Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063

Multiple insults and personal attacks

User Goddard2000 allows himself continuously to insult. A new reply I've just noticed.

• Newly noticed, [diff] So be a man and stop acting like a baby, you are embarrassing yourself.
• Reported before, [diff], do you not realize how idiotic this sounds, Your hypocrisy shows.--IrelandCork (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, it seems, user aggressive with most opponents:

Here a threat to edit Ingush article in revenge [diff] But if you want i can edit in more and be more objective there?, here delivery of the revenge [diff].

Provoking and threatening others [diff] cmon be sensible, [diff], So stop vandalizing the page before you are reported.--IrelandCork (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• This is a fork of WP:AN#WP:Ethics again. Cabayi (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, El_C This guy is really trying to get me banned just because he doesn't want to come to a consensus on the Uchar-Hadji page. This is the 3-4th report he's made against me and has been looking trough my history for things to use against me, even though we both agreed in the previous report that we wouldn't talk to each other. As for the accusations i only want to address the "Ingush" one since the others we have already talked about. It happened quite a while ago when all of my edits were removed by that same person in the Chechen page and replaced with anti-Chechen texts. So i talked to him (Akylas) in the talk page and he refused to come to a consensus stating that "It's respectable sources just because you dont like it doesn't mean u can delete it" so to prove my point that any "respectable source" could be added into any post i added that one on the Ingush page. I deleted it 1-2 hours later when that person understood that his tactics could be used by anyone. We later came into an understanding and i eventually apologized for posting that. However this character assassination that Irelandcork is trying to is very desperate, he's trying to get me banned so only his version of the Uchar-Hadji article stays. --Goddard2000 (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You were asked to stop producing those spiteful comments, but you couldn't help yourself, thus my report. I'm already sure admins fancy you and your bully behaviour style, but it's my duty to report it.--IrelandCork (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

IrelandCork, that discussion was brought to a close (so we all hoped) with your comment "let's leave it there" at 14:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC). The most recent of the comments you're complaining about was left on 19 March. It's clear that Goddard2000 has stopped, and that you have not. Cabayi (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi The newly found comment wasn't noticed and presented then, now it is, and you may all turn a blind eye to his attacks, and hope their foulness will end, or not.--IrelandCork (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You do realize that all of these edits you reported were BEFORE anyone told me to stop? it was only yesterday when u and me agreed to not communicate with each other, i held up my bargain and only responded to the Admin on Uchar-Hadzhi talk page. Meanwhile what did you do? you looked trough ever single edit i made and found 1 bad edit i made months ago when i wasn't properly informed about the wikipedia rules, an edit which i apologized for and deleted right away. Honestly at this point i suspect you are trying to do this so Elijahandskip option of 1-month ban rule is put on both of us so i can't make my case in the talk page of Uchar-Hadzhi and that will only leave Krackduck (who agrees with you) in the talk page. --Goddard2000 (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

IrelandCork, the timing of your complaint at WP:AN was entirely in your hands. You weren't working to a deadline. The completeness or otherwise of that report was entirely in your hands. You don't get to re-open it or re-file it at a different forum just because you overlooked some other edits to add to your indignation. Drop the stick. You can consider this as your {{uw-npa4}} level 4 warning if it helps concentrate your mind. Cabayi (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion was flooded, couldn't deal with it at the time. Now, to lower possibilities of such behavior in the future, presented the whole picture and a new fact, with no expectations that admins would take any action about WP:Civil, don't worry. So, the stick was dropped. Thanks--IrelandCork (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

IrelandCork I also recommend you drop the stick here. --Calthinus (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks--IrelandCork (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I might have jumped in prematurely before understanding this issue because I just warned the Goddard2000 at User talk:Goddard2000#Procedures. I now see people saying that IrelandCork needs to behave differently and that Goddard2000's comments are from before they reformed. Sorry that I did not fully investigate. If anyone sees an ongoing problem in regard to this matter, please let me know and I will take action. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Always amazed how a new user finds AN after only 3 Talk pages edits and opens an SPI by their 10th edit. Fast learner, I guess.... Slywriter (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Vapourmile has repeatedly removed my comments from Talk:Motorola 68000

Vapourmile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly removed many of my comments on Talk:Motorola 68000 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) claiming that they are "not illuminating nor is it relevant in this context". See, for example, the first such edit, this later edit, and subsequent edits. This does not seem to meet the criteria given on WP:TALKO. Guy Harris (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have removed it on grounds of relevance, and Guy continues to revert it, despite the fact it isn't relevant. The Wikipedia page is about the Motorola 68000 CPU from 1979 and most of Guy's additions to that talk section are about the "instruction set architecture" of the IBM 360, dating from the 1960s. It isn't the same item. That entire section has no relevance to that Wikipedia page. The removal of that section is validated by the "stay on topic" guidelines. WP:TALK#TOPIC. Vapourmile (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no comment on the content of the talk page thread, but Vapourmile has removed an extensive chunk of the talk page five times now, including 4 times in the last 24 hours [1] [2] [3] [4], thus breaking WP:3RR. The content removed includes comments by at least three editors (I have not bothered to read it all to see if there are more) and dates back to August 2020, I believe.

Vapourmile posted to one of my talk pages claiming that Guy Harris was vandalizing the page User_talk:Meters/unprotected#I am not vandalizing the 68000 page, Guy Harris is. Undoing an inappropriate blanking of a talk page thread is not vandalism. Meters (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: Thread dates to August 2020, and was then dead for six weeks until October, when Vapourmile concluded it with ... I'm bored to death of explaining why over and over again. I'm also bored of your totally irrelevant wish to talk incessantly about an obsolete mainframe. ... [5] No other edits to this thread until Vapourmile started trying to delete it. Meters (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I did write those words. As you can see from the discussion on the 68000 talk page much of Guy's addition to it constitutes a very lengthy text about the IBM 360 which violates the "plainly irrelevant" guideline. The query I raised is over the classification of the 68000 microarchitecture. To which guy responded by writing at great length about the IBM 360 "instruction set architecture". The IBM 360 is a mainframe dating back to the 1960s and has its own Wikipedia entry: IBM System/360. Guy's comments so clearly violate the "plainly irrelevant" guideline that this discussion needs better arbitration than Meters can provide. Vapourmile (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

But it's a thread from seven months ago with multiple posts, by three editors. It's to late to claim now that it is off topic. If it's not serving any useful purpose now then it can be collapsed or archived, but do not simply delete it. As I pointed out above, the other users have not contributed to the thread since August. You appear to be the only one keeping this alive. If you are bored to death with it then leave it alone. Meters (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

If somebody is gong to arbitrate on this debate I want it to be somebody else. I don't see what purpose there is trying to "prove" 57,000 characters about the IBM 360 from 1964 has no place in the Wikipedia entry for the 1979 Motorola 68000. The elapsed seven months haven't made it any more relevant and its relevance was disputed multiple times then, it didn't add anything to that talk section then and nor does it now. You also add you have nothing to say about that talk section's content, well, that's exactly what the dispute is about. I recommend you return to that talk section and start reading from "The IBM System/360 instruction set architecture is defined by the IBM System/360 Principles of Operation manual. As that manual says on page 5:". How is cutting and pasting from the IBM 360 manual to the Wikipedia Motorola 68000 page relevant? It wasn't relevant then and it still isn't seven months later. Be honest with yourself. I don't know what the Wikipedia guidelines are on vandalism but where does adding masses of irrelevant text to talk pages fit with the guidelines? It didn't help then and it doesn't now. The relevance was dismissed in the discussion all those months ago and now just sits there wasting space in a talk section where it does not belong. Guy is the person to whom you should be writing notes about vandalism, on the basis of adding lengthy and irrelevant text to that talk page. You clearly don't intend to be much help on this issue. How can I report Guy to somebody who will escalate the complaint against him? Vapourmile (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of the discussion of the S/360 was to show it as an example of an instruction set, with a given bit width, with implementations of varying bit widths, some smaller than the bit width of the instruction set. Similarly, the Motorola 68000/68010/68012/68008 are implementations of a mostly 32-bit instruction set (it lacks full 32-bit multiply and divide instructions) with implementations of various internal and external bit widths. As such, it is not clear that there is a single bit width that can be considered "the" bit width for those 68k processors; for example, Sun Microsystems' Sun-2 systems were built on the 68010, and the software running on it was 32-bit software, not 16-bit software or even 16/32-bit software. From the point of view of the programmer, it was a 32-bit system, even if its performance was reduced by narrower internal and external buses. I do not see why Varpourmile's personal belief that it's not relevant should govern here. Guy Harris (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Vapourmile. I'm not attempting to "arbitrate" this thread. I have not proposed any particular remedy. I simply made a comment on the behavior that was raised. Items raised here can be commented on by anyone. I made it clear that I am not commenting on the content of the thread itself because I'm not knowledgeable about the topic, I don't care about the topic, the issue is dead, and the thread content is irrelevant to the behavior under discussion. You broke 3RR blanking a seven-month-old talk page thread, and I believe the other editor was justified in restoring the thread (as I did). As I said, if the thread is of no use now then it can be collapsed or archived. I suggest that you stop arguing this. Meters (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree Vapourmile's actions are silly here. If the thread is 7 months old, even if it's forumish why not just archive it rather than getting into an edit war over removing it? I assume there are no BLP issues or anything given the subject matter. If there are copyvio issues the content will need to be revdeleted so you'll need to identify only those parts and delete them then ask for an admin to rev delete them. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Actually, it is a 15-year old discussion, from 2006, that Vapourmile revived in Special:Diff/971077257. But it's worth noting that this is a bone of contention that amateur computer people have been arguing about for about forty years, now.

  The problem here is twofold. Firstly: almost no-one, not Vapourmile, not Guy Harris, not the various other contributors over the past 15 years, is doing it the way that it should be done at Wikipedia, with reference to authorities on the subject. One person actually tried to, at Special:Diff/975161974, and deserves praise for that. Xe got 5KiB of dismissal of such appeals to experts and authority at Special:Diff/976615052 for xyr trouble.

