire citation when making those changes, not just the URL; e.g. this edit fundamentally changed whatever resource was being pointed to. I think it will probably be necessary to rollback all of their edits, but I'm not immediately convinced a block is necessary; has anyone tried to explain to them why what they are doing is problematic? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

To some extent. There's a discussion at User_talk:Longhair#Reply_To_Reverted_Article from last July, immediately after they received a level 4 warning, where they're asked to be more careful about what links they add, and told that commercial links are generally not welcome. --Lord Belbury (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at that thread, I'm not convinced that Frediemie has the competence and/or sufficient grasp of English to be able to understand our sourcing guidelines and the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable sources. I'm actually at a loss for what to do here. On the one hand, I am not convinced that they are a spam account; I think they might genuinely be clueless. It looks to me like they are searching the title of the dead link, then replacing the dead URL with a similar-looking search result. Maybe start with a stern warning not to do that, followed by a ban from changing citations to dead URLs if they continue? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

If they were searching for replacement URLs each time, they wouldn't be repeatedly finding the same few obscure commercial blog sites (eg. [127], [128], [129], [130]). For the first of those they're removing a dead dictionary definition of "air mattress" and replacing it with a mattress comparison affiliate-link website which isn't about air mattresses at all. It's hard to imagine how they would have got there in good faith. --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

BoMadsen88

BoMadsen88 has been conducting an ongoing harassment campaign against me, with the most recent case being here. As you can see, the account does this via Talk pages that I frequent: Special:Contributions/BoMadsen88. There was an ANI raised about the account previously and the following was stated: "Other than that I don't think there's need for blocks or bans provided that the harassment stops. signed, Rosguill."

Also, the timing is almost too coincidental between this post on Reddit and the above mentioned Talk page edit. QRep2020 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Please do tell me how I am harassing you. Did I contact you? I am pointing out what might potentially be a very big problem. With your edit history and behaviour there is unfortunately a very great risk of a strong COI. This has to be addressed asap. BoMadsen88 (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

BoMadsen88, please don't use article talk pages to post conduct reports, those belong on a conduct board such as this one. Beyond that, QRep2020, this report provides a poor summary. You don't link to WP:DIFFs but rather to entire discussion threads. You're expecting quite a bit from a reviewer here in that sense (WP:VOLUNTARY). And maybe someone will do it (delve deep), but if this thread goes stale, that'd probably be the reason why. Also, I don't know what you expect us to tell from linking BoMadsen88 contribs. At a glance, they just seem to be an Elon Musk WP:SPA. El_C 19:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

What may also need addressing 'asap' is your continued use of an article talk page to engage in the harassment of a contributor, after being formally warned to stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Diff of warning? I must have missed it. El_C 19:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, a year ago, I see it. El_C 19:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:BoMadsen88#Indefinite_block. El_C 19:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

BoMadsen88 sitewide block converted to a p-block, the exact same one as QRep2020's. See my notes at the unblock request. While it doesn't negate some of the problems mentioned above, I'm inclined to give them the option of participating in this thread. El_C 21:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Look at their edit history. Their "purpose" was to get me banned and, hey, they did it. Only a matter before they come to my Talk page and gloat again. QRep2020 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You are not banned. WP:BLOCK ≠ WP:BAN. El_C 22:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

El_C Hello, as stated above my sitewide block has been converted to a p-block for the Elon Musk Article only. However, this should be removed as well.

I was banned because of “conducting an ongoing harassment campaign against QRep2020” (Qreps2020 quote). But the only thing I did was pointing out my observation that the behaviour of was QRep2020 had been very problematic. QRep2020 has now been p-blocked by the exact same reasons that my work and research unraveled. It is therefore fair to say that QRep2020s problematic behaviour has only been uncovered and stopped now thanks to my observations and persistence. The reason that I have was p-blocked in the first place is now not valid anymore.

I only tried to make one of the most visited articles on Wikipedia less biased because of very problematic behavior I had witnessed for a long time. I accomplished that and I believe that is what every good Wikipedia editor should strive to do - don’t you too?

QRep2020 had a lot of edits on Elon Musk which gave him an authority on the page - this meant that other Wikipedia editors did not dare push the matter whenever anyone tried to point out the obviously biased sections in the article. And there has been many editors throughout the last 2 years that has tried in vain to make the article less negatively biased - each and every time QRep2020 has immediately shot the attempts down.

I am sorry I had to post my observations on the Elon Musk page, but I did not know where else to go. That will not happen again. BoMadsen88 (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"The bridge crew remark sadly on their unwillingness to give up their hate"... Begoon 10:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"At a glance, they just seem to be an Elon Musk WP:SPA"

Refactored from my talk page. El_C 19:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The same applies to QRep2020. Their top ten most edited articles are all Musk and Tesla related. This editor's purpose here on Wikipedia seems to be to make Musk and his businesses look as bad as possible. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Well shit, so the good and the bad. Symmetry? I'm gonna re-open that ANI thread and refactor this, as they might need to be shown the door, too. El_C 19:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This is absurd. If you look at my edits, they are not all negative. I've contributed 10 entries of my own. Please do no feed into this castigation. QRep2020 (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

QRep2020, if by "entries" you mean articles, isn't it true that all the articles that you have created are related to Elon Musk and Tesla? Isn't it true that in the past 24 hours, you supported keeping the poorly referenced quote calling Musk a "total and complete pathological sociopath" in the article? Do you deny that your main activity on Wikipedia is to add negative content about Musk? Cullen328 (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I deny it. Hindenberg Research has nothing to do with Musk. I've contributed extensively to the Fraud "article" (I was a little upset when I replied before and used the wrong word) and to the Trevor Milton article. Ken Klippenstein rubbed up against Musk but he is important reporter in his own right - same goes for Lora Kolodny. I can be obsessive sometimes, yes, but I always try to follow the rules. QRep2020 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

QRep2020, Hindenburg Research is an aggressive short selling operation involved with the electric vehicle sector, and Tesla is the market leader. You also wrote and are the main author of TSLAQ, an aggressive short selling operation focused on criticizing Musk and Tesla. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on my limited interactions with QRep2020 I think they are a good faith editor who clearly has an interest in Musk/Tesla but also tries to follow the rules. Springee (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps QRep2020 should be advised (not instructed, advised...) that expanding their editing to a broader range of topics might be of benefit. It should make claims of SPA editing seem less credible, and maybe help build a sense of perspective. As fascinating/annoying Musk is, he isn't the centre of the universe (yet ), and I'm sure QRep2020 can find other topics of interest, if editing Wikipedia is their thing (which it need not be...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Strike that, per El_C below - I'd missed that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

On closer review, I've p-blocked QRep2020 indef from Elon Musk and Talk:Elon Musk (see block notice). There are so many other topics to write about besides just negatively, about Elon Musk and his companies. Too many red flags, like, in the edit (diff) about and header titled "total and complete pathological sociopath" (link) and the one that states [E]veryone in Tesla is in an abusive relationship with Elon (diff — quoting WIRED, but still). And these are just edits from April 18 and April 20, respectively! El_C 20:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't add the sociopath remark, merely defended that it was used in accordance with the rules. QRep2020 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't. See WP:BLP, and in particular the section on tone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

My initial impression is that this block was too hasty. ‎The "sociopathy" language went through a whole RfC and was present in the Good article pass version. Speaking of which, QRep appears to be one of the two main shepherds of the article through the GA process. There's been a lot of critical coverage of Musk over the past two years in reliable sources. I can't say I've reviewed QRep's editing pattern enough to say if they've outpaced the RS or not. I can say they've been quick to accept consensus and admit an error. I wouldn't be surprised if a warning sufficed to stem even the perception of disruptive editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

If it's just negative material, though, isn't it more wolf than shepherd? I realize there are a lot cheerleaders, too, but is doing the opposite really any better? I'll keep an open mind, though, sure. El_C 21:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't all negative material. It's a balancing act. I have stayed out of plenty of matters concerning Elon Musk that I could have "fomented" if I wanted to turn the article into a hit piece.

Look, I got heated these past few days because I discovered people talking about me offfsite. And I shouldn't have focused on the stupid line about sociopathy - I just saw people coming out of the woodwork and was reactionary. I am a grownup, I can admit that.

Please give me a chance to show that I am not who you think I am. QRep2020 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the protection request yesterday, which I declined (RfPP diff), and which is partly why this thread peeked my interest. In any case, these are only two pages you are restricted from, out of millions and millions. Indefinite does not necessarily mean infinite, but could just be undetermined length. El_C 21:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but that one page and its Talk page are visited by hundreds of thousands of people each day, that is why balance is so important. And yes I stepped over the line, like I said, but when the subject of the article tells people to modify the said, there is a constant need to maintain some semblance of critical ratio.

I would also like to point out the irony here that, regardless of what I am "answering to" here, I do not deserve to be libeled on a Talk page that is viewed by said thousands and now I cannot even answer to it because I elected not to give into a baser instinct. Given my status, can someone please remove the BoMadsen88 text from the Elon Musk Talk page about me. QRep2020 (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk can say whatever (he can maybe even buy Twatter to make sure that it's his hivemind friend), but the fact is, as I mentioned in my decline of the RfPP request, that most of the users involved in recent disputes were extended confirmed, so it's unlikely they came from unReaddit. El_C 21:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Just chiming in to add that I also believe QRep2020 is a good faith editor and valuable contributor to the project. When I started editing a few years back, all articles on Wikipedia related to Musk were extremely biased and promotional, failing to mention almost all of the well-documented criticism and controversies surrounding Musk and his companies. The number of trolls who still to this day try to change Musk's article to call him a business magnet is indicative of the "reality distortion field" surrounding Musk[131][132][133], and QRep has been one of the few active contributors pushing back to maintain neutrality. So while they may have been overly zealous at times, and a warning could certainly be warranted, I believe that the block was premature as they have made a very valuable contribution by providing some much needed balance in this subject area. Stonkaments (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

As noted on QRep2020's talk page, they should probably substantively address the possible WP:COI raised by Cullen328 (diff), who unlike me fumbling about, actually seems to have done his research. El_C 02:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, were you raising the possibility of COI there? I just read that comment as an elaboration on the SPA point, tying all the articles back to Musk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, I have not had the opportunity to read those more recent links so will respond based on what I knew at the time. I have seen no evidence of a clearcut conflict of interest though I am aware that some editors have accused this editor of being a Tesla short seller. I literally have no idea and even no hunch whether or not this is true. But following my criticism, they posted a denial on their user page. What I do know that this is a highly skilled SPA editor who seems to think that Elon Musk is a "very bad person" and is determined to use Wikipedia as a platform to negatively impact Musk's reputation. In the spirit of full disclosure, speaking personally, I think that Musk is a bizarre person who has received a lot of legitimate criticism. I am not a fan. He is obviously also a highly successful person with major accomplishments. He can deploy a troll army to have the Wikipedia biography say that he is a "magnet" instead of a "magnate" and I have opposed such baloney when it has come to my attention. But what I see is that this is an editor who by all evidence is here only to add content that reflects negatively on this living person and his businesses. Yes, there are a lot of negatives about Musk. But accounts focused on praising or discrediting Musk are equally disruptive. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy and editors who are here to push a negative point of view about a living person are inherently disruptive even if they try, on the surface, to comply with policies and guidelines. Contrition when an editor is sanctioned should be evaluated with a certain degree of skepticism, and the "I blew my stack" defense is not too persuasive, unless accompanied by persuasive assurances thst the disruption will not resume. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I was mostly asking for clarification on COI, but I also appreciate your thoughts on the SPA-ness of it all. My angle is: could we have prompted similar levels of contrition and (hopefully soon to come) assurances against future disruption with a warning or temp block (though I know El C is allergic). I've said my piece, and I'd like to leave space for the opinions of others. So, I'd appreciate your contemplative thought on the matter, but please don't feel compelled to reply. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I was planning to take a few days off of Wikipedia before appealing and making assurances, but I do not want to invite a COI over my head too so I will say the following in hopes that it shows where my mind is at the moment:

Though I do not agree that I have exercised a "special purpose" here on Wikipedia - often narrow, yes, but not exclusive - I have no doubt grown obsessive about getting in front of what I came to perceive as a bend in the encyclopedia towards promoting Musk and his endeavors. In recognizing this, I promise to reread NPOV immediately during my small break from the site and assure that, if granted clemency, I will not make any updates to Elon Musk for a period of a month and will not push for any changes via discussions on Talk:Elon Musk as well. I also promise to not make any updates on other Musk-related articles during this time besides reverting obvious acts of vandalism or disruptive editing as a way of forcing myself to try and upend these assumptions I have cemented. Finally, I will force myself to spend time contributing to relatively distant topics on Wikipedia like @El C hinted at and will figure out a way to record any such non-Musk related updates I make on my Talk page as a testament to what I am doing to fix my behaviors.

Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It is difficult to assume good faith with your statement given that you do not agree that I have exercised a "special purpose" here on Wikipedia, given that your past 1,000 edits (dating back to April 2021) exclusively deal with Tesla and Elon Musk-related articles. Obsessive is one way to put it. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

No, they don't. Look harder. QRep2020 (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Really? You're going to flat out lie about your edit history now? See for yourself: here and here. You're really going to still maintain that you are not obsessed with Tesla-Musk-related articles? What a farce. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

"Exclusively" has meaning to some. QRep2020 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not lying. "Exclusively" means all. Not all of them are. QRep2020 (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I found two whole edits out of your previous 1,000 edits, my bad. 998995 edits out of your past 1,000 edits pertain to Musk in some shape or form pretty much constitutes exclusivity. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, if anyone can explain User_talk:QRep2020#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion and User_talk:QRep2020#Tesla_short-selling_group_WP:COI_username, I'm all ears. El_C 02:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Might as well link the COIN discussion itself too. Still reading. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure El_C. Maybe SPA-like activity coupled with the letter Q is enough to say "this is a clear COI"? I think the COIN discussion came to no consensus on that point. QRep2020 clearly denies having a COI and has an explanation for their username. I get some real "small world" vibes from the cast of characters there, that's for sure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow, Firefangledfeathers (RE: "cast of characters"). But just to clear things up: I am Q. Tremble before my stromzezes. El_C 03:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

El_C, you messed up your link. I think you meant Q. Springee (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh my God! He admit it!

I just meant that I see a lot of usernames in common between that January 2021 COIN discussion and recent discussions in the QRep2020-sphere, this one included. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Springee: dude, I've already been called a god (fondly, I'm sure) once tonight. Or was it not-a-god? Anyway, I'm not tempting fate!

@Firefangledfeathers: that's right, I have QR clearance. Erm, I mean, you suck, Paul! El_C 03:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, there was a serious part: I dunno, at a gleence, it seems like it had fairly limited participation, either way. Not sure what prompted what by whom when. Mind you, like with the ANI report that QRep2020 provided in their OP, I see HAL's sig and my eyes sort of glaze over. No offense to him, nice guy and good content editor, and hopefully he returns to the project soon, but I just find it visually jarring. Damn, I'm terrible. El_C 03:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It is always either amusing or disconcerting to see such highly experienced editors stray so far from the substance of the matter being discussed. Is that the norm these days? Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

i mean, have you read the responses on long anis? 晚安 (トークページ) 06:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: for my part at least, notwithstanding the undoubtedly excessive levity (though hopefully not too tone deaf), I hope you know that I always give serious comments, from you or anyone, serious consideration. El_C 13:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Woah, this case is really testing the breaking point of WP:CANVASS. See my list of evidence: Post at reddit of QRep2020 got partially banned; and r/EnoughMuskSpam where the pinned comment is featuring Criticism of Tesla, Inc. article. All I can say (as an editor mainly edit about SpaceX articles) that both User:Stonkaments and User:QRep2020 has been civil to me, and I think they are either from the most to least likely: simply growing obsessive at the topic, an activist, or a SPI/LTA. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this your first day at ANI? ;-) Levivich 19:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a reasonable compromise is QRep2020 agrees that no more than 50% of their meaningful edits will be on Musk related topics. By meaningful I mean things other than minor edits/contributions/spelling corrections etc. My concern here is that, so long as the editor stays within the rules, I don't see a clear issue with an editor having only a narrow interest. It's OK to argue that some content is DUE etc so long as an editor is also willing to accept when consensus doesn't go their way.

Springee (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This block is warranted. There's a pretty big difference between "having only a narrow interest" and fixating on adding negative information. The latter falls into WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE. Honestly I think QRep2020 is nice enough, but the editing behavior is clearly problematic. It has been problematic since COIN, and in fact has only gotten worse. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence there is actually a COI? Can you point to edits you think are over the line? Springee (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems that they listed a few here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_167#QRep2020. Personally, I am not convinced, and giving QRep another chance and see how it goes would be much better (that however does not mean that QRep is free of problems, it is best left to others to decide). However, Elephanthunter have very strong evidences of canvassing outside of Wikipedia in Reddit ([134], [135], [136], search result of QRep2020 on Reddit). In fact, a boomerang may apply here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing all of that out. QRep2020 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: Can you explain your last two sentences with a bit more detail? BOOMERANG against who, for what? --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Three questions:

1. The COI thread linked above resulted in no consensus and was from over a year ago. Does anyone have any new evidence of COI to present?
2. Being an SPA is not against policy. Adding negative information to articles is also not against policy. Can anybody post three diffs of "bad" edits by QRep2020? Because I'm not seeing the problem here, other than someone editing a lot about a particular topic, which isn't unusual at all.
3. Are we within WP:OUTING policy to link any Wikipedia editors to those Reddit threads about QRep2020? Because if so, that's a real problem that needs to be addressed. And if not, then it should go to arbcom via private evidence rather than be raised here on-wiki at ANI. Levivich 19:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• For what it's worth: A quick review of that WWW site indicates that people are not attempting to attach an identity or any personal information to the Wikipedia account, and are referring to it by the account name. Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment and Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment do apply, and the account-holder has said "Look, I got heated these past few days because I discovered people talking about me offfsite.", though, so I think that people should be cautious about this. I think that great caution should also be exercised in trying to link the Reddit accounts to Wikipedia accounts, to the extent of not doing it, not least because it appears that the Reddit accounts are just trying to take credit for what someone else did. "We" did this? There's no evidence there of their actually doing anything. It wouldn't be the first time in the history of the world that people have indulged in empty bragging. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Private evidence submitted to Arb. Schierbecker (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Mfikriansori

On Republic of Artsakh: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1083792110

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1083791916

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1083777382

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1083771809

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1083722596

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1083611848

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1076808447

on Dimdim Castle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimdim_Castle&oldid=1083784705

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimdim_Castle&oldid=1083788546

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimdim_Castle&oldid=1083789022

Mfikriansori is conducting pro Azerbaycan edits, putting Azeri name to Kurdish castles in Iran, and doing own research on Armenain separarist region in Caucasus.

He is now banned for all deleting of edits, but i want to make the others aware of his actions thank you.

Əfşar Əliyev (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked both editors for 24 hours for both violating 3RR. Some of their back and forth on talk pages also crosses the line into personal attacks. I'm hoping that the 24 hour block will allow for a cool off and will be enough to remind the editors in question that we take edit warring and personal attacks seriously, but if there's further disruption this can be revisited. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Rosguill- Not to sound pessimistic, however, I believe we are dealing with a larger issue then just a WP:EW violation here. Based on Mfikriansori's talk page, the user has been warned multiple times (by multiple editors) for pushing what may be a POV agenda (or at the very least, highly disruptive edits). Mfikriansori has made hateful/WP:RUDE remarks towards myself and their editing tactics are generally not helpful nor conducive to building this encyclopedia. The user has been warned multiple times (within the past few days alone) of Wikipedia's ethos and several editors have provided policy guidelines for reference. Despite multiple attempts to engage constructively, the user has yet to comprehend- or apply- any advice given. Editors ZaniGiovanni, El_C, Laurel Lodged, Semsûrî, CMD, LouisAragon, HistoryofIran, Kevo327, and myself have either had to revert their disruptive edits, provide talk page warnings, or have been engaged in various discussions (on multiple article talk pages) warning/advising the user. For those reasons, it seems doubtful Mfikriansori is here to genuinely WP:BUILD this encyclopedia and this case should probably be re-examined with greater scrutiny. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I actually didn't respond based on the case being filed here, but rather because I was watching Republic of Artsakh and saw the dispute unfold, so my action shouldn't preclude any actual investigation of the case as filed here. I should have been more clear about that in my first comment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I see, no worries. Thank you Rosguill for taking swift action following the edit war on Republic of Artsakh. I believe these actions further confirm Mfikriansori has been engaged in disruptive editing on multiple fronts. I will leave my above noted concerns for Admins to review/consider. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Ugh, oldids instead of diffs, my one weakness. Erm, anyway, I think there's ethno-national disruption on the part of both users that's worthy of an indef (or a WP:TBAN if not acutely WP:SPA'yyy), but I suppose this bought us a day, so let's have cake. El_C 02:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

El_C I’d support a tban or indef of both users. Mfikriansori didn’t show much change even after the warning, and the other user seems to be as disruptive. I don’t see how both of them are a net benefit to the project. Especially given how much disruption AA sees weekly if not daily. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Since last warning (19 April 2022) posted on my talk page, I tried to change, to learn and understand more, and avoid any edit war. You can see it through my contribution at [[137]]. I ceased my activities like removing Armenian name, deliberately adding Azerbaijani/Turkic name without consensus, or adding template. For the lattest, it is not improving. Instead I wrote a new subsection in the section of Artsakh's current status, I added new content to the demography of Georgia and Armenia, and providing sources to Hadrut Province which later reverted because seen again as not an improvement and POV push.

My latest edit war was with Əfşar Əliyev, not only in Artsakh's article which led to my blockage, but Dimdim Castle and Armenian mouflon. I feel justified because he clearly edited based on his hatred towards Azerbaijan. Just checked the revision history of those respective article + the reason why he did it like "whu are you abi ne yapıyorsun piç" whenhe reverted Justlettersandnumbers's contribution to the Armenian mouflon.

People changed and I vow to be better and to contribute positively to this free encyclopedia. Mfikriansori (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Archives908, first of all, I apologize my well-known harsh and rude remarks on you and several other experienced editors. I know it was wrong, but at that time I thought and perceived not only you, but also ZaniGiovanni, El_C, Laurel Lodged, CMD, LouisAragon, HistoryofIran, Kevo327 as pro-Armenian editors, and I placed myself as pro-Azerbaijani editor to balance the weight, which according to my thought that time as bias towards favoring Armenia.

I fully acknowledge my previous mistakes and misconducts. Everyone can watch that I have been warned mutliple times through my talk page. One person asked why I didn't reply almost at all? I explained to him that my English is not that good because English is not my mother tongue, and I thought I have been ganged up when I upholded different view.

Since last warning on 19 April and my encountered with Əfşar Əliyev which is clearly anti-Azerbaijan looked at his edits, I began to realise that my edits, eventhough I think I am right and can freely do it, maybe not accepted by some others, as I as well do not accept Əfşar Əliyev's edit. You or other guys can see from 18:59, 19 April 2022 onwards, except for edit-war by reverting Əfşar Əliyev's edit, generally I avoided conflict and focuse on adding or expanding content. Eventhough my edits on current status of Artsakh was reverted because it's perceived as disruptive.

I have been watching this section since my blockage and just now get a bit free to write my self-defense and justification.

1. Since last warning, I am aware that other editors might be report me and I can be blocked soon, which I will lost one of my privilege (to join this wikipedia environment/society, which I started from Indonesian Wikipedia), so I ceased my disruptive activity and try to learn and understand various policies, specially about consensus, which honestly I don't know exist.
2. As other suggested, I refrained from adding template as usual I did to many pages, because instead of doing that, it is better for me to add an actual work/works and cite them, then replaced completely. You can look them at [[138]], which according to Archives908, is not an improvement hence got reverted.
3. I also read several documents and online source, then when I saw something valuable, I added them to enrich the content. One example is the number of Jews and Germans in Georgia, specially in 1922, you guys can see it here [[139]], or adding specific number of Azerbaijani in Armenia in 1922 and work I cite, see it here [[140]]
4. Archives908 falsely mentioned that Semsûrî provide talk page warnings, or have been engaged in various discussions (on multiple article talk pages) warning/advising the user. However, as far as I am concerned, my interaction with Semsûrî is limited to the Dimdim Castle case. He never engaged with me in discussion, neither he provided talk page warnings like you did. Semsûrî also just reverted my edit once on that article, then after read his reasoning, I stop to edit the article anymore. My (likely) undisruptive edit on Dimdim Castle could be seen here [[141]].