  Secondly: Vapourmile is escalating in entirely the wrong way, removing good faith, even if not correctly done for Wikipedia, discussion; adding contentious section headers at Special:Diff/1011858530; and now making accusations of "vandalism" here.

  Vapourmile, stop calling good faith discussions, by good faith editors, "vandalism". That is an unacceptable way to treat other editors who are just responding to a discussion that you resurrected. Stop blanking talk such page sections. Stop mucking around with slanted and dismissive section headers. Read Wikipedia:Vandalism and some of the related essays, and proceed no further along this path.

  Everyone, please apply our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research content policies. There are vast tracts of the article dealing with this that are not linked to any authoritative good sources at all. I am sure that in the forty years of this being discussed, there are plenty to be found. You all should be looking for them, not arguing the points directly on the article talk page.

  Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Vapourmile's actions have been inappropriate and in violation of the talk page guideline. Specifically, WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE says that discussions should be archived, not blanked. Further, WP:TALKOFFTOPIC discusses the matter of potentially off-topic threads and says that they should be either collapsed or archived. It also notes that Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution. WP:TALKOFFTOPIC further says that even collapsing should not be used over objections of other editors. There are some exceptions such as purely disruptive talk page posts, BLP violations, etc, that occasionally get blanked but that wasn't the case here. All the posts in question were clearly good faith posts, some involving multiple editors. Blanking those posts on the grounds of them being off-topic was entirely inappropriate as was labelling as vandalism the attempts to restore those posts. Clearly in this case a large portion of the talk page just begs to be archived. The talk page still has threads going back to September 2003, for goodness sake. Nsk92 (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• I warned the user at User talk:Vapourmile#March 2021. Please let me know if problems persist. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • What is badly needed here is a lot less "here is my reasoning" and a lot more "here is what reliable sources say". For example, compare Talk:Motorola 68000#The Motorola 68000 is internally and externally 16bit, you say? with much of what is on that talk page. Any administrative encouragement in the direction of following the sources would be a big help in addressing the behavioral problems we are seeing. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Archiving

Behavioral discussion can continue above. However, that Talk page is insanely long, so I'm going to archive the old discussions, which should hopefully have the pleasant side effect of cutting off the topic in question. This may take some time however, because apparently one of the links in an old discussion is on the spam blacklist, so I'll have to find it and redact it when creating the Talk archive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at As Told by Ginger

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

---

There is an edit warring going on at As Told by Ginger. The users involved are: User:FlutterDash344 and User:Theshavia29912. The reason is due to unsourced content.

However, I'm not sure who's the one that is adding unsourced content. Kaseng55 (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

He's saying that as told by ginger ended in 2016 when it didn't you see as told by ginger had already ended in 2006 it's just that a few previously Unaired episodes were shown in 2016 but that's not when it ended nor is it when it was cancelled — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Theshavia29912 needs to get blocked or there will be more edit warring. For all I know the user could possibly be a sock of Zjholder. FlutterDash344 (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

If you'll make such an accusation you have to provide evidence for it. —El Millo (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No dude you're saying it ended in 2016 when it didn't you can go to any site it's gonna say as told by ginger is a seires that ran from 2000-2006 go ahead and do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is what I'm talking about and this page was made after the 2016 premieres https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/as-told-by-ginger-why-was-the-show-cancelled.html/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you open a RfC. This is a series that was cancelled and aired until 2006, then ten years later, in 2016, aired four previously unaired episodes. This is clearly an exceptional situation where there isn't a clear answer. This sounds like a content dispute and this isn't the place for content disputes. Resolve it on the article's talk page. —El Millo (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

There I told you just cause there was Unaired episodes shown in 2016 doesn't meen it ended in 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/as-told-by-ginger-why-was-the-show-cancelled.html/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Why would Cheatsheet even be a reliable source? FlutterDash344 (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Dude it's not a cheat sheet it's a site you want me link another one cause I can go all day and you can go and check sites if you want to and youl see the show ended in 2006 stop trying to come up with stupid excuses — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Dude your really starting to get on my nerves STOP!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I will not stop until you actually stop reverting and being nice to me. FlutterDash344 (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2021

• Article fully protected, both editors warned and both are an inch away from being blocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Both partially blocked, further action will take place if sniping happens on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Dude! Who would have thought that an article about a cartoon aimed at preteens could have such highly-strung editors? I dread to think what state Talk:Teletubbies or Talk:In the Night Garden are in. Oh, to be young once more... nagualdesign 03:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, dude, preteens, right? Unsure of everything except what they're absolutely certain about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Admins may want to look at The Cramp Twins as well - it looks like there was edit warring there as well which may have continued after the restrictions on As Told by Ginger were imposed.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've fully-protected on the wrong version for a week. If this spills over to a third article I would support blocks for both users; we can't just keep protecting articles. Mackensen (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

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

A complaint about Fram

This user is going to each and every one of my articles and either moving to draftspace or tagging them with a speedy deletion for reasons like 'unreliable sources' or 'this needs to be rewritten' instead of tagging my articles with a template. For example, on Draft:Bromley, Victoria, I reworded 60% of the source, with the exception of a quote and a population table, which is enough recreation to not warrant copyright infringement, and yet he still tags it with a speedy deletion, saying that 'even the uncopied information is hardly understandable'. He is trying to deliberately delete all of my pages, and he's the only one complaining about them. He even went as far as outright saying 'this article is bad, really?' on one of my articles. You have to stop him — Preceding unsigned comment added by TableSalt342 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I was just writing the below as a new section, so here goes

Can we please get a restriction for User:TableSalt342 forcing him to only create articles through WP:AFC? I have moved many of his creations to draft space, and tagged a few others for copyvio violations. I've tried explaining the issues, but nothing seems to register.

Recent creations (in the mainspace originally) include things like

• Draft:Källeryd (everything is a problem, from the first sentence to the ridiculous section on "Other names", or the fact that none of the 10 sources should ever be used as a reference on enwiki)
• Draft:Mubarak Al-Abdullah (with the sentence "According to Airbnb, amenities in Mubarak Al-Abdullah include kitchens, Wi-Fi, pools, free parking and air conditioning" as icing on the cake)
• Draft:Nugunek (intro: "Nugunek is a town in Turkmenistan without earthquakes")
• Draft:Cotrilla which is just a farm apparently
• Draft:Ruanaich, which not only informs us that it has three minerals, but also that "The BNB in Ruanaich, Ruanaich Bed and Breakfast, was rated 7 of the islands' 12 inns and BNBs, averaging top reviews in location, cleanliness, service and value, with the hotel style being described as 'quaint' and 'charming'.", or that "Shops in Ruanaich include 4 model shops, 1 craft store, 1 coffee shop and 1 other shop.", sourced to a site[6] which not only isn't reliable (just like most sources they use), but also that none of these shops are in Ruanaich actually.

Nearly all their creations are displaying the same qualities, and aren't fit for the mainspace. Fram (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• After reviewing the examples given, I have to agree with Fram on this one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• The "main settlement" on Mull is Baile Mòr (where the Abbey is), and this is "also known locally as "The Village"." The island certainly has no towns and, as far I can see, Ruanaich is just a farm. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Describing the location of towns and such right down to the tectonic place on which they reside ("Ruanaich is a town on the center of Isle of Iona, a small island in the Hebrides of Scotland, United Kingdom, British Isles, Europe, Eurasian Plate") is, well, interesting. Seems like a very eager but also very misguided stab at editing, but the writing style is just not up to the quality an article needs. ValarianB (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion in this manner is unlikely to be productive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hmm. Is Draft:Källeryd being lined up for DYK April Fool’s? (The opening line reminds me of a 6 year old me writing my postal address for the first time). DeCausa (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Earth, Sol system, Gould Belt, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe Prime. Canterbury Tail talk 15:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Omission of Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex — unforgivable. El_C 15:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Now we'll all have to send out change-of-address cards. *sigh* Cabayi (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC) This is exactly what I wrote as my address when I was in third grade. Brilliant.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Apparently at the moment there’s no rental accommodation available in Draft:Cane, Western Australia. But it is an English-speaking human settlement with four streets. DeCausa (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Population: 12. I am not making this up. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC) @DeCausa: if you are seriously looking for rental properties, you need to check out Draft:Bromley, Victoria, where "There are 19 properties for sale in Bromley according to domain.com."--- Possibly (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC) yes, but what are the 12 burghers of Cane doing? They’re missing a trick. They’re gonna feel foolish when their new Wikipedia article results in a horde of incomers? DeCausa (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Forget about the metropolis of Cane. If you ever stay at Ruanaich you can visit the "nearby city" of Londonderry, which is only about 100 miles away (but unfortunately across the Malin Sea). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC) @Martinevans123: Personally I prefer Lianqun, Shanghai, where "Four of Shanghai's buses pass the local bus stop" and "the average house prices in Lianqun are ¥3000", which I find very hard to believe.---Possibly (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Arrrgghh. I have only now seen how prolific this editor has been.... "You wait all year for a dodgy article and then three quite a lot all come at once". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I can’t get past Cane. How do 12 people live in four streets? what, do they have a mansion each? And they won’t rent out anything? Who do these Cane-ites think they are? DeCausa (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC) If one traveled west of Camas Prairie towards Mullan, Idaho, they would end up in the Pacific Time Zone of Idaho. Ha, imagine adding this kind of information to every single article on every location. And why stop at west?  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Draft:Nugunek does not include good sources, and there is no town in Turmenistan with such name (probably a small village, needs to be researched, but certainly not anything one can call a town).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• But wherever it is, it doesn't have earthquakes. Booking my flight now. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Not for me. It doesn't have the minerals. nagualdesign 22:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Look y'all, I enjoy making light of strange editorial decisions as much as the next smartass admin, but can we tone it down? At this point you're going through the editor's creations and it's getting uncomfortably close to making fun of the editor. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I suspect Cane, Western Australia is not even big enough to throw a boomerang. But I'm sure the editor has contributed in perfectly good faith and should be encouraged to improve their article-building skills. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, quite right SubjectiveNotability. Apologies to TableSalt342. WP:AGF - almost certainly not a hoax account. DeCausa (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, GeneralNotability, for saying that. I also think the thread on location precision is probably not as funny to the newer participant to the project who is the subject of this ANI discussion, as it is to more experienced editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Or to people who live in Iona. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@TableSalt342:, the places that you are attempting to write about seem to be extremely, extremely obscure, and span the globe. Would you care to share how you came to know about the existence of these? Some trip advisor or travel destination website? They are proving to be a bit difficult to research. ValarianB (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This is rather odd: an article created with “Carlisle” spelled wrongly, but with a piped link to the correct spelling. Brunton (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I guess Fram was right. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Oppose - TableSalt342's request that we "stop Fram". - wolf 22:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Fram's request that TableSalt342 be required to create pages only via AfC. (they seem to be confusing Wikipedia with Wikitravel). - wolf 22:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• they seem to be confusing Wikipedia with Wikitravel -- that would be Wikivoyage -- but please don't point this guy to Wikivoyage! I've already posted on our local noticeboard to keep an eye out for if he joins. Vaticidalprophet 15:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support Fram's suggestion for a restriction to only AfC creations. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Fram’s proposal. Joking aside, I really don’t know whether or not it’s a hoax account. DeCausa (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Having seen the back and forth between the editor and Fram today, it’s obviously not a hoax. Just very very misguided and stubborn. DeCausa (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support Fram's suggestion for a restriction to only AfC creations as reasonable. The AfC team can help mentor TableSalt342 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Fram's AfC proposal - Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• So much for "collaboration" — Sigh... RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• I don't have the faintest desire to work on an article about it, but as a Western Australian, I can explain Cane. It's a bounded locality that indeed had a population of 13 in 2016, living in an area of 3,460.3 km² (1,336.0 sq mi) (see the zip file). I imagine this area doesn't contain any towns but it might well contain roadhouses for passing traffic (it's near the Nanutarra roadhouse) and/or stations for farming. Such isolation isn't at all unusual for areas in this part of the world. Cane is mentioned at North West Coastal Highway. Articles like this are certainly not a new phenomenon; see the first revision of Oombulgurri Community, Western Australia, an article I rescued back in the day. Cane is undoubtedly much less interesting than Oombulgurri ... and I can attest from experience that most people going to or even living in the Cane area probably couldn't care less which bounded locality they're in. There might be people who would want to work on an article about this place, but the current draft would be singularly unhelpful to them. Graham87 09:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Fram's suggestion that AFC be used. However, this personal attack might indicate other problems.--- Possibly (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support requiring TableSalt342 to use AFC, after reading their comments on User talk:Fram; perhaps with a clause that after they have had 20 articles accepted via AFC, they can request to have the restriction removed. Schazjmd (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Just had to move another one of the articles to draftspace. Noah ^💬 18:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support AFC restriction/creation ban: There is absolutely no reason why TableSalt should not be creating drafts first, and no reason for them to get upset when their obviously problematic articles get moved to draft space. The occasional personal attack doesn't help. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support TableSalt342 needs to do more thorough research before publishing articles. I think an AFC restriction would be helpful for the time being. I would only support ending their restriction if a mentor deems their draftspace content to be problem-free. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support The weakness is solely because AFC is overloaded. The backlog is growing faster than new reviewers become effective and esablished reviewers are finding it hard to cope. I guess this became a good idea with frequent article creators who had almost as many misses as hits, but that set a precedent for "Let's delegate this to the dedicated reviewers at AFC and solve it that way." And so AFC reviews get delayed for what appears to be the valid reason of mentoring an editor, when, really WP:CIR is important. For that reasn I will add cautious support to Fram's proposal below, a proposal which I hope will overtake this one on the noticeboard participants' thoughts Fiddle Faddle 09:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support My worry with an AfC restriction is that the user may move on to expanding existing articles in a disruptive manner causing more work for other editors. I am inclined to give support to Frams proposal below. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 09:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Time for a WP:CIR ban instead?

Instead of a ban on creation in article space, I wonder if we shouldn't just skip the hassle and go straight to a WP:CIR ban. Their latest creation, during the above discussion, is Silas, Texas. It looked like this when they were finished with it. User:Fences and windows did some necessary cleaning and removed a few major errors already[7], and then I tagged all(?) remaining errors[8] and explained all issues on the article talk page[9].

Tablesalt then undid my tags[10], and reverted again[11] after User:Star Mississippi reinstated the tags. The tagged version was then again reinstated by User:Moriori, after which TableSalt started a section on the user talk page of all three of us[12][13][14], instead of taking it to the article talk page.

I invite people to read the article and talk page, and to check the replies by TableSalt. They seem to be unable to accurately read texts, and make basic errors against English to boot (well, so do I probably, but still), using "primarily sectered" and "secondarily sectered" to describe the primary sector and Secondary sector of the economy (and defending this use in their user talk page messages). I fear that, even when we force them to use AfC, they will be a massive drain on the time of other editors, and/or they will simply switch from creating articles to expanding existing ones. Fram (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Conditional support I would not wish to see an indefinite block. I have no idea if competence can be learned by this editor, but I think we must try. And I feel that short acting blocks and a formal mentoring scheme should be used until competence is acquired. Despite the many issues, I feel we should look at this editor's contributions with the same gaze that AFC does. If they have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process then that is all we should be asking for.

I accept completely that this editor lacks some skills at present. I accept that they may be incapable of taking, or be unwilling to take, those skills on board. I wonder whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention might be well placed to provide the firm assitance this editor appears to require during and between short acting CIR blocks

I would very much like my weak support in the section above to be seen as what it is, a heartfelt sigh that AFC is not the place for extra work and should not be a dumpimg ground. Fiddle Faddle 09:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment There is, of course, a time when the block will naturally become indefinite, based on the judgement of the enforcing admins, assuming zero improvement. Fiddle Faddle 16:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support It’s not just about competence. They’re also resistant to learning/changing despite multiple editors giving them the same message. Two days ago they told Fram that they would go through AFC but then ignored it, generated a poor article and edit warred on it. DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - at the very least, it's a CIR issue. Deb (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support I am not fully versed in this user's issues but based on what I saw on Silas and the response on my User Talk, TableSalt does not understand what the issues are and therefore will not be able to edit according to Wikipedia policies. I don't think AfC will solve these issues if they're just going to edit war to restore their version because they don't understand why it's problematic. StarM 13:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delving further into the issues IDed in the section above this and because of my own concerns on the sources used, I have draftified Silas, Texas. Leaving a further note there. StarM 20:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support There is just something odd going on with all of this. Compare this user's stab at Silas, Texas (revision linked above) to this Texas State Historical Association entry for Silas, Tx. It is like this user is finding these sparse entries on these tiny, tiny communities or in some cases patches of uninhabited land, and dumbing down the wording even more. Bad writing, questionable subject matter, hyper-fixation on the minutiae of the subject matter. This isn't teachable, and is only gong to be a time-sink. ValarianB (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment TS' response to me: but I proved them wrong? is not confidence inspiring and unserscores Fram's point above that this editor does not have the competence to edit Wikipedia. StarM 15:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support a review of their editing confirms the CIR concerns for me. Just to take one example, the line in Silas, "In 1899, the demographics of Silas' children across 2 schools were mainly 66% white and 33% black," [15] is cited to a source that says, "In 1899 it had two schools, one with ninety White children and another with fifty-four Black children." I could understand that a reader might not pick up on the fact that there were two schools, one was a white school with 90 white kids, and the other school was a black school with 54 Black kids (which makes sense given that in 1899 schools here were still segregated). To change that into "2 schools were mainly 66% white and 33% black" makes it sounds like they were integrated schools. Also, the percentages are wrong, it's 62% white and 37% Black, but even aside from that quibble, the presentation of the source is... well, misleading, even if unintentionally so. But that's why I think CIR. After this discrepancy was pointed out, TableSalt342 wrote [16] "Adding to the previous edit, the edit makes the page look messy. Just read the sources. For example, the original source states a number of white and black students, because we can’t copy from the source, we had to reword it into percentages. This was a foolish edit". That edit summary ("we had to reword it into percentages") is what clinches the CIR concerns for me. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support – clearly a net negative to the encyclopedia, per comments above. Graham87 06:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. If this behaviour continues after the block then a longer block can be made, possibly indefinite. Only ban if there is any evasion of a block or restriction. Peter James (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per ValarianB. Also, shows no interest in learning how to do better and is blocked for personal attacks. Writing is on the wall here. Not a person who will be a net positive to the community. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I was hesitant to support this, given the requirement to use AfC, but after doing some more digging into their article creations, I think that allowing them to continue to create new articles -- which is all they appear to be interested in doing -- would simply put an unnecessary burden on AfC, since the majority of their creations seem likely to be rejected in any case. So, reluctantly, I agree that a CIR-based site ban is appropriate. I also suggest that their articles, which have all been moved to draftspace, be considered for mass-deletion after being culled for any which may be of value. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support- I don't want to overload AFC with this person's articles, and it seems that they are unable to create suitable content for the encyclopedia, which necessitates a CIR ban.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  Have they said they will continue to do the same when the current block expires? Peter James (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  Peter James, they were blocked for personal attacks, not for article creation. Their repeat comments on my Talk as well as others shows they don't believe they did anything wrong, so I would imagine so. StarM 21:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  It's unlikely they will continue to believe that now that they have been blocked; if they do then the next block will be longer, or more likely indefinite. Peter James (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think that? If you examine their history there’s a significant CIR problem. Their responses to what’s happened to them before the block just don’t make any sort of sense. DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Leo Dottavio, edit warring over a redirect to rescue a fanzine article