Then, this whole problem started after I began to revert Əfşar Əliyev's edit. Some of them is very serious and he didn't even shy to show his discriminatory view. You guys can look at [[142]]. He also accused me of using what he said as an IP from Baku, like this [[143]].

I know edit war needs to be avoided at all cost. But, I really couldn't stand with Əfşar's edit, the same way other editors couldn't with my stubornness shown by my edits prior to 19 April 2022. Last but not least, from now on, I will keep learning and contribute positively in order to build this beloved free encylopedia together. Thank you . Mfikriansori (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

You realize you just admitted to being a WP:SPA, right? Archives908 (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't realised it at all. Because other than this Armenia-Azerbaijan topic, I also edited on other topics. By the way, I am waiting for your response on Hadrut Province and Mugham talk page. Mfikriansori (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you don't even realize you just admitted to editing because you sought to advance a "pro-Azeri" agenda is very worrisome. One of Wikipedia's basic tenants is not to pursue any personal agenda (WP:BASICS) and you have been warned about this several times now. Your confession and subsequent denial of what that implies leads me to believe that you are here to provide WP:WEIGHT on articles based on your confessed agenda. Your sudden outpour of apologies will not fool the Admins. Archives908 (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"Your sudden outpour of apologies will not fool the Admins." wow, very strong message, I truly like it. I am here not to fool anyone, because after realising I was wrong, I didn't continue to do so, and now, I don't . As I said with my apology and justification, I can prove that I am not breaking any Wikipedia's policy or rule. I am changed, and as proven, people could see through what I did here [[144]].

Anyway, your response on Hadrut Province and Mugham talk page is waited, because you are the one who always SAID we need to seek consensus BEFORE any change could be made. Go on and say something there.

Lastly, you also accused me of using an IP (89.219.167.14) to push similar disruptive edits, which is unproven and hillarious. When I respond to them, you suddenly quiet. Mfikriansori (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

You need to stop harassing editors. Wikipedia is a voluntary project, editors are not forced to edit. Please stop demanding that I reply to your messages within a time frame that only you deem appropriate. Your actions confirm that you are still ignoring Wikipedia's basic ethos, despite countless warnings. Several editors have provided you with policy guidelines recently, have you read them? I will leave a few more for your review (WP:HA, WP:BUSY). In terms of the IP (89.219.167.14) suspicions...it was actually Əfşar Əliyev that brought up your possible connection to it. And while that user is now blocked for inappropriate behaviour, I do find it odd that the IP in question targeted similar articles you did during your 24hr block. The IP also used similar vocabulary and editing tactics to your own. And now that your block is over, the IP has gone silent. Coincidence? Let's take a look at Battle of Nakhchivan (1406), you, 89.219.167.14 and 89.219.166.70 all seem to be fixated on "adding sources" to it within the same time frame (April 18-22). Let me guess, just another coincidence, right? Archives908 (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

For awhile after my block is over, I never harass any editors as far as I am concerned. But, I don't know if my words hurt you, because it's written in normal manner, not to threaten.

I asked you because suddenly after reverting my edits and created a section in the talk page titled "Recent disruption" or something like that, I replied yours and at the same time created another section, you are gone and no response from you at all. I feel cornered as apparently, no matter how hard I tried to be better and contribute positively unlike before, it is still wrong. I did once again is wrong.

Yes, I am slowly-reading policies other editors reminded.

Keep guessing, please. 89.219.166.70's lonely edit was on 05:14, 18 April 2022, which unlike your accusation, doesn't fall within the 24 hours of my block. My block started on 19:04, 20 April 2022, and 89.219.167.14's three edits, specifically on Battle of Nakhchivan (1406) started from 16:55 till 16:56. Why should I use them if I wasn't being block? My only IPs are both my laptop and handphone. If you are still suspicious, we can ask the authority to investigate my IP, those two IPs, and whether I was the person behind them or not. It should not be hard.

Okay, I think we need to look at what 89.219.166.70 contributed to the Battle of Nakhchivan (1406), can be seen here [[145]]. Then 89.219.167.14's edits, here [[146]], [[147]], and [[148]]. Now, take a look at what citation I added to the very same article, here [[149]], [[150]], and here [[151]]. Please, compare those of mine, with those of them (two IPs).

Last from me, I do not appreciate this words -> "all seem to be fixated on "adding sources" to it within the same time frame (April 18-22). Let me guess, just another coincidence, right?". Regarding why my edit is fixated on adding source, couldn't you see that Battle of Nakhchivan (1406) was unreferenced at all and on the brink of deletion. No one seems to care to find the resource and add it, then I did it. I did simply because THE ARTICLE NEEDED THAT. Guess what, I did find the article yesterday (22 April 2022, Indonesian Time UTC+7) through Wikipedia:WikiProject Azerbaijan when I saw Battle of Nakhchivan (1406) on Proposed deletion by Kevo327 on 18 Apr 2022. I thought, why not, I could give a try and looked for resources needed by the article, then after that, added it there. I don't think my edits are disruptive, not an improvement, or inappropriate.

My hobby to add new sources is well known in Indonesian Wikipedia. One of them is attached here [Al Ihsan Balikpapan: Riwayat revisi]. I rescued that mosque article from speed deletion by adding appropriate sources.

Good night, thank you. Mfikriansori (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

if you think Indonesian and I are equal then ben us. i would like to get banned if it means Indonesian gets benned too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Əfşar Əliyev (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

And this strays too far into racial bigotry for my liking. Canterbury Tail talk 19:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@El C: has gone ahead and blocked indefinitely with no TPA per the above comment on the grounds that it's bigotry. To be honest, my initial read of Əfşar's comment is that "Indonesian" was an autocorrect "fix" of "Mfikriansori", as I don't think there's been any reason to believe that they were Indonesian or that Indonesia has any relevance to this whatsoever. That having been said, this is clear battleground attitude and an indef block was probably coming down the line anyway... _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure from User:Mfikriansori's userpage they're Indonesian, it translates as "Indonesian Wikipedia User". Canterbury Tail talk 20:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

...never mind then. I am once again amazed by people's ability and willingness to shoot themselves in the foot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Mfikriansori is using an IP (89.219.167.14) to push similar disruptive edits on the same articles targeted prior to their 24hr block. I agree with ZaniGiovanni that this user has ignored all warnings and is evidently here to push an agenda. An indef is justifiable at this point. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any proof Archives908 that I use that IP to push similar disruptive edits?

However, your reversion of my edits on Mugham article is considered as double-standard and for me, disruptive. You asked me to seek consensus where I merely changed Shushi to Shusha, which previously without reaching any consensus Əfşar Əliyev edit it from Shusha to Shushi to fit his narrative view that Azerbaijan is fake or doesn't exist. But you which championed consensus never looked into what Əfşar Əliyev's did with the very same page. Mfikriansori (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Canterbury Tail, yes I am from Indonesia. Before Əfşar Əliyev, I also received condemnation for being an Indonesian but engaged in edit/edit war of Armenia-Azerbaijan topics from Indonesian Destroyer on 04:26, 3 March 2022. Mfikriansori (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Odd behavior and probable sockpuppetry - CIR or LTA?

For a couple of months now, there has been editing from a wide array of IPs and at least three registered accounts that ranges from puzzling to clearly disruptive. (I have compiled a list of the IPs and a bit of detail on editing patterns here.) List of Ford vehicles has been a favorite target; the history is filled with disruption from what is likely the same person.

• CornyTheEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• OffifialEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ObjectAnimator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

CornyTheEditor has been on WP since August 2021 and claimed to "Be Retiring This User For Good" and the OffifialEditor account subsequently commenced editing, including re-adding the same nonsense that the IPs and previous account were. ObjectAnimator's earliest activity included edits to CornyTheEditor's sandbox, just days after the latter began editing. Then, stopped editing for months, until re-starting just after OffifialEditor stopped.

One IP is apparently static and is currently under a block for making edits like adding nonsensical car assembly locations. ObjectAnimator is doing the same but usually self-reverts.

Should I open an SPI for this? I didn't want to go there straight away since this is a bit on the confusing side.

In any case, ObjectAnimator is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia as nearly all edits are self-reverted vandalism. OffifialEditor is mostly here to do... something on that user talk page, and CornyTheEditor's most recent activity was to add {{pp-protected}} on random articles in response to List of Ford vehicles being semi-protected after a spate of IP vandalism; even without the likely sockpuppetry, I think all could be blocked for either CIR or NOTHERE reasons.

I can provide more detail if needed but I don't want to create an even bigger wall of text here if not entirely necessary. --Sable232 (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Sable232: Provide more details. Gimmie everything you got. I have a hunch this could be an SPI and CIR editor, but I need more info on this to confirm my hunch before I start marshaling the fleet as it were. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• I agree that the editing is very fishy, so I took a look. CornyTheEditor is DavidWittas evading their block; OffifialEditor and ObjectAnimator are  Confirmed to one another; they might very well be DavidWittas/Corny, or they might be someone else, but they're both heavily editing out of an IP that is currently blocked for the same kind of disruptive editing so I'm going to block them as well. Feel free to present any more evidence, if there are more accounts involved (but I didn't see any in the checks I made). Girth Summit _(blether) 14:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, based on this which I just noticed, it's clear that it is in fact all the same person. I think I got all the accounts; if IPs keep doing the same stuff, let us know. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Girth Summit: Thank you. I had a gut feeling that this wasn't the editor's first time - I guess I was right. Interesting how the area of interest changed from the original account to the socks, but it should be easy enough to identify new ones going forward. --Sable232 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hippo43

In short, Hippo43 is baselessly accusing me of dishonesty and is refusing to stop. I thus request that he be told to stop.

In more detail, Hippo43 and I strongly disagree on whether certain content should be added to the 'College of Policing' page. The dispute itself probably isn't relevant. The point is that I believe certain material should be added to the page, whereas he does not. I feel he has not been dicussing the matter properly and not listening to me. He maybe feels the same about me (although I would consider him wrong about that).

The point is that I am trying to listen to him and have a reasoned discussion. Hippo43, by contrast, is derailing the discussion by persistently (and baselessly) accusing me of dishonesty. Attempts to get him to stop have failed. Thus, I now request that someone tell him to stop.

This is the relevant exchange:

• [152] - I summarise what I consider the general view of the RFC to be thus far
• [153] - Hippo43 accuses me of 'ignoring objections already made'. I do not consider this comment inappropriate per se - merely factually inaccurate
• [154] - I explain why I think Hippo43's accusation factually inaccurate
• [155] - Hippo43 repeats his factually inaccurate accusation (again, I do not consider this comment crosses the line in principle)
• [156] - I again rebut that accusation
• [157] - Hippo43 now accuses me of dishonesty. Furthermore, he does this as a bare assertion without justification or reasoning. I say this is where he first crosses the line
• [158] - I refute this and try to move the discussion on
• [159] - Hippo43 again makes a second bare assertion of dishonesty

Now, you will see that, in that discussion, I make reference to 'substantive' comment made by Hippo43. By this I mean that, after Hippo43 accuses me of 'ignoring objections already made' he then posts the following substantive criticism of the content under discussion: [160]. I respond to that criticism here: [161]. Please note that my response is made at 18:58, and that Hippo43 makes his second bare assertion of dishonesty at 21:03, after that response. Thus, Hippo43 has returned to the page, ignored the substantive debate on the actual issues, accused me of dishonesty, and gone away again.