See edit history for Rondavanmeter (talk · contribs), including these since being unblocked [17]; [18]; [19]; [20]; [21]; [22]. This explanation was ignored [23]. But it stands to reason, given the edit history preceding the block [24]; [25]; [26]. I don't care about the scandal business, but this is clearly an account here for one purpose--promoting and preserving Mr. Dottavio's rep. I've requested a user block at AIV, and the page needs to be protected. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I've left Rondavanmeter a warning for edit warring. If this user continues, this disruption will be considered blockable. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added by far the most thoroughly sourced content, that pertaining to harassment incidents. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You are adding content that has no source. The claim of “cease and desist” had no foundation. The information added is inflammatory & not factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondavanmeter (talk • contribs) 04:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC) I don’t understand how someone is allowed to just delete his page altogether multiple times, yet you are slowing information to be posted that has no factual background. I’m not trying to get blocked, I just need an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondavanmeter (talk • contribs) 04:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You need to follow guidelines about what warrants an article or not (WP:GNG), about the requirements for information to be found in reliable sources (WP:V); and additionally, and much more importantly, you need to follow WP:BRD - if your edits have been reverted by multiple other editors, it's time to stop reverting and time to start discussing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• There is really no point in dragging this out: the editor is not here to improve our project. Their promotional edits on the Dottavio article, and specifically the removal of reliably sourced but negative BLP information, and the edit warring over it while seeming completely ignorant of our guidelines about BLPs and sourcing, are enough proof. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible attempt to discredit Robert Lanza

I just updated Robert Lanza page and got a surprising reply from User:ජපස very soon. As part of increasing my experience and doing edits now to some of the more complicated areas which go through a review, I did some improvements, which I think is fine to do because they go through the review process. I like to improve pages. So, thought to improve this too. As the page was protected my edits can't be get approved directly. So, I edited the page and provided credible sources like Forbes, NYtimes, and Wired. But seems like this user is not satisfied with these sources. He is continuously harassing Robert Lanza's page. He is removing words like scientist from his page which is kind of weird. Discrediting him with false info and trying his best to manipulate neutrality. The improvements edits which I have done were approved by User:KEleison. So, there is nothing wrong with it. So, to found that out I just checked User:ජපස talks page and saw that he has engaged in many edit war before and is also being warned by admins User_talk:ජපස. I would request admins to please have a look into this matter. ToddyShake (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Robert Lanza. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Hi, Folks! Robert here, I am sorry if there are some confusions. I have been watching my page for few days and have noticed there are some IPs and a user trying to change the way my page looks. To clearly clarify I am a scientist. So, disregarding me as a scientist by User:ජපස is a kind of slap to my face. I felt bad but I thought its ok when this user removed all books which I had published. I can see many similar pages where other people's books are mentioned. I am not sure why I am particularly targeted here. Why my achievements are being suppressed? I am sorry if I have broken any Wikipedia guidelines, as far as I remember I just contacted a guy on Upwork a few months ago for a minor page upgrade. And he was insisting me for page monitoring service which I clearly denied because I didn't see any need for this. That editor was saying he is pretty experienced and has more than 17 years of experience. After taking a look at User:ජපස account it also seems the same old account. I am suspicious here that this user might be the same guy I hired on Upwork earlier. Because I am getting requests for page maintenance still now. I am not sure what to do here. Most of my notable research work is getting removed and it gives a pretty bad impression of me. After doing years of hard work and getting recognization is pretty challenging which I somehow managed to pass. I hope my page can be like other similar pages where a person's achievements can be shown. LanzaRobert (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"LanzaRobert" is a false account. Please remove the account and all comments attributed to me immediately. NOTE: I just set up this account to notify you of this fraudulent activity.RPLanza (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Robert. It's good to take an interest in your public image, and I believe you that you've done some impressive work. All that said, unfortunately, contacting a guy on Upwork is a pretty serious violation if you aren't doing it in a very careful and specific manner. There's an approved process for people with a conflict of interest -- article subjects or paid editors -- to suggest changes to pages, but editing them directly is both prohibited (de facto, and de jure 'strongly discouraged') and raises the ire of a quite passionate subset of the community. You're also not the first person to come here saying that they paid for edits and were later turned on, scammed, or abused by the paid editor, I'm afraid. Vaticidalprophet 21:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, in the context of that specific guy, he is definitely not your paid editor. Vaticidalprophet 21:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

User:LanzaRobert: No slap in the face was intended on my part. I generally assume medical researchers are a subset of scientist and, in general, Wikipedia style is to try to be specific in our identifications whenever possible. Do you think "medical researcher" might be an appropriate ID? I would definitely recommend ending any relationship you have with paid editing services at this point as you can simply request on Talk:Robert Lanza for any suggestions or edits you might think worthy according to the WP:COI policy.

Again, LanzaRobert" is a false account. Please remove the account and all comments attributed to me immediately. NOTE: I just set up this account to notify you of this fraudulent activity.RPLanza (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I want to be clear that while we may not see eye-to-eye regarding our opinions, I certainly am not out to have Wikipedia "discredit" you in any untoward fashion. I firmly believe that Wikipedia in situations like this should provide the clearest explanation of independent sources we have available. In the case of your ideas about biocentrism, that puts your ideas somewhere in the realm of our WP:FRINGE guideline which I encourage you to read. Note that this guideline is very broad and sometimes people get offended by the lumping as this guideline covers everything from new and untested speculation all the way to clear absurdities. To be clear: this isn't a value judgement by me or by Wikipedia about your work (or, at least, it is not intended to be that way), but my goal and, I think, the goal of most users active here is to curate the best possible article according to a roughy WP:MAINSTREAM evaluation. One more thing: as your article is a biography of a living person, there are strict sourcing guidelines that we need to adhere to. One thing I would love, for example, is a clear citation to an independent verification that you were an adjunct professor at Wake Forest.

Welcome to Wikipedia and feel free to reach out if you need help. I recognize that I might not be the first person you would want to reach out to, but the offer stands in any case.

jps (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I am afraid that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that User:ToddyShake may be the Upwork paid editor in question. While he has neither confirmed nor denied this, I think from his talkpage and general behavior this might be considered a possibility in any case. I will step away from further engagement with that user in case an admin wants to investigate in some way or another. jps (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Almost certainly. (I had noticed their edits at Dustin York yesterday -- that page has been the target of other obviously promotional editing in the past.) --JBL (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems like the edit under dispute[27] largely consists of two short quote-paragraphs that don't even indicate who they're quoting. (Wired magazine? I think?) More broadly, there seems to be some back and forth[28] over some very credulous quotes about Doctor Lanza's work outside the medical field. No offense to Lanza, but that work almost certainly triggers the guidelines about WP:FRINGE research, so some care should be taken about choosing quotes about it. ApLundell (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment First of all sorry, I didn't mean to blame you jps. You are doing great work. I am sure there is no editor from this discussion who is against my page. All you guys just want improvements to my page. I would be thankful if these few lines can be added to my page. There are proper sources provided. I have also requested on the talk page. And from now on will do the same by requesting edits from the talk page. Your help will be greatly appreciated.

“Lanza and his colleagues have published peer-reviewed scientific work supporting his ideas, including a paper in the same journal Einstein published his papers on relativity, showing that “quantum gravitational decoherence is too ineffective to guarantee the emergence of the arrow of time and the ‘quantum‐to‐classical’ transition to happen at scales of physical interest. The emergence of the arrow of time is directly related to the nature and properties of physical observer… in a sense, the “brainless” observer does not experience time and/or decoherence of any degrees of freedom.”

− − “Nathalie Cabrol, the director of the SETI Institute Carl Sagan Center, said “A biocentric ‘theory of everything’ could take life’s origins all the way back to the beginning of the universe…a paradigm shift that fundamentally changes our relationship to our planet, to our biosphere and to our universe.” LanzaRobert (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Again, "LanzaRobert" is a false account. Please remove these comments. Thank you!RPLanza (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

OP blocked for spamming. MER-C 10:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

And I've blocked both LanzaRobert and RPLanza under the username policy, the former first. Definitely some funny business going on somewhere. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Update I've posted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanzaRobert as there seems to be ongoing funny business. Perhaps whoever is behind these accounts just doesn't know the right way to handle these kinds of blocks, but given the possibility of paid editing, I wonder whether further investigation is warranted beyond this. jps (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Scott Zumwalt "numerology" spam

Scott Zumwalt (talk · contribs) seems to be an SPA that has been spamming nonsense about numerology on some pages tonight, including Talk:Numerology, Talk:The Undertaker and ItsKesha's talk page.[29][30][31][32][33][34][35]LM2000 (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Does anyone here more familiar than me with Brad Watson, Miami think there's a connection (if so, a CU should take a look), or is this just another random crank? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The edits look very different to me, but perhaps the disordered thinking has changed in nine years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Indonesia IP range vandalism

I am moving the following report to here from AIV, since it seems more complex than what is usually handled there:

180.241.44.192/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – long-running vandalism from this range. Perhaps the range could be be adjusted to reduce the collateral, but we really need some kind of block here (the vandalism to anime articles has been going on for months now, and looking into it, there seems to be vandalism to several other topic areas as well) — Goszei

The anime-article vandalism is the main subject of my report, and consists of removing the Japanese companies/staff and falsely adding "DreamWorks Animation", "Universal Pictures", and Western animators. This has been going on persistently since 28 November 2020. There is also a high rate of reverts associated with TV station articles, but I'm not familiar with the subject area and I don't see anything outwardly wrong with many of them (not sure if they are reverts of subtle vandalism, or just normal reverts).

There is enough vandalism here to necessitate some kind of block, but it seems tricky because the vandalism is mixed with good-faith edits from the /16. I think we need to go in with a scalpel and block several /20 or /24 blocks (I tried to do this, but couldn't get something satisfactory). — Goszei (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The disruption is spread pretty widely, but most of it can be gotten by a couple smaller range blocks. I'll try that before doing something wider. I think some of the other edits on that IP range are from a sock puppeteer, but I don't really feel like spending an hour to tell what's going on. There's going to be a trickle of vandalism that gets through, but if it gets to be too much I can do wider range blocks. I don't see any logged-in vandalism to anime articles, so maybe an anon-only range block would be something to try later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Mass removal

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

---

The IP 37.186.98.35 is mass deleting same information from several articles despite 4 warnings to stop. (These are the diffs so far, he keeps on going with these, so you can check his contrubutions page as well: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Brendanod105

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

---

• Brendanod105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Among the 103 edits made by Brendanod105 so far, 72 of them have been reverted as unconstructive. Brendanod105 has been blocked twice this month, once for 31 hours on 16 March for vandalism, and a second time for 1 week on 21 March for persistent addition of unsourced content.

Since Brendanod105 was released from their second block on 28 March, they have made 6 edits, 3 of which have been reverted as unconstructive:

1. 04:23, 28 March 2021: Changed "far-right" to "conservative" in One America News Network, contrary to cited sources and prior RfC result, with no edit summary
2. 04:25, 28 March 2021: Removed "conservative" from lead section of Fox News, with no edit summary
3. 04:14, 29 March 2021: Almost identical to #1

References

Considering that ~70% of Brendanod105's edits have been reverted as unconstructive, and that Brendanod105 has never engaged in any form of discussion about their edits despite repeated warnings and blocks, I propose that Brendanod105 be indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. — Newslinger talk 14:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Done Indeffed. Perhaps they will start communicating now. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

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

More eyes on CEFC scandal

Per series of edits by QUARTERBILLIONP$G (talk · contribs). It's usually a red flag when a new WP:SPA user adds the same 'scandal' section to the top of multiple articles, with the headers all in caps. More eyes, please. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Please google CEFC and you will see it is a true scandal. Their story has been reported by many reputable news outlets including Bloomberg, WSJ, NYTimes, CNN, etc. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QUARTERBILLIONP$G (talk • contribs) 03:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• What's your interest, QUARTERBILLIONP$G, that your only edits so far are to add the same content to multiple articles? At the top. In caps. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • CEFC China Energy is the main article. Hunter Biden was peripherally involved in the wheeling and dealing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • To this day, CEFC Shanghai still hasn't paid the $327 million in bond payments. is pointed, and suggests that the content needs an objective copy edit. Is its inclusion in the other articles overkill, Cullen328? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, the article probably needs work but that would require a deep dive into the reliable sources, and I have neither expertise nor interest in the international bond market or bankruptcies. Accordingly, I do not know if it is due for other articles, but adding all caps headers is a bad sign. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you moved the sections down. Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by QUARTERBILLIONP$G (talk • contribs) 04:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Cullen - I didn't include Hunter Biden in my edit although (Redacted). I will spend more time on the new part I added later this week. This story is about a USD bond fraud committed by CEFC and CITIC CLSA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QUARTERBILLIONP$G (talk • contribs) 04:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• I can assure you that adding another BLP violation like the one I just redacted will ensure your inability to edit the articles. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • There's also been a desire to characterize the content as a scandal or controversy. If the sources aren't using that language then neither do we. 2601:188:180:B8E0:8492:9814:AE10:6C0E (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

User:KIENGIR

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

---

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

We’re long overdue for a centralized discussion and serious action regarding this user. For those of you who don’t know him, let me introduce you. KIENGIR basically doesn’t contribute content. I’m not sure what his raison d’être is here, but it certainly isn’t writing articles, and part of that is because he, well, can’t. His English isn’t up to par, as WP:COMPETENCE suggests it should be. Here and here are two frustrated users commenting on that issue.

By now, a lot of us are familiar with his modus operandi. What he does is to impose some unjustified change, hoping nobody notices. A lot of the time, his calculation pays off. A recent example would be here, part of his long-standing campaign to push the theory that Greater Hungary lasted until 1920, when in fact Czechoslovakia emerged in October 1918.

Unfortunately for him, other users do sometimes raise objections. At that point, KIENGIR falls back on Plan B: revert, revert, revert and talk, talk, talk, eventually wearing his opponent into submission. Examples are legion, but behold a recent one: here, here and here, he arbitrarily changes two pairs of links. When pointed out to him that the original links reflect the source, written by a prolific scholar in the topic area, he scoffs and says he knows better.

KIENGIR holds some rather esoteric opinions, and has a single-minded determination to impose them, regardless of whether the sources back him up. For example, I recently wanted to add four simple words to an infobox. Knowing the only sure way to prevail was to obtain consensus, I had to run a poll where my proposal prevailed, 5-1. The 1 objector, the subject of this complaint, wrote massive amounts of text, and it was a huge waste of time for all of us. Again, for 4 non-controversial words.

Or how about this one — a concerted push to add an absurd category to a category? Again, a wide-ranging discussion ensued, concluding that he’s wrong. Another waste of time for all involved. Lately, his ideas have been becoming ever more outlandish. Here, we’ve had walls of text about why we shouldn’t be linking Poland when writing about... Poland. Here, he wants us not to link Romania when discussing “modern Romania”. Here he tried to impose the view that the Nazi Party was not fascist. Thankfully, that’s a highly visible article, and he had to give up.

It’s fair to say KIENGIR is an inveterate revert warrior. He was warned against it back in November, but still does it with gusto: here and here are two prime fresh examples. Elsewhere, KIENGIR goes to quite great lengths to whitewash the authoritarian regime of Viktor Orbán, an action that speaks for itself.

One of KIENGIR’s time-tested tactics is to launch false accusations of personal attacks. See e.g. here and here. Meanwhile, he himself is guilty of such attacks, on numerous occasions. He was making them in January, leading to complaint by an administrator. Here, he told an editor, “You better avoid referring to policies”. And just today, when I explained a policy, he launched into a bizarre tirade.

One of his most egregious gambits has been unfolding just recently. On March 11, another editor received an email mentioning KIENGIR, and mistakenly thought said user had sent the message. The other user quickly noticed his mistake and apologized. (By the way, his initial reply is revelatory.) That should have been the end of the story. But true to form, KIENGIR wasn’t ready to let it drop. He waited 12 days before demanding to know who’d sent the email. Four days after that, he returned to the poor user’s page, insisting he be told the email’s author. After being firmly told off, he then went to an administrator’s talk page sputtering about involving ArbCom. As I said, egregious. Whatever KIENGIR’s future here is, he should understand that, within the scope of the law, we can write whatever e-mails we well please, even if they’re about him, and that his farcical inquisition can at best end in ridicule for him.

I’ve already given some hints of this, but let me just say outright that I’m far from being the only user who finds KIENGIR’s approach to be insufferable. For starters, see here. Here is another eloquent summation.

This statement has gone on at some length, but I hope I’ve presented a solid case for meaningful action. I’d like to close by pinging a few involved editors: @Boynamedsue:, @Azure94:, @Rsk6400:, @Place Clichy:, @Vanjagenije:, @Super Dromaeosaurus:, @CaffeinAddict:, @Beyond My Ken:, @Aza24:, @Oliszydlowski:. — Biruitorul ^Talk 01:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Biruitorul,

I will need a bit of time to investigate fully this, but it seems you have a bad conscience, especially you had quite lot of bad faith moves recently, in violation of many things. Now you continue, very nice, however these were not the first time. Never mind, I have nothing to be afraid of, in WP diffs talk, and yes, I will investigate with Arbcom that emailing issue in collaboration with the administrators in which somebody with a slime move tried me to set up, but it failed in the end. Just because you made this "preventive step", will not change the outcome, could be a huge WP:BOOMERANG, possibly affecting more editors in case, but I retain my good faith as far as possible, contrary to you. Have a nice day, until then!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

As far as I’m concerned, you can “investigate the issue” with the International Criminal Court; the fact remains that we all are guaranteed the right to freedom of speech and secrecy of correspondence, and there’s nothing you can do about that. What you can do is to try and account for your tendentious, hostile and unproductive behavior, but I suspect that’s a more challenging task. — Biruitorul ^Talk 02:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I am familiar with KIENGIR's editing in the subject area of Nazism. He single-handedly held up the description of Nazi Germany as "fascist" by bludgeoning the talk page discussion. I was forced to go to AN and advertise for a closer because he simply wouldn't agree to the obvious and overwhelming consensus on the talk page. [36]. His non-sensical and counter-factual objection was egregious enough that admin Swarm commented on ANI: "IMO KIENGIR is on the absolute border of being indeffed for this, and you can log this for the record." [37]
  KIENGIR then followed that by ignoring pleas from several editors to stop blockading an RfC discussion on the same page. [38]. KIENGIR's user talk page is full of edit-warring notices from numerous different editors.
  In the subject area I'm familiar with his editing, his contributions are mostly small ones, and they are mostly improvements, but that doesn't negate the fact that when he digs in his heels, he becomes an incredible time sink. I'm not sure exactly what kind of solution can be found for this, but I think that a solution is necessary, as I don't believe that KEINGIR will change their ways until encouraged to do so by some kind of sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  KIENGIR'S response to Biruitorul above is absolutely typical of the way they respond when challenged, with personalization of the issue and charges against the editor he's in dispute with. Saying that Biruitorul's evidence-full complaint is the result of their having a "ban conscience" and of makiong "bad faith moves" is just not acceptable, but it's what happens. Read the two threads I posted above, and you'll find a number of instances of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• This largely looks like a content dispute. I also don't see anything bad with the diff where he "went to an administrator’s talk page sputtering about involving ArbCom". KIENGER was just seeking guidance there. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  No, it is not a content dispute, it is most clearly and obviously a behavioral problem ranging over numerous articles in different subject areas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I hadn't read your comment above before posting my comment. It looks clearer than the original report here. I agree that his contributions "are mostly improvements, but that doesn't negate the fact that when he digs in his heels, he becomes an incredible time sink. "Let's hope KEINGER will make some assurances before there is an urgent need for sanctions, given he still has the time. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I believe I was tagged because a page on my watchlist: Louis C.K. had a rather bizarre interaction about C.K.'s Mexican-Jewish heritage and an editor had asked for a semi-protected edit to add a category for people of Mexican-Jewish heritage. Our user in question here decided to remove the category, which I reverted here: [39]. He then went on some pointless tirade about C.K.'s questionable heritage of both backgrounds which is not only information that is well documented but in some of his widely publicized comedy specials. The talk page section in question is here: Talk:Louis C.K.#Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021. Sounds like there's some sort of ulterior motive here and having to do with the above comments ^ may or may not have to do with Judaism, Nazism and/or Antisemitism. Not for me to decide or to suggest, but I'm beginning to see a potential pattern here... that's my two cents. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'd like to go on the record as saying that I don't believe that KIENGIR is antisemitic or pro-Nazi or anything like that (although I cannot speak for any biases he may have in issues connected to Hungary). After Swarm made the comment I cited above, I wrote "I've been aware of KIENGIR's editing in the subject area of Nazis and Nazism for some time, and I don't believe I've ever seen an instance in which they attempted to whitewash or downplay its attributes." [40] Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  To that point I don't have any evidence or interest in reading too much into it to suggest that, just seems particular their editing seems to follow a trend. In general it seems that the editor is more disruptive than constructive. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  You raise a valid point. While I wouldn’t necessarily ascribe malicious intent, this kind of edit does raise eyebrows — splitting hairs while trying to absolve of anti-Semitism a regime that sent over 400 thousand Jews to Auschwitz. — Biruitorul ^Talk 03:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  That seems like the kind of ultra-pedantic behavior KIENGIR showed in his arguments concerning why Nazi Germany wasn't a fascist country. He's got some odd viewpoints about things, and is apparently incapable of getting past them when multiple editors or consensus goes against them. What the genesis of that behavior is I don't know, and is really not our problem. Our concern is that when he gets stuck in those dead-ends he holds up everyone else by his intransigence. That's when the personalization starts.