I therefore request that Hippo43 is told such conduct - namely baselessly accusing others of dishonesty (especially while ignoring the real debate) - is not helpful or constructive, and that he should cease this behaviour. Telanian7790 (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Telanian7790 has been dishonest in both his editing and talk page contributions. I don't have the time or patience to walk anyone through all the long-winded guff he has written, but it is very clear if anyone wants to read it all. // Hippo43 (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

There's a saying in England "The pot is calling the kettle black". If you look at the recent history of College of Policing you'll see that it was fully protected a week ago because of Telanian7790's edit-warring behaviour. Look also at the talk page history, even before the block and you'll see that his/her behaviour included personal attacks and clear assertions of lack of good faith on the part of other editors. Telanian7790 was told by the protecting admin to create an RFC, which was produced. However, the RFC was not just about the content that Telanian7790 wanted to add, it was also about Telanian7790's dislike of Hippo43's involvement in the article and to a certain extent my own. I repeatedly requested that Telanian7790 rewrite the RFC to be just about the proposed content and not about the history of how that point in history was reached, but he/she refused. I then went back to the original protecting admin (@El C), who closed the RFC and then re-wrote it. Fast forward a few days and all is reasonably quiet until Hippo43 responds to the RFC. At that point "all hell breaks" loose and Telanian7790 is back to the same personal attacks an accusations of lack of good faith. Telanian7790 is not an editor that likes to be disagreed with and the huge amount of fuss created in this one article seems disproportionate to me to the importance/relevance of small bit of content in question. I don't think it's about content any more. Telanian7790 is simply spoiling for a fight. I assert that it is Telanian7790 who is the tendentious and disruptive editor and at the very least a simple topic ban on this article would stop that behaviour in this instance. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hippo43 and 10mmsocket accuse me of a lot of things: dishonesty (again), personal attacks, clear assertions of lack of good faith and edit-warring. But they provide no evidence to support these accusations. If I have behaved as alleged, why do they not provide links (as I have done) showing me acting as alleged. I say the answer is that they can't. Because I have not. Furthermore, since I am specifically accused of edit-warring, I say that it is actually Hippo43 who has been edit-warring. Not me. But I don't simply assert that - I can show you that. As follows:

* [162] - This is the start of the current issue. Hippo43 removes from the page the material that is now under debate (after the page had been stable for about a month).

* [163] - a third party editor reverses the removal per the previous talk page discussion and invites Hippo43 to start a RFC

* [164] - Hippo43 re-removes the material. Note that at this point, he is now violating BRD.

* [165] - I restore the material, noting the BRD violation, and I invite Hippo43 to discuss on the talk page

* [166] - I post on the talk page, noting that I have restored the material per PRD and invite Hippo43 again to discuss there

* [167] - Hippo43 re-re-removes the material

* [168] - I restore one final time, pointing out the BRD violation and the lack of discussion - and I again invite people to discuss

* [169] - On the talk page, I again complain about the removal of the material in violation of BRD and the fact that Hippo (and 10mmsocket) do not appear to be coming to the talk page and actually discussing it

* [170] - 10mmsocket now removes the material from the page

* [171] - I post on the talk page, giving up trying to restore the material (as I consider it clear that Hippo and 10mmsocket will not respect BRD) and I invite those editors to discuss what it is that they dislike about the material itself

I say that simple exchange shows you exactly what is going on. I am the one who has actually been trying to engage in discussion and ensure that the rules are followed. It is the other side that has been very reluctant to discuss and follow the rules. I say again, if I am the one who has been dishonest/edit-warring etc, it should be easy to provide links proving it. The fact that none have so far been provided says everything.

Telanian7790 (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Briefly, one further point. 10mmsocket specifically says he following: "Look also at the talk page history, even before the block and you'll see that his/her behaviour included personal attacks and clear assertions of lack of good faith on the part of other editors." Here, he is trying to re-open an issue that has already been decided. 10mmsocket made a previous complaint on this page on those grounds. However, that complaint was (correctly) rejected by administrator El_C as follows: [172].Telanian7790 (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The talkpage of that article is an unreadable disaster, largely (as far as I can tell) because of your bludgeoning the discussions taking place there. I'd suggest both of you just step back and let other people have a say there. An outside editor has started an RfC, give it some space. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl and bot-like editing

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

---

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

---

BrownHairedGirl has started the task of adding {{Use dmy dates}} to thousands of articles, a template that for the vast majority of them results in no change at all in the visible page.

This was brought up with her at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Use dmy dates. I've asked her to pass that through WP:BRFA, but she apparently doesn't wan to do it. I've asked her to stop several times, each time she replied that she'd explain in the morning, but instead went back to making those bot-like edits. – Uanfala (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I will explain in the morning, as I have promised to Uanfala 3 times already. I am not sure what part of that is unclear.

(I have still had enough brain energy to process some already-set-up some mechanical tasks, but not to write a long explanation).

Unfala misunderstands the purpose of {{Use dmy dates}}; its primary purpose is to guide editors (and maybe some tools) on which style of date to use. Its secondary purpose is to alter the display of dates in citation templates.

I am going to bed now. Good night. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, if you want to pause your response, that's fine, but in the meantime, you should in turn also pause any of the related mass-edit tasks that are being contested. Thanks. El_C 02:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe BHG is in Ireland where it's ~ 3:30 in the morning. I'm not going to speak for her but I assume she meant morning waking hours, not technical morning hours. I have been involved in one of the threads on her Talk about a DMY-adjacent issue and she's been responsive. While it would be nice to be able to filter out these edits (and other technical fixes from a number of editors who work through backlogs), the inability to do so is a Wikipedia technical issue not a BHG issue. Star Mississippi 02:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Apart from the question of whether these edits are needed or not, my problems are that she's effectively running a bot without approval (per WP:MEATBOT) and that she simply keeps ploughing on after each time she's asked to please stop. – Uanfala (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. Many other editors commented on these edits. Nobody else asked me to stop, and several were explicitly supportive.

Uanfala took up lots of my time pursuing their own false interpretation of the purpose of {{Use dmy dates}}. Maybe I should have been more blunt and told them go off and seek a consensus for their view, but I was trying to be friendly.

Anyway, when Uanfala failed to persuade me of their odd view about {{Use dmy dates}}, they then turned to demanding that I stop. The only editor to do after I have been doing this for several days. They demanded a preview of the explanation I was going write in the morning, and even went so far as to explicitly assume bad faith, at 01:48[173] You don't want to apply for bot approval because you expect people would point out WP:COSMETIC and you'd get refused?. Nasty.

I dunno why Uanfala wouldn't wait until the morning for the explanation I promised, but there was an unpleasant tone to their whole approach -- in complete contrast to everyone else who discussed this work.

And now I am going to be feeling stressed at a time of day when I should be winding down, because I will probably have to spend a lot of the morning replying to this drama, knowing that it will probably have piled up overnight without my input. Sigh.

Now, back to bed. Maybe this time I will sleep. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

their own false interpretation – this apparently refers to my observation that date-formatting templates don't do much for articles that don't have dates to be formatted. – Uanfala (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This is getting very wearing. It would be a great help to everyone if Uanfala would finally go and actually read Template:Use dmy dates, to disabuse themself of the false assumptions that a) the primary purpose of {{Use dmy dates}} is to alter the format, and/or b) that a stub article which currently has no date will never have any dates and therefore never need this template.

I quote from Template:Use dmy dates:

The template is useful to the editors to quickly know which date format is to be used when adding new dates into an article. It also facilitates article maintenance by enabling bots to recognise use of this format, and by adding the article to the hidden category Use dmy dates.
Use of this template is part of a continuing effort to monitor the date formats used in articles, to assist in maintaining consistent formatting within an article.

The whole raison d'etre of a WP:STUB article is that it should be expanded. This template helps its development, albeit in a small way.

If Uanfala (or any other editor) wishes to amend the guidance on the use of the template to say "DO NOT USE THIS TEMPLATE UNLESS THE ARTICLE ALREADY HAS DATES", then they should seek a consensus for that change, rather than unilaterally demanding I adopt their view. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Come on, this wasn't me coming out of the blue and being blunt for no reason. Several people had already come to you with concerns (like watchlist flooding): see this thread from a week ago (where, incidentally, there was also a link to a proposal for almost exactly the same task you were now running, which met with strong opposition). And then this thread, and this one and finally this one. If you keep going with something that people have kept very gently and politely raising objections to, then you shouldn't be surprised at the moment when you're finally just asked to stop. And absolutely none of that would have happened in the fist place if you hadn't decided to go about your task in a way that breaks the bot policy. – Uanfala (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. Until Uanafla got stuck in on their own personal preference for not using the template unless it alters the display, the previous concerns were about watchlist flooding, rather than about the substance.

The rejected proposal to which Unanfala refers (at WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive_161#Bot_task_for_adding_MDY_tags_to_U.S.-related_articles) was drawn to my attention by @Sdkb. That proposal was rejected mostly because of concerns about scope.

I have a lot of previous experience of handling those scope issues, through WikiProject tagging, which I first did back in late 2007 (see WP:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot). After 15 years, I have confidence in my ability to achieve a high level of accuracy in assessing these national ties at scale, and my additions of {{Use dmy dates}} have borne that out with a very low false positive rate.

It is frustrating to find that this non-problem is being used by Uanfala as another stick to beat me with. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Uanfala and BrownHairedGirl: now that you both have given your respective summaries, in the spirit of de-escalation maybe take a breather from this for a short while and let others review? And BrownHairedGirl, by all means, sleep. Nothing major is going to happen while you do, so do yourself that kindness. El_C 04:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, @El C. I will try again to sleep. But this drama-at-bedtime thing doesn't make sleep come easy. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hope you're still able to get a good night sleep, BHG. Sweet dreams. El_C 04:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there does not appear to have been a need to bring this here to begin with. Let's please jettison it elsewhere. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 06:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• As one of the handful of editors who have come to BHG's talk page to discuss this project, let me quote what I said: "Hallo BHG, I've got no complaints about your addition of the DMY dates template to my article creations, a lot of which are UK-based, but, belatedly, I wonder if you know any easy way that I can hide your edits (while this project continues), or your edits with that particular edit summary, from my watch list?". So I, for one, was explicitly not "Raising objections". The temporary watch-list bloat is a minor irritation, worth tolerating for a permanent improvement to those articles. But improving the functionality of the Watchlist filtering would be a help, to enable chosen edit summaries to be excluded. PamD 05:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'm a UK-based editor with (just checked) 1,862 pages on my watchlist. I reckon more than 80% of these are UK-related articles so over the past few days I've seen a lot of BHG edits. As every single one is adding something positive to articles I have zero objection to the contributions. I have done a few similar edits myself - for example modifying almost every single Scottish railway station article to change the operator from Abellio ScotRail to ScotRail - sometimes this sort of action is needed/warranted. I'm not an admin, I'm just a regular editor who happened to be passing after commenting on another ANI entry. --10mmsocket (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• What's the issue here? The articles all look appropriate to have such a template. I wish someone would add {{Use mdy dates}} to all the Canadian articles - because I can't be bothered to put dates in references in any consistent format - and don't notice the template is missing until I see 3 different date formats in the references. Nfitz (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Seems to be reasonable, adding it to those articles that use day-month-year date format. scope_creep^Talk 07:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• BHG's edits have been flooding my watch list as of late. It's annoying. But what's the problem? Uncontroversial and helpful edits being done at a rapid pace? Or that BHG ignored the OP's requests to stop making uncontroversial and helpful edits at a rapid pace? This seems like a fat juicy nothing burger. Do continue to annoy us, BHG. Please and thanks. – ².O.^Boxing 08:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• I have seen about a dozen of these DMY edits in my watchlist and I must say how much I appreciate them and it reminded me to add it to a few articles that I worked on. In response to this thread I keep on thinking that a bot that looks at the WikiProjects on the talk page for an article and then sets the DMY on the page would be interesting as would a bunch of similar logic applied to a bot. Thanks again BHG. Gusfriend (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• @Uanfala: I am trying to understand what the actual issue is that warranted a discussion at the incident noticeboard? What is the specific concern? AusLondonder (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Sneaky forum-shopping by Uanafla

Having pestered me on my talk for hours about this issue, Uanfala (talk · contribs) came here to complain about my additions of {{Use dmy dates}}. That discussion above was closed at closed at 09:27[174] by @Blablubbs as clear consensus that no actionable policy violation has occurred here.

However, Uanfala has WP:FORUMSHOPped this issue to at least two other venues (WT:BOTPOL) and WT:DATESPROJ.

In both cases Uanfala has failed to notify me, either by ping or by message. I became aware of this only because another editor pinged me from the discussion at WT:DATESPROJ, causing me to check Uanfala's contribs.

This sort of forum-shopping is disruptive and timewasting. The failure to notify me after 9 posts on my user talk and this ANI thread is thoroughly sneaky. It at best highly anti-collaborative, and at worst it would not be out of place in some sort of campaign of attrition against me.