  In one of the discussions I posted above, after about a half-dozen responses in which KIENGIR waved off someone's comment by saying that they didn't properly understand the problem or KIENGIR's position (if they had, they would obviously have agreed with him), an editor had enough and specifically asked KIENGIR to respond without commenting on the lack of perception of the editor -- and, of course, that's precisely what KIENGIR did. Whether he does this kind of thing deliberately or not is very difficult to say, but it's purely a matter of fact that he does this, over and over again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Passing by, I saw just above stuff like " it seems you have a bad conscience, especially you had quite lot of bad faith moves recently". This is not a good way to defend yourself. Some sort of CIV/NPA warning is need, at minimum. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Answer to Biruitorul, let's see what we have here:

- "KIENGIR basically doesn’t contribute content." -> phh....INCIVILIY (d), quickly may be refuted, does not even deserve more word

- "impose some unjustified change, hoping nobody notices" -> joke, WP is a transparent platform (my favorite phrase, nothing is hidden). Any of my change I take the responsibility, if I made a mistake I always acknowledge it, and ready to discuss content issues. This demonstration of yours is flawed, since it is a similar simplification, like you did in the Brașov article proposal ([41]), not listing all the subsequent Hungarian states between the period (First Hungarian Republic, Hungarian Soviet Republic, Hungarian Republic (1919–1920)), and yes, Košice was transeferred in 1920, the year when Kingdom of Hungary existed, so this is the first WP:BOOMERANG of yours

- I keep all our guidelines and policies, regarding the Bleiburg Reparations, and yes, we need to talk sometimes (even if you don't like, this is the civilized way here, per policy, anyway I am not I am the one who engage so many big talks overall), and I do correctly which anyway an Administor also support in the various articles in the current topic:([42]), BOOMERANG, if you told about Tomasevich: ([43])...

- ah now you refer to the Brașov case I just mentioned. "Esoteric" I could call your emotional approach of some factual things nevertheless, but I don't wish to sank down that level. Not with you I discussed mainly, but an other editor with mutual satisfaction about related topics, with mutual respect. Maybe you don't like that editors may collaborate, especially the discussion was useful and important, you even blanked it ([44]), you don't like if a Hungarian and Romanian editor collaborate efficiently, instead of grievances? (poetrical question, no need to answer)

- How about this one" -> this is your key failure, in which you commited huge bad faith moves, harming WP:CIVILITY. You approached another editor I was in debate with ([45]), in which you spuriously sates that I do a maddening example...of modus operandi" contrary to "consensus". First of all I did not know about that discussion, but what is more important, even these category changes were done without it, and even opened a talk case for the issue [[46]], which I had no response. How interesting later I reveal there have been an e-mail recruitment to that issue, including my name as a subject, that one user by mistake considered I sent the e-mail, to recruit feedbacks to a category discussion, but I was NOT notified, not by even a ping or anything, but the misterious perpertrator could notify a bunch of other users in a hidden way (and even the case in the talk I opened remained unanswered)....secondly,it is very interesting what made you to complain a novice user, with lack of expertise and competence in the area, but you even forgot to notify me about that discussion that YOU created ([47]).... this was a shameful, awful move from a very-experienced editor like you...you claim "consensus" in an unfinished discussion, but you don't notify me but an uninvolved user you fuel to revert me instead....you tried to set me up, an another editor had to notify me about that discussion...BOOMERANG...(of course when I pinpointed this in the user's talk page, it became so inconvenient that with bogus edit logs it was blanked, the truth may hurt sometimes, I know, further on this ([48]) ([49]))

- The Poland discussion in the Romani people in Romania is a complete BOOMERANG of yours, after I sucessfully demonstrated the point, despite your initial bad faith implication manipulation ([50]), but of course as you revelaed this, you started to come up with personal attacks parochial obsessions, etc. ([51]), bad faith ironical personalizations, but you ignored my question ([52]), as well you supported the inexperienced user's spurious evasion of answering, a good case study anyway, but still a BOOMERANG

- The "modern Romania discussion" has not any problem as well, we clarified things with a fellow editor friendly (it seems you hate if Hungarian-Romanian editors collaborating with mutual respect? Annoyed?). When you wished there peaceful Sunday ([53]), you meant both of us? (or just to me with this move?)

"he tried to impose the view that the Nazi Party was not fascist." -> Ohh Gush, it seems you did not read the discussion, I was not saying something else, more complex. Instead of attacking my English, better learn to read and interpreting correctly, everything is there. I have to assume not every editor is a Rocket Scientist or have 150 IQ at minimum, but since then I discussed a case with an admin (I did not gave it up, and again, everything is visible and transparent here, which you have to concern, not me), who understood me and assured I did not in fact nothing wrong technically, semantically, despite he would prefer other solution ([54]). So this card is not playing.

- The RSK400 case have been debunked more times, I followed all the policies, the user reported subsequently any editor to AN3 and ANI who did not agree with him, openly to solve the problem and clear the obstacle out of the way like @Krakkos:. Failed with it, despite we generously supported even in more detailed extant what he wanted as necessary. Quite unfriendly move from him, and totally ridicuolous to spot me from a widespread discussion involving many-many editors, maybe me and Krakkos had the best arguments? Oh, I am really dangerous :D - BOOMERANG

- The next to diff, in fact an other editor commited mass edit warring, adding problematic content and was quickly blocked, just one step before indef ([55]), despite out of block commited huge personal attack ([56]) and again very poor performance. I just prevented the page from vandalism. Your one of greatest nadir the you openly support disruptive editors, just because they don't like me like you...BOOMERANG

- No I did not whitewash any "authoritarian regime of Viktor Orbán", I corrected to factual, and neutral information, and as any content issue, so you either present your evidence (as per other content issues) that I am not accurate or right, or better silence and apoligize (I am the one anyway who adds far more the most accurate content in the areas I care, and in this topic I proved to over times the most experts, next to sloppy mistakes by other who does not have elemental knowleged in the subject)

- So far, regarding personals attack you better deeply silence, since you commited them, while those diffs you presented does not contain any of such, indeed I suffered more as mentioned above. I have a very good relation with Vanjagenie, an admin whom I respect and tutored me, made me learn much.

- again the e-mail issue..."sputtering" (?)...are you nervous Biruitorul? However, I went to the administrator earlier as you present the events, so at least the causation you should not harm, if you considreed to compile a frank good report....but let's assume you are not calm..., however as going forward reading your lines, I am not really surprised...

- on the first of the last diffs, thank you that you made open your epic bad faith move (detailed above), however, the most important parts, as I referred have been censored (also about the bad faith blanking above). Your last diff is very lame, since you promote a novice, just blocked editor after a huge disruption, who just copy-pasted the spurious claims of the aforementioned pages, considering he may be unblocked if he starts to attack me....Congratulations, the nadir or your carreer here to fuel and teamup editors who openly recruit and train other editors against me, spreading lies ([57]) and even teaching and questioning a veteran administrator proper conduct, each of around 1000/2500 mainspace edits lacking huge competence and misconduct of our policies, repeatedly. Beautiful!

Epilogue:

- Biruitorul once already reported to me to ANI in the early years, simply he did not really like me from the beginning, especially that I have an expertise many of the topic areas I made more neutral, factual and accurate, which he by emotional (?)/ dislike my nationality (?) reasons did not like ion some sensitive topics, but the Securitate style dossier quickly failed, as the content issues he collected not just were not demonstrative, as it had not problems, but even to attach to me a negative behavior failed, and the community quickly recognized I regard him a partner and wish to communicate and a collaborate with him, which he harshly rejected. The report failed obviously.

- a bit later he emailed an administrator to set me up, however it was not successful either they quickly recognized my motives for accurate content and willing to learn, since then around 4 administrators supervised my career, having recurrent active communication with them and tutoring me as well, without any problem, successfully

- Despite I always collaborated with Biruitorul, I saw also from his behalf to became more moderate and professional once, he even asked my help, and happily helped, he thanked

- recently something again broke in him, which resulted this (hmmm...can I borrow from you the expression maddening example?) running amock, he thinks just because recently I was involved in more debates, the perfect time became to fuel and coordinate along with other editors against me, which possibly could result to move me out of way. I suffered WIKIHOUNDING, and co-ordination and teamup against me (I could search which policies have been violated with these, there may be a few but I don't waste time for that now), how to battle and tackle me, meanwhile a new dossier was again opened/compiled to move in the moment ([58]) -> 007, James Bond? ([59]) -> MAFIA XD, B-O-O-M-E-R-A-N-G, to the power of...two at least :) (and we still do not know who performed the hidden email coordination).

What could I say...those members of the community who don't have enough time may be coined for a while, but those who investiagte thoroughly will see the truth. I gladly answer and pinpoint anything if would not be clear, and again, I am absolutely sad that instead of quality editing, some partisan editors feel the need to harass me with spurious cooperative tactics.

Biruitorul, you should be deeply ashamed, I don't even expect from you to apologize, but with this I expressed everything. I will still forgive you, = meaning I care professionally about content issues, not your nervous manifesto here.

Remember very good, it's never to good to play to too intelligent people. @Vanjagenije:, @Ymblanter:, @El C:, @EdJohnston:, or @Oshwah: are laser brains, as much of the administrators here. Only the time and depth of analysis matter in complex issues. I hope you will get mercy. (getting back to the lovely Sunday, Cheers!)

P.S. I am sorry, as meanwhile many other comments cumulated, I did not read them so far and may react later (as well sorry for those who did no wait until audi et altere pars, as well for everyone baited, we lose many precious editing time with this nonsense :( (KIENGIR (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

• I read through the rest:

Biruitorul -> "tendentious, hostile and unproductive behavior" -> not really, quite boomerangish, the quality of my edits and my service record justifies me. Biruitorul, there has been an extensive discussion in the Hungarism article, which everyone may read, do you really think with selected, spuriously communicated diffs you have chance? Every expert knows what means Hungarism, and A-Semitism, in relation with Anti-Semitism. I am sorry for you, really.

Beyond My Ken -> Nice to see you, I would have been happy if yout waited my detailed answer. Would spare you much of demonstrations, however I reacted to them without knowing in my previous answer. (Nazism/Fascism, etc.) However, you tried to be fair as far as possible, after all, I acknowledge. Though it is true, many did not understand me, but there are other's who did. All the best!

Georgethedragonslayer -> Lovely

CaffeinAddict -> amazed, you seem to create from a flea an elephant, btw. I've never met you so far, just on that page. There are no conspiration theories, just simple logical thinking.

@Piotrus: -> I just only ping you because you are Polish (also there is a Polish issue after all), Polak, Węgier, dwa bratanki...don't worry, I am just kidding, if you really think CIV/NPA is needed even without reading my response, contrary what I've got Biruitorul so far and others - even lately...objectivity means, first I review both parties claims, and the evidence, only after I should form an opinion. As a golden rule. Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

• I want to add my two cents about another case of User:KIENGIR's baffling and possibly biased editing. There were two kingdoms in the 19th century Austrian Empire, the Kingdom of Bohemia and the Kingdom of Hungary. The Austrian Emperor was crowned king of both of them. Nevertheless, KIENGIR is now erasing Bohemia from infoboxes, claiming it wasn't independent. Yet, at the same time he's inserting Hungary when he can, flip-flopping on his own criteria. In another case, KIENGIR continues to ignore MOS:SAINTS and WP:COMMONNAME. A consensus was reached a year ago about using the English name for the Catholic saint. KIENGIR was part of the debate too, yet here he is, a year later, still ignoring the consensus. KIENGIR is incredibly stubborn over the most minor changes, and his refusal to accept compromise even when he's heavily outvoted, leads to many exhausting talk page debates. Azure94 (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support some form of action per WP:CIR. I don't levy CIR accusations casually, but KIENGIR's judgment is simply not trustworthy or useful, yet he clearly wants to aggressively revert and eat up time on talk pages. I have not interacted with him very much at all - mostly in boggling at his stances at the Talk:Nazi Germany discussion, so no skin off my nose either way - but it's not good. Everybody is allowed to have some idiosyncratic stances, but KIENGIR has way too many and stands by them. Arguing over whether Nazi Germany was fascist or not (per links above)? Talking in condescending tones about his high level of "expertise" that has enabled him to solve Wikipedia or something? Claiming that we should categorize politicians from X country as a subcategory of politicians from an entirely different country if there happens to be a single overlap (the equivalent of saying Mayors of New York City should be a subcategory of Italian politicians because of Fiorello la Guardia or the like?!)? The malfunctioning Wikignome is in some ways the most dangerous kind - simply doing nothing is better than doing a mix of reasonable-ish things as well as bizarre, personal ORy ones. KIENGIR is just wrong constantly, which would be fine, except he doesn't accept feedback, he just rambles on about what he Really Meant And Why It's Actually Right and doesn't engage with what's being said. This is intensely frustrating; disagreements are fine, common on Wikipedia, but you need to show you understand the other side's arguments, not just say you're right at length. Anyway, I would tentatively recommend something like a 0RR restriction as well as a talk page comments limited to one paragraph per 24 hours, with an understanding that those can go away when and if KIENGIR shows the ability to productively work with other editors rather than just waste their time. SnowFire (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would first recognise that KIENGIR makes a large number of largely positive minor edits, however, I do not feel that this makes up for the massive amount of editors' time which they consume with their intransigence as deliberate policy of WP:STONEWALLING. My experience of interaction with KIENGIR is so utterly exasperating that I have had to teach myself wiki bureacracy, something I had no interest in before. They have robbed me of hundreds of hours of effective editing by dragging an incredibly simple matter to DRN and RfC.

I would like to add some more worrying behaviour to the list documented by Biruitorul.

1. The deletion of sourced content as a bargaining chip to allow KIENGIR's POV (usually related to Hungarian nationalism or an extreme right POV) into the text, as a misapplication of the policy of reversion to the status quo for disputed text. My first experience of this was on Romani People in Hungary where I had added three paragraphs of carefully sourced text on the nature of anti-Roma racism in Hungary. KIENGIR wished to add two comments by a specific Roma politician which supported racist statements by various individuals. They claimed that without the comments of this individual all the rest of the text was POV and had no consensus so must be deleted. KIENGIR refused to identify specific examples of bias, despite many requests, and used a direct appeal to a reluctant admin to delete the text to a "status quo" version which excluded a massive amount of well-sourced text, when I had already offered them DRN or some other arbitration on the inclusion of their preferred sentences. The basis of this reversion by the admin was massive edit-warring, edit-warring which KIENGIR had initiated to force their POV into the article! This is not accidental, the same pattern of edit-warring, then reporting to an admin with which KIENGIR has a working relationship can be seen in their interaction with Azure94, linked above. Btw, this case is now at RfC, current vote tally is 5 to 1 against the inclusion of KIENGIR's text, as is generally the case when people have the stamina to face KIENGIR down.

Another example of threats of deletion for no good reason: Source uses the word "regions", KIENGIR prefers "fiefdoms", threatens to delete the whole sentence if doesn't get way. This is wikilawyering to force through a preferred edit, there can be no justification for deletion of sourced text on this basis.

2. The misuse of Hungarian language sources. Kiengir will frequently throw down Hungarian language sources without providing translation, on more than one occasion, the articles have not supported the text which he adds. 1 2

3. Communicative competence on talk pages: KIENGIR's contributions to talk pages are frequently extremely difficult or impossible to understand. This is a combination of excessive length of comment, incomplete control of English, refusal to clarify or repeat when requested, and constant deviation from content into metacommentary on the history of the ongoing debate. KIENGIR often feels that if their comment is not understood, the problem is that the listener is not trying hard enough, and denies the problem even when it is directly stated by uninvolved users (examples here and here, 17th(!) statement by moderator). At our recent DRN, I was even forced to explain KIENGIR's position to the moderator, as they were unable to express it clearly themselves. Whether this amounts to WP:STONEWALLING or is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, I am not entirely sure.

TLDR, Kiengir enters into discussion pages in a way that creates massive disruption to the ability to edit of many users. Their attitude causes thousands of hours which could be used to improve wikipedia to be wasted. I hope the admins can come up with some solution that stops this behaviour, but allows KIENGIR to continue the other more positive work they do, but I am at a loss to think how that would work. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have had several interactions with KIENGIR and I would say that most (if not all) have been friendly and we have discussed the issue civilly, so I cannot (nor do I wish) to say much on the subject. However, I agree that the user's way of acting can sometimes be improper. The best example I can think of is the categories issue mentioned by the OP above, KIENGIR simply was wrong on this case. I also consider that the attitude he had with Azure94 was not the most appropriate, as he did not focus on the content dispute but rather on the user themselves (not sure if I am making myself understood). Of course it must also be said that Azure94 did more questionable actions and claims than KIENGIR, but the reason I mention this is because Azure94 is a relatively inexperiencied user with few edits while KIENGIR has been here for a long time, and I consider the latter's way of dealing with Azure94 erroneous (as the content dispute was not really covered and this user ended blocked). This is just one case that I have noticed, as I have not seen KIENGIR's contributions extensively, so I would not say that this is always the case (and I am also not the best person to comment on someone's way of acting).

I also consider that some claims regarding his interaction with Ymblanter partially true, considering that this admin protected the page where KIENGIR had a conflict with Azure94 for edit-warring despite it was only them the ones fighting; this also happened at Zakarpattia Oblast, both protections being unneccesary in my opinion. But don't get me wrong, KIENGIR is a reasonable user with whom you can agree, at least on my case, and while perhaps a sanction may be necessary (or not, I don't want to dig much into that), it would be unwise and excessive to apply a long block or a 0RR restriction. Whatever the outcome of this report is, we should make sure it is not excessively damaging for the accused and helps them improve their attitude, which is not flawless but not negative in general from my point of view. Super Ψ Dro 10:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• To me this seems like a content dispute between Hungarian and Romanian editors. I'm unsure if ANI is the right place to straighten out such disputes. I've had my disagreements with KIENGIR throughout the years. He is certainly an assertive editor, and his English is far from ideal. In my experience, the contributions and arguments of KIENGIR frequently contributes to the creation of better article content. I have full confidence that KIENGIR is a good-faith editor with whom we can work on building an even better encyclopedia. Krakkos (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I am of ambiguous nationality and ethnicity, but whichever one of them I choose, I am neither Hungarian, Romanian nor any variety of Central/Eastern European. As far as I am aware, the only Romanian to have commented so far is Biruitorul, and I know for a fact that several users who have commented critically are not Romanian. The reason that the disagreements have largely (though not exclusively) related to Hungary and environs is that this is where KIENGIR holds strong views. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Krakkos How do the problems I've described with KIENGIR at Nazi Germany fit in with your contention that this is a "content dispute between Hungarian and Romanian editors"? Neither Hungary nor Romania figured in those incidents in any way, and the behavior I saw in those disputes is pretty much the same as the behavior described by Biruitorul.