Timeline:

• [175] 14:40, 20 April 2022‎: Uanfala makes the first of 9 posts to my user talk about {{Use dmy dates}}
• [176] 01:13, 21 April 2022: Uanfala opens at WT:DATESPROJ#Should_all_articles_have_a_dmy/mdy_template? a new discusion about the issue they had raise on my talk, without notifying me.
• [177]: 1:55, 21 April 2022: Uanfala opens ANI complaint about my additions of {{Use dmy dates}}. There is no mention of the parallel discussion which Uanfala had opened at WT:DATESPROJ
• [178] 01:57, 21 April 2022: Uanfala notifies me of the ANI thread
• [179] 09:27, 21 April 2022: the ANI discusion of Uanfalas's complaint is closed by @Blablubbs as clear consensus that no actionable policy violation has occurred here.
  Note that there is still no notification to me of that WT:DATESPROJ discusion: not at the ANI discussion above, not at my talk, and not at WT:DATESPROJ
• [180] 12:25, 21 April 2022: at WT:DATESPROJ, Uanfala unambiguously refers to my editing, but without naming me or pinging me ... and sneakily omits to mention that they had made an ANI complaint which had been rejected
• [181] 12:19, 21 April 2022: Uanfala opens a 4th discussion about the same issue, at WT:BOTPOL#Is_MEATBOT_not_relevant_any_more?. Again, no notification to me, and no mention that they had made an ANI complaint which had been rejected

Uanfala's drama wasted several hours of my time last night, and wrecked my sleep. I hoped that today, with the ANI thread closed, it was all over ... but instead I find it being sneakily forum-shopped to at least two other venues. So I have had to waste another hour documenting this latest mischief.

And two other discussion pages have been disrupted by Uanfala's forum-shopping, with editors at both venues not being notified that Uanfala's complaint had already been rejected.

I want to get back to work and catch up on sleep, rather than dealing with this disruption. Please can some admin make this stop? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The WT:DATESPROJ thread is about a content question ("Should all articles have a dmy/mdy template?"). The ANI discussion above was about a conduct issue. I think it's appropriate to discuss these at separate venues. Colin M (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Colin M: I appreciate that distinction. But the various discussions are closely-related, so should have been cross-notified. Per WP:FORUMSHOP: "it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question".

In particular, it was invidious of Uanfala to both pester me on my talk and create an ANI drama, but not notify me that they were starting substantive discussions elsewhere on the issues involved. That was sneaky.

It was also disruptive not to notify participants in those other discussions that Uanfala had raised the same issues in other recent discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

That may be the case, for the DATESPROJ post. But the BOTPOL post was clearly focussed on an individual from the opening. It was not, by any means, a neutral question regarding bots or bot policy in isolation. It is, if nothing else, common courtesy to notify an editor when one discusses them at a noticeboard. SN54129 18:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: I closed the WT:BOTPOL discussion, as it seems to be a fork of this dispute. That closure is not an endorsement of any specific edits or edit patterns, or an endorsement that the prior ANI discussion that closed in 8 hours represents a "clear consensus", nor that the suggested workaround there is effective -- just that spilling over to WT:BOTPOL at this point isn't the right place for that dispute. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for closing that, @Xaosflux.

When I went to read your close, I spotted that Uanfala's opening post asserts that the issues even ended up at ANI. That use of the passive voice is an obfuscation technique to avoid acknowledging that Uanfala had themself opened that ANI discussion ... which would have revealed the forum-shopping.

Sadly, that obfuscation to avoid transparency is one of the forms of WP:GAMING which usually goes unsanctioned, while an editor who responds harshly to the misconduct will be pounced upon for being "uncivil".

Is it too much to hope that this occasion might be an exception to the pattern of giving a free pass to this sort of conduct? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl I try to avoid ANI stuff, I'm usually better elsewhere. I don't like the pretty obvious forum shopping, but I'm not going to hand out a block for it. I have certainly not read all of the components of this, but unless there was a lot more elsewhere (which there very well may be), I don't think the very short ANI thread above was open long enough to fully work through dispute resolution. Thinking of this from only a WP:BAG perspective, I do think that many of your recent edits would be better made with a bot flag (they are repetitive, and they should not require the same scrutiny that other edits do) - but if a community consensus has emerged that it is better that they aren't then so be it -- I don't have time to jump in to that argument right now. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I too much prefer to avoid ANI stuff. But having been brought here and to several other places, the mischief of the original complainant has been highly disruptive.

I too would prefer that these edits were done as a bot job, but the dysfunctional bureaucracy of BAG has made that unfeasible.

I am not going offer any further detail here of how I reached that conclusion, because I don't have the energy for the drama. But if you would like a private discussion about it, then please email me. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I get it, I'm only trying to act in a de-drama mode right now :) — xaosflux ^Talk 23:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I get that too

But since the multi-venue drama has brought us here, I hope that this doesn't close without at least an admonition to Uanfala to desist from sneaky forum-shopping. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I like the shift in tone in this conversation :) I even think that this thread may inspire me to stop doing any more "mischief" or other "sneaky" stuff and instead switch to something that the community would find more agreeable, like running a rogue bot of my own. – Uanfala (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Uanfala here. When starting a discussion of a general question, I don't think it's good practice to frame it in a way that invites spillover from ANI drama. Was the post at the bot policy page inappropriate? Yes, I started it because I was puzzled by the opinions in the previous ANI thread, which seemed to be at variance with what I thought were the community expectations around mass edits. If an editor is to use a script to make 10,000 mainspace edits a day over a long period – so my thinking went – then they need to 1) make sure there's solid community consensus for the actions, and 2) adopt either a throttle or a bot flag so that the process doesn't wreak havoc on people's watchlists. Apparently I was wrong. I don't think I'm any nearer to understanding those elusive community expectations now, but I'm not interested in pursuing this question any further given the drama that it generates. – Uanfala (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sigh. Uanfala did frame it in a way that invites spillover from ANI drama, by making their first sentence all about the ANI issue ... but Uanfala accepts no responsibility for having done so, and no responsibility for their failure to notify. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Uanfala: Stop it. Now. Drop the WP:STICK. I don't care why you have a vendetta against BHG. You're being disruptive and trying to cause a nuisance for no good cause.

  @BrownHairedGirl: Admonishment has been given, it's not going to become a block, time for you to move on too. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Egregious talk page message

• InfernoBubbless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk page message in question

Hello, I think this message needs a revision deletion, and the user who left it probably needs a block. Endwise (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

A look through this editor's other contributions suggests a WP:NOTHERE block would be a good idea. Some other diffs full of racial slurs [182] , insults [183] [184] [185], conspiracy theory rubbish [186] . 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yikes! Gone. El_C 12:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks . Endwise (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive content removals?

• Philliptruong92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Philliptruong1990s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sabrina.carbone1970s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Earlier today, I had reverted a bunch of edits from Philliptruong92 that- without any reasoning given whatsoever- removed any third place mentioning on The Masked Singer articles entirely. I gave them a warning, to which I got a simple, "Okay".

There seems to be a whole bunch more similar unexplained edit removals the past few days, that likely need reverting as well. However, I'm confused, as there seems to be another account of theirs, 'Philliptruong1990s'. No idea if these are both sockpuppets or the user is just simultaneously using two accounts for whatever reason, but something seems odd about this. It doesn't seem to be any sort of 'forgot password' issue (or any issue at all) given that one account was created in February 2021 and the other was created in June 2021- both being used simultaneously to the current moment.

Additionally, through some of the articles' history, I've also come upon the user 'Sabrina.carbone1970s' which may be related due to the similar username titling. Also of note, User talk:Sabrina.carbone1970s, with multiple warnings as well as responses with simple "okay"s (as I'm typing this- realized a warning received from myself in April 2020 as well!)

Honestly not sure what to make of this, any help would be appreciated, especially considering all the recent disruptive edits on one of the accounts. (FYI- as they are very clearly the same person, I've only notified one of the user talk pages- User talk:Philliptruong92.) Magitroopa (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• they normally have winner and runner-up as they are the final two.

  and the other accounts are not the same. Philliptruong92 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Are you saying that those other accounts aren't yours? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Magitroopa wrote 3 accounts that are seemingly connected to you, but seriously? What about User:Philliptruong1990s? Does that have the same username as yours? Severestorm28 01:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Additionally, I found that both accounts were stating, as Magitroopa states, "okay" and "Okay". Severestorm28 01:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Between 2022-03-16 and 2022-04-22 on en.wikipedia.org User:Philliptruong1990s (talk | contribs) and User:Philliptruong92 (talk | contribs) both made edits to some pages in common. You can see a chronological list of all their edits on the Interaction Timeline or a table view on the Interaction Analyser.
      • Additionally, the behavior is similar to the blocked account Philliptruong1992. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Probable block evasion or sock. Severestorm28 02:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
          • Don't just leap to conclusions like that. It was blocked for being a "compromised account", but I cannot see any on-wiki evidence for that. The last edit, in 2013, was a request to delete the account because it wasn't wanted any more, oversighted to remove what I am guessing was a naïve inclusion of personal information in that request, as people are wont to do. An 8 year gap before coming back and creating a fresh account is hardly creditable as any sort of evasion.

            And no-one appears to have spotted that of the two accounts at the top of this section, one always edits from a mobile 'phone and one never does. So my guess would be a person who just didn't think of using the same single account on 2 devices.

            Uncle G (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

            Yes, I already saw. Severestorm28 11:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Philliptruong1990s is now removing references to the 2nd runner up on Big Brother (Australian season 8) and Big Brother (Australian season 10). I will revert these edits, because at least in season 8 the second runner up was announced. --Reader781 (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I followed those hyperlinks expecting to see references being removed. But no references are removed in those edits. There are no references in those parts of those articles to be removed. Indeed, there are no references elsewhere in the article that give any indication of covering this content. I had to start from first principles to find a source. Contrary to the section heading here, no content is being removed, either. Instead, at Special:Diff/1084036245 we see a wording change from "Tahan, the second runner-up," to "Tahan, was the last housemate evicted". And, indeed, according to writer Brooke Hemphill this is true, describing that when that person "is evicted, a ripple of shock travels through the crew behind the scenes.". So it's not as if the wording change being complained of is even unverifiable. And this after leaping to the ludicrous conclusion that an 8 year gap is block evasion. I think that you lot need to get a grip. And start citing sources, too. Uncle G (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    • FYI- I don't think I can comment much on the other articles the user has changed such as Britain's Got Talent articles or Big Brother Australia articles, but my main issue was the removal of any sort of third place mentioning on The Masked Singer articles (for example). I've watched every episode of the US The Masked Singer (yes, including the controversial most recent episode), and I can say as a fact that every season (apart from season six) has been a top three, so them just going around to every article and removing any sort of mentioning of a third placer makes no sense there. Maybe there are similar issues to that throughout their edits, maybe not- I haven't personally looked through/checked all their edits (and I certainly don't plan to either).

However, I am still very confused on the whole Philliptruong92/Philliptruong1990s/Philliptruong1992 thing, especially given that Philliptruong1992 was blocked as a compromised account and the user stated in this thread earlier, "the other accounts are not the same". Maybe it is what you suggested about, "didn't think of using the same single account on 2 devices.", maybe it's something else, I have no idea. If both accounts being used simultaneously (for whatever reason) like this is fine, but I'm still a tad bit concerned about any similar/future content removal (regarding TMS issue I explained). Magitroopa (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• The 1990 user has recently engaged in extensive unexplained genre changes, removing long established context, and simultaneously incorporating subtle clear factual errors, in the Big Brother UK reality TV series of articles (and possibly the Australian). Leaky caldron (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

June Parker, hostility, personal attacks, assuming bad faith etc

• June Parker (talk · contribs)

My first interaction with this editor was on the article Melissa King assault case, where I reverted their removal of categories. First sign of problems was their revert of my edit where they were going to ″cut the bull and call me a liar″ immediately assuming bad faith and throwing in a personal attack as a bonus. They were given a civility notice about this edit summary on their own talk page by a different editor, where I also went to provide my reasoning for the edit as well as observations I made about their similarity and convenient timing of editing to an editor named Desertambition (who incidentally, is also a current report on this board). The initial response to this was not particularly notable aside from their continued refusal to assume good faith, justifying it by percieving others not doing the same, and they denied being a sock. However this apparently lit a fire in June Parker and they would not let go of insisting that I was directly accusing them of being a sockpuppet in edits such as these: 1(a bit strange to claim a summon was made to this apparently aside from stumbling across the same article at the same time unrelated editor when there was no ping, and they apparently just found it on their own), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8. That's eight (has gone up as I've been writing this) diffs accusing me of calling them a sockpuppet, based on my initial message on their talk page.

Throughout these diffs you will also see a complete lack of the concepts WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, aside from vandals I've reverted, I've never had so many assumptions spewn at me, particularly disturbing is the fixation on the white genocide conspiracy theory which Parker, for some reason, keeps bringing up despite no one else so much as mentioning it. Apparently because of my relevant edits, I am ″obviously passionate about the white genocide myth″. I have never so much as read in depth about this conspiracy theory, let alone made edits about it, which makes the accususation all the more perplexing.

They showed up also on Talk:Melanin theory here claiming I had expressed I ″believe this page which describes a form of racism black people commit against all non-black races should be labelled as "Anti-white" and nothing else″, which like many things this editor says, came out of thin air.

I have tried to resolve and cool down the situation, but to no avail since the more I say and try the more crap I get thrown at me so I don't see what else to do but take it here since this editor is violating policies. --TylerBurden (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of TylerBurden insinuating June Parker and I are sockpuppeting:

1. [187]

2. [188]

3. [189]

4. Right before posting on ANI: [190] Desertambition (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Fast response, so you're going with the same reach but instead of accusing I'm insinuating? Like I said, being suspiscious of something and making observations, is different from directly accusing someone. Which you also falsely accused me of doing here. TylerBurden (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"Accusing" and "insinuating" is a distinction without a difference. Desertambition (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you say, I never accused anyone and your diffs themselves show that. TylerBurden (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Given June Parker called for Desertambition to be sanctioned for an unrelated dispute they weren't involved in unless we're playing a game of 4D chess here the sockpuppet concerns are hopefully not justified. AusLondonder (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I recently read a wiki essay to do with wikihounding, which I was not aware of until recently. My intent in appearing on those talk pages was after revisiting some of the articles I had previously edited (Including Melanin theory) and viewing the contributions of Sangdeboeuf.

What I said there is fine to analyze but I had no intention to wikihound, which is an odd accusation coming from this user given that they appear to have entered two conversations on my talk page that had naught to do with them in order to accuse me of being a sock puppet, by suggesting my "Editing style", timing, and subject matter was too similar to Desertambition, multiple times, and then backpedaling when I defended myself against that. Also lauded with accusations of a bad faith attempt to "Whitewash" controversial South Africna politicians and events.

To boot, they seem to have a dispute with Desertambition which they engaged in on my talk page. After I tried to funnel multiple conversations we had into my talk page they continued to engage until I stopped. Which I doubt is against the rules, but I don't think Tyler has a right to complain about me being uncivil with the amount of things he has said to me, especially when I tried to be mature and end the conversation. By egging the convo on, attacking me, and now bringing the case here.

Feel free to deep scrub both me and Desertambition to prove we are not socks, as given this entire write up by Tyler he is still convinced I am a sockpuppet, naturally I won't let go of something if I am repeadetly called one. I have had multiple edit conflicts trying to post this too.

I am going to bed. Notify me of your decision in the morning. June Parker (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to bed, so won't be responding here anymore tonight (I am usually either entirely inactive or less active editing during weekends but will try and keep up with the thread the best I can, but there's more to life than Wikipedia, espescially drama on Wikipedia). I will leave it on this: once again an accusation out of thin air, hounding is not something I have ever accused you of, so I'm not surprised to see that backed up with as much thin air as it came out of. Goodnight/whatever it is for you. TylerBurden (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Let me see if I got this right, because this is a confusing thread. On 03:51, 21 April 2022, June Parker personally attacks TylerBurden with an edit summary that read (in part): I’m going to cut the bull and call you a liar. Not someone who made a mistake. Not someone who told a lie. But a liar (i.e. someone who lies habitually). Not the most egregious personal attack, but it's still weird and unnecessary WP:BATTLEGROUND. I presume that's what Doug Weller's NPA warning on 08:52, 21 April 2022 was about, but who can really tell? Not even Doug, I'm sure.

Then, on 11:25, 21 April 2022, TylerBurden says the following to Doug Weller about June Parker, stating (in part): It's also interesting how they show up on the article as the same time as Desertambition, an editor who has had similar behaviour in the past. I don't want to assume bad faith or a sockpuppet but it does raise some suspicion at least. After that, it's basically June Parker saying why did you call me sock? with TylerBurden responding with I didn't call you a sock. And on and on that rendition goes with great repetition, and with neither side relenting. Oh, and 17:36, 21 April 2022, Desertambition provides a super-friendly advise that talks about pearl-clutching or something (at length). Still not sure what admins are expected to do right now with... whatever this is, though it doesn't look to be heading anywhere good. El_C 04:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This whole incident started with an egregious personal attack by June Parker, who went on to engage in repetitive axe grinding about sock accusations. It looks to me that the odds that June Parker will turn out to be a collegial, long term, productive editor are negligible, although I am prepared to be proven wrong by a dramatic change in their behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a pretty uncharitable reading given that they insinuated June Parker and I were socking four separate times, including right before this ANI post. I have no relation to June Parker and it seems like "heavily insinuating" is pretty close to accusing someone. Surely there would be a similar issue if I was implying users I disagree with are socks. It's understandable that people would get defensive when accused of socking. I believe WP:PEARLCLUTCHING is relevant to the discussion as June is too combative but seems to be willing to learn and engage with the process and the reaction to their comments is massively exaggerated.

Here's the full quotes because you seem to be saying these "insinuations" or "accusations" never occured:

1. It's also interesting how they show up on the article as the same time as Desertambition, an editor who has had similar behaviour in the past. I don't want to assume bad faith or a sockpuppet but it does raise some suspicion at least.

2. If you are not a sock, or related to Desertambition, great. It just seemed odd you show up at the same article at the same time with the same arguments, and the overall similarity in editing. I'm not accusing you of being a sock for sure, I'm just saying I did find it a bit suspiscious but that's literally it. I've not opened an investigation against you and I don't find that to be necessary right now.

3. By the way, sorry for continuing to pester you, as you call it, but what do you mean you summoned Desertambition? I see no ping, so they just stumbled across your talk page?

4. I still wouldn't be surprised if you're more related to Desertambition than you're letting on, but that is not something I am going to accuse you of being with certainty, because I don't do that without feeling sure about it which I do not. Desertambition (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes you have a pretty good idea of the timeline of events June Parker (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• June Parker seems to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and I share Cullen328's concern "that the odds that June Parker will turn out to be a collegial, long term, productive editor are negligible". In fact, just two days ago June Parker made the following egregious personal attack against David Eppstein: "You are the one misrepresenting a source to appeal to your white genocide fantasy, your 'Big scary muscular black dude invasion' fantasy. If you insist on being intellectually dishonest and breaking the rules, I can't help you. Have the day you deserve." Clearly, June Parker needs to be made aware of just how unacceptable it is to repeatedly cast such aspersions on Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Accusing editors of holding a "white genocide fantasy" is the same as calling them racists. June Parker doesn't belong here. --StellarNerd (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, unless there are promises made to not behave in this way in the future, I don't think they belong here either. TylerBurden (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Regardless of anything else, that June Parker's first interaction with a person they had never previously met or interacted with is to call them a liar is not a sign that they intend to interact collegially with others. The other diffs cited above show similar personal attacks, which have no reasonable antecedent. I can't find anything in David Eppstein's editing history here that shows they have anything resembling a "white genocide fantasy", or could be interpreted as such (which is not saying that such people don't exist; they do. We deal with them all the time here at ANI. But David is definitely not one of them). It's a total invention of June Parker, who made it up out of whole cloth and lobbed it randomly at David because he did something June didn't like. This is not how disputes are supposed to be resolved. I'm not sure what is to be done yet, but something needs to change soon, hopefully voluntarily by June themselves, if not, maybe admins will need to do something. --Jayron32 12:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• :I have had a look at a couple of their edits and would have to agree about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I am in two minds about mentioning this as it may seem minor and petty. Certainly by itself it is deserving of nothing more than perhaps a reminder to take care when dealing with citations.

  • As an example on the page 2016 Ouagadougou attack they removed a source and replaced it with the citation needed template as it was dead and changed "said" to "claimed" in the text that was supported by the removed citation. A citation was added and then was removed by this user (and marked as a minor edit) with the edit summary "decrepit tabloid source". I have looked at the reliable sources list and there is nothing about https://www.france24.com/en/ being unreliable. I also went to the site with the dead link and put the title of the dead link into their search bar to get this which looks like the original citation.

  Gusfriend (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC) Apologies, the more I thought about it the more petty what I wrote sounded in my head so I am striking it out and will give myself a trout tomorrow morning. Gusfriend (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what we're supposed to do with all of this? This seems like something June Parker/TylerBurden could have worked out themselves. There's certainly some poor behavior, but it was addressed on the user's TALK. Why was it brought here and what should be done about it? A simple warning to stop casting aspersions should suffice. Nemov (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure what you specifically are meant to do other than offer your opinion, which you've done I suppose, since you are not an administrator. They were already warned for the first personal attack they made against me, and you can see that I attempted to settle the dispute and ask them to be civil several times, to no avail. That's why I raised the issue here, June Parker does not listen to reason. TylerBurden (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  You repeatedly accused me of being a sock puppet to Desertambition and then accused me of being uncivil when I asked why you thought I was, backpedaling on those claims and then slyly insisting on it. I stopped talking to you because I couldn’t convince you otherwise. June Parker (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, I had been resolved to not speak to Tyler when it was clear he wanted to egg the problem further than what had initially happened to insist that I am a sock puppet editing in bad faith, in a talk page warning and another user's “Friendly advice” that he had little to do with, I can’t say much about what I have said to other users except that it doesn’t work and that I’m going to avoid doing in the future. Tyler appears to be starting more arguments with users who express neutral or any opinion less than calling for my block which can’t speak well for his conduct either. June Parker (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Adding to this but the main reason Tyler seems to have brought this issue to ANI despite us no longer talking is because he believes I am conspiring with Desertambition to push a POV he disagrees with, and when I kept asking why he believed this he denied it and then derided about how my behavior to him specifically was “Unacceptable”, while exhibiting the same behavior I appear to be, and barely even discussed the page content that I have altered. I believe this has more to do with a different dispute that I have little to do with. June Parker (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  I would recommend walking away from the dispute. Avoid casting aspersions in the future and assume good faith. Nemov (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sure thing June Parker (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Except that and keep doing the same thing. How promising. TylerBurden (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

, June Parker and TylerBurden, you would both be well advised to say nothing further in this discussion, unless another editor asks either of you a specific question. I think that it safe to say that both of you are skating on very thin ice. Please go back to shore. Cullen328 (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing, I will do my best to handle these situations better and would like to apologize to Tyler for calling him a liar from the jump. I just feel very disgusted by the amount of racialized propoganda I end up seeing on this website so I will try to tackle it in a more professional manner. June Parker (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, if you're willing to learn from this situation, I am willing to accept your apology. TylerBurden (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• If you see actual racialized propaganda post it here. Any admin will be quick and decisive in dealing with that. But you do need to link or preferably provide diffs of actual racialized propaganda. The accusation of racialized propaganda without the evidence is not something the Wikipedia community will tolerate.—S Marshall T/C 07:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Jstar Ahmed

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

---

User:Jstar Ahmed has resumed adding unsourced, gushing fan prose to articles about Indian films and film actors, following their week-long block on 29 March. A good example is this edit: [191], made 10 hours after I cleared out most of the fan language in Uttam Kumar. They also like to add unsourced claims of awards and films' gross revenue: [192], [193]. A few editors have been cleaning up after them since their block, but Jstar Ahmed doesn't seem to take any notice of the warnings about unsourced puffery on their talk page. Storchy (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The gushing prose is indeed terrible, and their first edit stripped out all references in the (introductory) segment they edited. There may be deleted edits I can't see, but they appear to have edited in the Talk namespace only when creating the talk page for a new article, in the User talk namespace never, and I don't see any edit summaries either. All edits are tagged mobile and mobile web; so I conclude this is another victim of the horrible mobile apps who has no idea we're trying to communicate with them. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 1 month to ramp up from the previous 1 week block to prevent further disruption. If this is a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU then we may just have to indef them. Oz\^InterAct 08:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

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

181.115.64.81 on flag articles

181.115.64.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see also the wider range 181.115.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) which would be the preferable target of any further blocks) is permnently disruptive on flag articles. See for example Flags of country subdivisions, which is about flags used by states, counties and other subdvisions of countries, like the name would suggest. Their version of the article is here, which is a duplicate of the wholly different article Gallery of sovereign state flags. Their disruption of this article has resulted in them being partially blocked from that article, however it's just moved their disruption to other flag articles. Lists of city flags includes a section for the "largest cities". Now I'm aware that's quite a vague name for a section and will probably result in many disagreements about which cities should be included, however see this edit adding Jocoro which is a municipality with a population of 6,764. Nobody could possibly consider that to be firstly a city, and secondly large by any reasonable definiton of the term. They never use talk pages or acknowledge objections to their edits, they just reinstate them and carry on with more of the same. FDW777 (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

(request) Range re-blocked for 1 month ({{rangeblock}}: Edit warring / disruptively ignoring community concerns voiced at User talk:181.115.64.81 and Special:Permalink/1084250524#181.115.64.81_on_flag_articles). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

IP 58.110.245.204 has been adding the word "affluent" to the lead paragraphs on town in New South Wales without providing a source, and getting into edit wars on multiple pages because of it. I was going to list exampels but there's too many; just view their contributions to see the same edits on certain towns multiple times. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 08:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is untrue. Two purported sources are given in the edit summary at Special:Diff/1079942603, and the reason stated for then reverting that was not a disagreement with the sources, or even an evaluation of them in any way, but that the content was in the wrong part of the article. The problem editors here seem, conversely, to be the people who are not checking sources when they are explicitly given, and who are edit warring to maintain a status quo simply because they cannot apparently move content to the right place in an article themselves, or collaboratively make someone else's source citation better. Of course, the sources do confirm, when read, that census data puts Sydney's upper north shore at number one according to socioeconomic data. As does, randomly "Bushfires scorched parts of South Turramurra, an affluent suburb north of Sydney". How apt that "boomerang" is the word, here, for people who are just not bothering and starting an edit war because they think a word should be somewhere else. Uncle G (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

There are many problems with that argument. Firstly, these sources were not cited for most of the changes to articles - this was just in the comments when one of the changes was reinstated after being reverted. Secondly, even if the ABS data says that a region scores high on the "Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas", that does not mean that the same can be said for every individual suburb in that region - at most, it could be put in the article about the region. Thirdly, those sources are inconsistent: some say it is the "upper North Shore" and others say it is Ku-Ring_Gai local council area. Fourthly, the term "affluent" may not be suitable - according to Wiktionary it means "having a moderate level of material wealth". But the bottom line - this editor persists in making unsupported changes, and absolutely refusing to discuss them with other editors on the Talk pages.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Second report on same issue

An IP editor (using different IP addresses, often 58.110.245.204) has been systematically going through the articles on many Sydney suburbs, updating the lead sentences to say they are "affluent". Examples include Mosman, New South Wales, Northbridge, New South Wales, Pymble, New South Wales, and Beecroft, New South Wales. Many of the changes have been repeatedly reverted by many editors, but the IP just keeps putting them back and refuses to discuss. No source is ever provided; the descriptions generally say something like "consistency" or personal attacks like "Are we just going to keep blinds over our eyes?". Does anybody know how we can fix this? --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Another IP used is 120.21.193.80 --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is being raised at ANI. At a stretch the IP's behaviour could be raised here. Ie, maybe, uncivil edit summaries that suggest a lack of collaborative ability.

As for the actual issue (a content question for which ANI is not the place), the argument is not whether the North Shore is affluent. That is plain to see and easily referenced. It is however a question of how the lead sentence of a wikipedia article is written. There are 600 suburbs in Sydney each with their own article. Is the opening sentence now going to provide a word describing their residents' relative economic position? And why should that be in the lead sentence. Nothing else is apart from "Blah is a suburb in Sydney".

If people want to argue about whether suburbs on Sydney's north shore are affluent or not, then you've missed the point of the issue. --Merbabu (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Karapapakhs: a violation of simple logic

• Karapapakhs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Serkan,Kutluoglu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LouisAragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User LouisAragon and HistoryofIran are aware that two sources are mixed together as if both sources would say the same thing (which is not the case). This is a mistreatment of sources. User HistoryofIran admitted, the user understood my concerns (see revision history, [194]), but did not participated on my started talkpage request. Then LouisAragon came over to threaten me with a ANI (see revision history, [195]) by acting in a even more rude manner, reverting my improvement by giving a POV-reason: So, according to LouisAragon, preventing a source mistreatment (by splitting both sources) is POV. I can not handle this logic anymore and therefore ask for administrative help to split these two sources into two different sentences. User Beshogur proved me right (see [196]) at least in my second concern that Turkic peoples (like the Kazakhs cannot be turkicized), it's ok when the source says so, but this gives nobody the right to heavily mistreat sources by mixing them. This is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serkan,Kutluoglu (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Well the sentence is indeed vague. But you don't have to edit war. Beshogur (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems they tricked me. Never intended to edit war.12:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serkan,Kutluoglu (talk • contribs)

• This seems like a garden variety content dispute. There's nothing for admins to do here... --Jayron32 12:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault, I didn’t see that the sources were already separated from each other. So take this my point as obsolete.16:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serkan,Kutluoglu (talk • contribs)

See also a discussion at Talk:Karapapakhs#sources misused. Based on what User:Serkan,Kutluoglu says above, I think this report can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Possible spam but also IDHT

JCC the Alternate Historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor repeatedly adds links to FantasticFiction.com (a commercial website) to articles about books. Often, for example here the link 1) goes into the lead and 2) does not support specific info in the article about the book.

I tried to resolve the potential spam problem on the user's talk page but got the response no one has complained to me about that before until now.

Further up the talk page, I see that admin @DragonflySixtyseven: previously tried to counsel this editor about a different policy issue but got the same answer No one has complained to me about that before so please do not complain to me about it now. Can this editor please now hear from a few more editors about his editing? Sorry to bring a small matter here, I have COVID which makes me too tired to figure out better plans. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I had a look at the external website. It looks to me it does not sell books directly, but receives revenue from the Amazon affiliate program whenever somebody buys a book through FF on Amazon, which makes it a commercial website by proxy. This smells a little of subtle spam. I think it would be appropriate to ask whether this editor is part of the team managing the external website or not. Also, "no one has complained to me about that before until now" is a weak argument at best, as pointed out on the editors talk page. Oz\^InterAct 14:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Inter: I did ask, he says he isn't. I believe him; I think intentional spamming would look different from what he does. What I think is that he found a website with a lot of links to pages he cares about, and proceeded to add those links to articles, intending to improve said articles. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Uggdf

Uggdf (talk · contribs)

Have a look at this: 1 and 2. Peter Ormond 💬 14:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I've looked. Now what? --Jayron32 14:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Starting an AfD, !voting 3 times, and then closing it yourself isn't generally considered good practice... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Here, the user opens a deletion discussion, votes by his own multiple times, and then closes it by himself in less than 12 hours. At the discussion, the user says that they redirected this article to List of heads of state of Pakistan, but the edit history tells us that the article has never been redirected. Similar drama is going on here, where they say they redirected it, but the user has never edited either article. Peter Ormond 💬 14:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

They also seem to have copied their !votes in the first AfD from somewhere else? A user named Nipson is incorrectly mentioned as the nominator in the merge !vote. Very strange. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, they somewhat copy their deletion reason from this discussion which I started back in August 2021. Peter Ormond 💬 14:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Any possibility that we have multiple people using the same account and they are warring against one another? This is really bizarre. I can't find an active user that goes by the name Nipson or contains the name Nipson that has edited these articles. --ARoseWolf 15:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I did a search - this is where they copied the !votes from. Curiouser and curiouser. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I saw that user but dismissed as they hadn't edited since 2011. It is very strange, beyond the obvious unacceptable multiple !votes and self-closing of the AfD. --ARoseWolf 15:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment this is totally unacceptable. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is very problematic. They have never been warned before for any problems, however. This DOES need to stop immediately, but I'm also willing to hear an explanation. I see they have been notified of this discussion. I await their response before making any assessments further. --Jayron32 16:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • For the record, I'm considering deleting the fake AFDs in question under WP:CSD G2 or G3, but I'm going to leave them up long enough so that they are visible to others until we reach a resolution of this discussion. --Jayron32 16:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of presidents of Sri Lanka seems useful. But the other one is just a nonsense at this point. The only other human participant is me, pointing out errors in the nomination. Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

      As mentioned by Peter Ormond above, part of the deletion rationale ("acting presidents unsourced") seems to be taken from this AFD. "Really doesn't merit a stand-alone article, where majority of them have a tenure of one or two days" also doesn't apply for the content of the article. I'm mostly just confused at this point. Lkb335 (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

      Honestly, this almost looks like the output of a broken AI. It has that feel where the individual parts of the nomination and the comments are syntactically valid but which don't make sense if you look at the context. I wonder if it's just some sort of weird joke? Aquillion (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• I feel like it might be worth digging into this for a possible WP:SPI, since at a glance this looks like an attempt to use sockpuppets that went awry. Notice that here they say troutslap the nominator for a clearly frivolous nomination ... Nipson has simply been on a POV rampage to eradicate as much of our coverage of the political institutions of the Pakistan as he can, for transparently tendentious reasons. They are the nominator. Who is Nipson? This feels to me like they were trying to do some sort of sockpuppetry to give the appearance of a dispute that is then resolved with their preferred outcome. Though even that is baffling, since I don't see how someone could intentionally !vote three times in a single edit on an RFC, close it themselves in the same edit, and expect it to accomplish anything. --Aquillion (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Nipson (full user name: Nipsonanomhmata) was the nominator of the 2011 AfD those comments were copied from (see my post above). I like the rogue AI explanation. I'll be keeping an eye on my toaster and microwave tonight, in case this is actually the start of the machine revolution. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• I would like to note that they began this nonsense imediatly after geting autoconfirmed. I would block for that. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Hey folks, did nobody notice the contents of User:Uggdf and wonder what it might be? Yes, it was the account password. And it's been there in plain sight since June 2020, so anyone could be responsible for this current nonsense. I've taken the liberty of scrambling it before anyone uses it to do damage. Someone might wish to block as a compromised account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  I've done so. I was close to a DE for the AfDs anyway. This user has some explaining to do before they return, if they do. Star Mississippi 12:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: yogalumpy was the password? —usernamekiran (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  [Trying not to laugh] Boing! can't tell you, usernamekiran - he's been caught by Uggdf's autoblock, presumably because of the liberty he took, per above. I've lifted the autoblock, I hope. They're mysterious things. Are you there, Boing!? Bishonen | tålk 15:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC).

  lol. Thats why I keep visiting ANI, botreq, UAA, and some other pages. Once in a while, you get some funny stuff here. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  Hey, I'm back - thanks Bish! And yep, the password was indeed "yogalumpy". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Cranloa12n

Cranloa12n (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone have a look at the edits of this account, especially their involvement in behind the scenes areas? They're a relatively new editor who is obviously enthusiastic, but they're trying to have a go at doing everything at once despite them obviously lacking the understanding of policy to do them properly. They've made quite a few messes and have wasted a lot of time in discussions with daft comments, but because they're only making one or two disruptive edits in each area before moving on to something else they're managing to fly under the radar. Would it be possible to get some kind of mentoring or something set up?

Some examples:

• Jumping into threads on the administrative noticeboards with stupid and inflammatory comments that don't help resolve issues. [197] [198] [199]
• Declining a perfectly clear and well written edit request for an utterly nonsense reason [200]
• Opposing requested moves on the basis that they are "unnessasary" / "pointless", showing that they have no understanding of page moving policy: WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply here ... [201] [202] [203]
• Closing someone's perfectly reasonable request for feedback on a template idea they had with a ridiculous "this is premature" rationale. [204]
• Answering requests for help at the teahouse with stupid and unhelpful comments [205] [206] [207] [208]
• Nominating articles on things that are obviously notable for deletion at AFD [209] [210]
• Edits to Wikipedia space quoting policies that do not apply to Wikipedia space content, along with generally unhelpful edits. [211] [212]
• An attempt to get involved at TFD, which resulted in several pointless/disruptive comments [213] [214] [215]
• Shooting down someone's suggestion at the idea lab with a "we would have to move pages" rationale - something what would take a few minutes with AWB [216]

etc. etc. etc. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"Closing someone's perfectly reasonable request for feedback on a template idea"

That was posted on the wrong forum.

"Nominating articles on notable subjects"

Happened over 2 months ago.

"Opposing requested moves on the basis that they are pointless"

Because they are? Don't change something if it's not broke.

"Stupid"

Really? Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 18:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cranloa12n:

That was posted on the wrong forum. It was not. The village pump idea lab is a completely valid forum to discuss ideas about new template proposals.

Happened over 2 months ago. yes, but that you've just moved on to disrupting other areas showing that you didn't learn from it.

Because they are? Don't change something if it's not broke. That has no basis at all in article title policy WP:AT or page moving guidance WP:MV. You should not be opposing requested moves on the basis of "I don't like moving pages" but on the merits or lack thereof of the proposed title.

Really? How else would you describe your comments there? If someone is asking about the difference between two magic words then how else would you describe "K" as a response [217] If someone who has just come off an indef block leaves an innapropriate comment how is "Oh no" going to help? [218] 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll admit that some of these were my problem, but the response above shoud give an explanation for some of this. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 18:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Cranloa12n, you really need to get the message here. You are being disruptive and unhelpful and displaying a lack of understanding of policies and guidelines, and an inappropriately flippant attitude. You need to course correct, or it will be necessary to block you. Cullen328 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

(Redacted) 晚安 (トークページ) 04:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cranloa12n: Do not answer any questions regarding personal information. @Lettherebedarklight: Do not ask personal questions. We understand the point you are making but physical age is not important at Wikipedia and there must be no attempt to have people reveal personal details. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

sorry 晚安 (トークページ) 07:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Need a BLP violation removed, and possibly REVDELed

Can someone please deal with This BLP-violating edit. They did so with a strike-thru, but it's still there and visible. Regardless of one's politics, that sort of thing is beyond the pale. I would have dealt with it myself, but consider myself WP:INVOLVED given my contributions to that thread. Can someone else take any appropriate actions. Thanks. --Jayron32 18:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Red Phoenix ^talk 18:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Muboshgu beat me to it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jayron32, only one edit was revdel'd, I added the {{redacted}} template and revdel'd the others. Bad, bad form, Hcoder3104. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I only just now noticed this revision, made one edit prior. This is not a BLP violation only because the subject has died. It is also a highly inappropriate statement nonetheless. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Although that's not a BLP violation, if someone wanted to revdel it too, wouldn't it fall under AMPOL2 discretionary sanctions? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll redact it under WP:CRD #3, purely disruptive material. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the quick work done by the admins here to remove the offensive material.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hcoder3104 also made this edit recently. Is this user of any hope at all? --StellarNerd (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Substitute Special:Diff/1081494062 or Special:Diff/1079210819 or any one of numerous other edits, and ask yourself that question again. Then read Special:Diff/1084140541. Uncle G (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Ibawim

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

I attempted to request a block for this user at AIV but it was declined because the user was not "sufficiently warned" but my issue isn't with that admin. It's with this user because every edit has manual reverts to out of date information, most recently at Danny Manning. This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE, which I've requested blocks for violators of that policy in the past and have been granted it without the editor needing warned.--Rockchalk717 20:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring in sandbox

This IP and one other have been WP:NOTHERE edit warring in the Sandbox, reverting any user who clears it and adding a no bots template to prevent bots from clearing it and removing the header if reinserted. May be more IPs in range doing that but I don't know how to get the range. Has even reverted admins clearing the Sandbox. 184.170.97.79 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I just cleared it. I'm tempted to semi-protect it for a short period, like an hour or so, but I don't want to take it away from IPs and new users who may legitimately want to test editing functions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving

I could be wrong, but it seems like we have an increasing problem with disruptive editing of the community sandbox. Some people repeatedly post massively large blocks of text that causes other editor's devices to choke and freeze. Others repeatedly post fake articles, especially of the alternate history variety. Others post BLP violations, copyvios like song lyrics, profanity and hoaxes. There seems to be a lot of obsessive compulsive behavior that may be disconcerting or offensive to other readers who take a look at the sandbox. Edits that are actual legitimate tests seem to be rare these days. Is this a problem, or should I just ignore the sandbox? Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Would it perhaps help to somehow limit the maximum size of the sandbox, if that was feasible? It won't solve all the problems, but it would at least deter the cut-and-pasters. I can't think of any legitimate use of the sandbox that requires it to allow 10,000-byte edits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

To test whether a very large edit breaks the interface?—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

That could have both white- and black-hat applications. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

BLP violations are a problem wherever they're published though - we can't afford to just ignore it. Not sure what the solution is, but we can't turn a blind eye to people posting potentially libellous stuff on a community page. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

What is the purpose of a community sandbox at this point? If it's being abused by IP users and it needs to be semi-protected, there isn't much point to having it. The community is too large for a single public userbox to be useful, particularly if it lends itself to WP:BLP-violating edits. Users can set up sandboxes on their own userpage, and they don't need this. Theoretically, IP users can probably do the same thing, although I'm not certain what the community's stance on that is.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a very good question. Maybe it should be raised at the Village Pump? I guess the argument is IP editors may find it useful, though registered editors get their own sandboxes. Canterbury Tail talk 20:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

So instead of libel being blanked within minutes and disappearing into the page history, it persists forever on an unwatched page? That's a cure worse than the disease. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melba Eltafez (talk • contribs) 20:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I've requested some level of protection. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Rando88888, User:ShqiperiaSocialiste, User:Stalinist-Hoxhaist

• Rando88888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ShqiperiaSocialiste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stalinist-Hoxhaist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From late 2021 to early 2022, these three users did remarkably the same type of non-constructive editing on the same document. I think that the actions of these users correspond to Sockpippetry.Marxist-Leninist and Anti-revisionist (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Wilkja19

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

---

Wilkja19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is a long-term disruptive editor: in four years of editing, they have made continual factual alterations to articles without ever once providing a source, never left an edit summary, never responded to any messages, and they mark every single edit as minor. I don't know if they make factually correct changes but the total refusal to communicate makes it hard to believe they are editing in good faith. Please take whatever action is appropriate to get them to comply with community norms. 82.132.212.130 (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at their contributions, it seems that they are using the iOS app to edit, therefore they would not be able to see the messages sent to them(per WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU and it is also noted at the top of their talk page). Jolly1253 (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

FYI- this isn't the first time the user/issue has been brought up here, as I've done so previously. Also FYI, this range IP previously brought this up this past February (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#User:Wilkja19 for that specific instance). Magitroopa (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Hamkar 99

User Hamkar 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed the text with sources from the article Hazaras. I added information (about the ethnic ties of the Hazaras with the Mongols) verified by reliable sources, including secondary (among the authors are PhD (Elizabeth Emaline Bacon, Barbara A. West, Sabitov), candidates (Yuri Averyanov, Elbrus Sattsayev) and doctors of sciences (Lutfi Temirkhanov)) and tertiary sources (such as Great Russian Encyclopedia). All authors meet the requirements prescribed in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Calls for consensus on talk page were unsuccessful. The talk page is currently being ignored by him. During the discussion, he unreasonably called secondary sources incorrect. And also without explanation calls my edits unacceptable . I think such accusations are WP:DE and a violation of the rules prescribed in WP:CONS, WP:NPV, WP:RSPRIMARY. Previously, the user was already blocked due to the edit war. I ask you to take action and warn the user about the need to comply with the rules of Wikipedia. Thanks.--KoizumiBS (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I see no policy reasons for your edits to be reverted. Your edits are adding additional detail, references and sources not changing the character of anything or representing them as anything not already mentioned and sourced in the articles. I've asked Hamkar 99 for a policy reason that they keep reverting your edits, as they don't seem to have been forthcoming with one so far. Canterbury Tail talk 20:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BKFIP back?

A new user just repeated a WP:BKFIP edit at Milky Way and started a repeat revert war with similar edit summaries. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

These are some amazing lengths you are going to to try to force a fringe viewpoint into the first sentence of an important article. 22funny (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me,].Moxy- 14:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yep, see also two threads above this one. This is maybe the third or fourth time they've dragged Wikja19 to AN/I. If a user is harassed in a forest, but they aren't around to hear it, is it still harassment? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hate talk at Shia Islam in the Americas

Requesting a block of the IP involved, as well as rev/deletion of vandalism from April 20. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Acroterion (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey Bob - haven't seen you around for a while, glad to see your IP hasn't changed. :) Girth Summit _(blether) 17:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

TPA of DA AWESOME BOI

DA AWESOME BOI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for using wikipedia as a webhost, after being blocked, misused talkpage for test and webhost, TPA revoke seemed needed.PAVLOV (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree I just fixed a block request declination that he had vandalized. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)there are some comments by others that have been altered by DA AWESOME BOI. They need to be restored to their original form. For example, first unblock decline by 331dot. I'm on mobile, or I would have restored the original comments. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the altered comments. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruption on Kurdish biographies

Cancerian0799 (talk · contribs) is NOTHERE. Rafiq Hilmi was a Kurdish nationalist from Iraq but the user adds the label "Turkish" in the lead.[219] Other articles where it is relevant to have Kurdish (ethnicity) (per MOSETHNICITY) in the lead has also been disrupted by moving info about ethnicity from lead. I have warned the editor twice and I know that talkpage "discussions" will lead to nowhere here. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• Indeffed -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

RD1 revdel request

Hi! I recently encountered the now-blocked user Crimes87. This user was vandalising by replacing article contents with song lyrics. Unfortunately, those lyrics are copyrighted, so I'd like to request a set of revision deletions under criterion RD1. (Usually, I'd use Template:Copyvio-revdel, but because there are so many, I'm just making a request here.) Revisions:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16

. The last one also has the copyvio in the edit summary. Thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I tagged one with the revdel template with a link here in case an admin clearing that queue comes across this first. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: You forgot the edit summary in the last revision: Special:Diff/1082039292, which also seems to be song lyrics. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Tnx, done this as well Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Bawah Nama Cinta

Bawah Nama Cinta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly submitted Draft:Khilaf Asmara for review despite having no refs every time, and is persistently trying to put it in mainspace without addressing the issue. The current mainspace version was recently recreated ignoring all TP messages. MB 19:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User is also a paid editor [220]. Theroadislong (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

They have also recreated Dendam Seorang Isteri and Hati Yang Dikhianati, which is the only one without a version currently in mainspace. The message Hi please approve this page!, left on my TP, is another indication they are ignoring or not understanding policy. MB 21:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Genre warrior on the loose

Genre warrior LKF2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned multiple times (diff, diff, diff), yet seems to be completely unbothered. Genre additions (mostly "adult") are either unsourced or poorly sourced despite having been specifically warned to adhere to MOS:TVGENRE, also instances of edit warring (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff). Throast (talk | contribs) 19:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Anon user persistently adding WP:OR to pages

2402:800:61B1:74AE:7C93:FF9B:1C17:AA4E (talk · contribs) has been persistently adding WP:OR content to various Vietnam-related articles. The OR content that the user is adding is related to a former writing system that is no longer in use for almost a hundred years. They are adding characters to mostly concepts, with no references to show that they were ever written that way (which they're most likely not). Attempts to warn the user has gone nowhere. Some other users have been using socks to attempt this and were blocked. This could be yet another attempt. DHN (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

This person might change their IP address to try again so these pages could use semi-protection if they attempt to change again under a different IP. DHN (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Roanby is NOTHERE (persistent hoaxing)

• Roanby (talk · contribs · count · deleted contribs)

User:Roanby has been persistently hoaxing in userspace and draftspace since 2016, as seen by the notices on their talk page. They have about 3000 edits, but nearly all (95%) were to their sandbox that was recently deleted by JBW as G3 and U5. They have not edited significantly to mainspace in years and are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and they have just recreated their sandbox with another hoax, even submitting it to AfC and declined by KylieTastic twice. I CSD'd it again with the same rationale, but they removed the tag themselves. Clearly needs a block as NOTHERE and to avoid further disruption of CSD/AFC. eviolite (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• I concur just disruptive and clearly WP:NOTHERE KylieTastic (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)