I have no doubt that content disputes underlie the behavioral concerns expressed here -- as Biruitorul said in their opening statement, those behaviors came out when KIENGIR is challenged -- but they are nonetheless behavioral problems that are being discussed, and not content disputes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with what User:Beyond My Ken has stated, the content disputes are not the point, it is the behaviour they occasion. I have had many content disputes, none have been like those with KIENGIR. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That’s an unfortunate interpretation, Krakkos, given that I presented evidence from a variety of topic areas, interactions with a variety of users from all over the place. Yes, somewhat naturally, my own interactions with KIENGIR focus on Romania/Hungary, but that’s hardly the whole story. On the other hand, I’ve had divergences with other users in this very area — but the determination, the stubbornness, the lack of even the slightest concession to logic, the sheer tedium and exhaustion — those are all unique to KIENGIR. So no, really not a content dispute. — Biruitorul ^Talk 13:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on Talk:Nazi Germany. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I expressed my concerns about this a few weeks ago [60]. I agree it's a CIR issue. The long response above is typical. Unfortunately this has been causing a lot of disruption, including real problems with what our articles say. We can't be wasting editor time debating whether Nazis are fascists and so on. Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Azure94 -> there is saying, if you'd remain silent, would be wiser. While the Kingdom of Bohemia was incorporated to the Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Hungary was not (btw. you were explained in the talk of the reasons). About MOS+COMMON, you came up with this argumentation recently, conqequently I could not even know about the consensus you refer (after I at once occasion reverted, you started massively removing Hungarian names in several articles, Norden1990 challenged you already), though given your extensively problematic recent pattern it has to be investigated what is stated exactly there. There other remark is your copy-paste from other user talk pages. Better apologize for your personal attack which you did not do so far, it's always ok to say sorry.

Snowfire -> you reiterate some issues that I had to explain more times, either you did not understand or did not want to understand, and I completely disagree my judgments would not be trustworthy (or "just wrong constantly", sorry to say but this is a ******t, excuse me being profane, after you admittedly did not investigate my contributions thoroughly), on the other hand I provided over 95%+++ the most accurate content on articles with a very minor error ratio, wich have been remedied quickly. What you still did not grasp fully, that I always showed understanding of others arguments, if there were correct of flawless. Remind mathematic or chess articles. If you say to 10 ten times that 2+2=5 in a decimal Euclidean system, I don't have to agree becasuse you repeated so many times, if it's invalid. Seems you did not review the category issue, I won't repeat myself on that.

Boynamedsue -> this is not DRN, so you don't need to mark first statement :) The saying I quoted to Azure holds also to you, shortly:

1. in this you reitarate issue you already failed and were disproved, not need to repeat may be read in the relevant talk pages, with a little experience and competence, you don't understand basic policies as issues, and tendentiously reject to understand them. Disruptive. The reluctant admin does not have much time to care with issues, but he quickly understood what you did not, as later you again tried to teach the veteran admin who have no problem to deal with multidimensional quantum spaces...the other example is your epic demonstration of you lack of competence, or basic editing principles. Yes, they were fiefdoms, sourced, as everyone knows in the topic area, even not being horribly experts or brain surgeons.

2. INCIVILIY (d) = (lying, not the first time from your behalf, I just did not byte the newcomer so far, per policy), I did not misude any source, the talk page preserved what kind of spurious reasons you tried to tackle sources you don't like. So sad you forgot in WP everything preserved, with constant denial you just blame yourself.

3. Again, yes I am not native, but sorry above 110 IQ I am understood, above 120 IQ 98%, far above immediately, even if I occasioanlly make amistake. As I told above, surely not all members of our community is a Paul Erdős, but so far sorry, you have been the one who recurrently (and not being troll) with elemental mistakes did not grasp such basics I NEVER met in this encylopedia in the near past 10 years. Bigger problem is, as much as I face with you this, you diametrically consider yourself reinforced to have right and even more intensively commit your mistakes again and more reluctantly deny the evidence for it.

TDLR: Practically you are a recurent noticeboard communicator which may attract possible lenghty discussions, opening new talk section repetitevely, as you did on the cited page, so stealing time from editors has been not really fault in that case, on the contrary. Those thousands of hours are especially present in the Poland-Holocaust related discussions, there you dare to make such remarks better.

Super Dromaeosaurus -> the category issue has been explained above, much earlier a user without consensus started to reorganize categories in a problematic way, I won't repeat that, may be read above. As well, with Azure we extensive discussed content issues in an other article (maybe you don't know about this, hence you consider by mistake I did not concentrate on the content, but I did), he just spread his problematic edits massively to other pages, were this discussion was not repeated so extensively. The protections were necessary, especially repeatedly making 4 reverts for sure (even earlier, if such pattern touches more pages). Nevertheless, I consider you the m ost talented Romanian editor for the future, with a great civility and ability to learn, just go on the right direction!

Krakkos -> Quality editor, as always

Beyond my ken -> even if try to be fair, I am disappointed you again reiterate this Nazi Germany case, as above you did with other issues (most of my edit warring notices are bogus, even explained there), you were not forced to turn to WP:AN, a openly asked you to give a time for the discussion in which after a point I've got just straw man answers, and you did serious witch-hunt against me, after all which failed, etc. For me much important, that a highly intelligent adminstrator, history teacher, heavily related (Hebrew, Israel) could understand me and justified I am not a witch (diff above, you did not read?), so you should just drop this pattern. What Krakkos wanted to refer, some Romanian editors are heavily irritated by any editor who they consider Hungarian, regardless which article they edit, they will become Nazi, Nationalist, Irredentist, Xenophobe and akin, as Azure said in his personal attack (though he seems a non-Romanian "Hungarian-lover", I would have my tip from where), just because at certain parts of history we are neutral and we know those fact and evidence which they don't like and want to hear. Also in the Romanian Wikipedia there is a death-list of Hungarian editors who should be removed from the English WP, including me (along the four other one), so we get used to this. Poor Tgeorgescu is often became a target because his expert neutrality and professionalism in those heavy issues, as I recall in his talkpage with this info I met. So, Beyond My Ken, all of us are "moving targets", but we get used to it.

Levivich-> nice to see you, your representation there was a bit bogus, with selective diffs, but explained there. I disagree on you a "waste of time", just visit those much more lenghty discussions you participate, e.g. So if I have a long response is typical...well the content matters, not the space, maybe it's inconvenient how I pinpoint some incovenient fallacies of others. Yours!

Birutorul-> yes,it is just partially a content issue, mainly, but your next bogus trial to eliminate those who you don't like (we agree on the freedom of speech, but you wish to suppress here despite editors, by the "secrecy of correspondence", did you also mean the EEML list from the deep past?). You still have the chance to apologize, the evidence is striking. However remember, such remarks like I would have lack of even the slightest concession to logic you even just make yourself more ridiculous, but just do it. As I told, is always the worst option to play/dance with too heavily intelligent people, because you will loose, if those too intelligent people review all the evidence, although they did not wished to dance, and incidentally could step on your foot, although they wanted to work with you to together and make the best accurate encyclopedia in the world. Good Luck, after all!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

I would just like to remind casual observers that the following sentences: "As I told above, surely not all members of our community is a Paul Erdős, but so far sorry, you have been the one who recurrently (and not being troll) with elemental mistakes did not grasp such basics I NEVER met in this encylopedia in the near past 10 years. Bigger problem is, as much as I face with you this, you diametrically consider yourself reinforced to have right and even more intensively commit your mistakes again and more reluctantly deny the evidence for it." are in response to a criticism in which I question KIENGIR's competence to clearly communicate their argument on talkpages. How is one supposed to even begin to debate with that? Boynamedsue (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I’d like to highlight the fact that KIENGIR just accused me of compiling a “Securitate style dossier”, and that he stands by this charge. It’s akin to calling a German editor a Gestapo agent, or saying a Russian editor is a KGB spy. Not only is the continued intransigence apparent, but I think we can add this to the WP:NPA ledger. — Biruitorul ^Talk 15:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to add the question of KIENGIR's racist abuse of Biruitorul on this page for discussion. KIENGIR states: "but the Securitate style dossier quickly failed". To compare a user to a member of a bloodthirsty secret police force is deeply WP:INCIVIL, but when it is used to draw attention to the user's ethnicity (Biruitorul is Romanian, as were the Securitate) it constitutes racism. I consider it to be absolutely unacceptable, would we allow users to describe a German user as having a "gestapo dossier" or a Haitian of having a "Ton-Ton Macoute dossier"? I previously pointed out this racial animus on KIENGIR's talk page, asking him to revert, here is my post and the response. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• With the recent WP:WALLSOFTEXT KIENGIR is clearly in WP:BLUDGEON territory. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not to be too obvious about it, but KIENGIR's responses here nicely illustrate many aspects of their behavioral issues: personalization of issues; intransigence; inability to see beyond their own viewpoints; near-NPA violations (or perhaps even over the line); inability to express themselves clearly, while accusing other editors of not properly understanding the issues or their argument; walls of text; bludgeoning discussions; etc. It's pretty much all there.
  I've been thinking about SnowFire's suggested sanctions above, for an 0RR restriction -- which would stop KIENGIR's predilection for edit warring -- and a throttle on their talk page commentary, to stop them from bludgeoning discussions and blockading consensus. I agree that this the direction to go in. A topic ban wouldn't do much when their behavior spreads across a number of different subject areas, and a CIR indef block seems too harsh and unnecessary at this point. Do other editors here agree with this? Should a formal proposal be made? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• One other point: KIENGIR seems to want to have things both ways. If an editor presents voluminous evidence of their behavior, such as Biruitorul did, they're putting together a "Securitate style dossier", but if an editor only presents a few indicative diffs, as Levivich did, then their diffs are "selective", by which they presumably mean cherry-picked and unrepresentative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe everything has already been said, but since my experience is not related either to Hungary or Romania, I add it regardless: During a prolonged discussion about the lede of Germans, I was asking them their reasons for their idea that the term Germans primarily denotes an ethnic group. They refused to give their reasons, here, here, and warned me not to repeat that they didn't give their reasons here. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would have been happy to support my original suggestion, but unfortunately KIENGIR's response above essentially is to essentially grab the WP:ROPE and announce they'd like to get banned. As long as KIENGIR thinks that they are providing "95%+++ the most accurate content on articles with a very minor error ratio" then they're not going to improve, because they think they're already correct. SnowFire (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Further to that, let me note that of his last 500 mainspace edits, 72 or 14.4% were later reverted, while 93 or 18.6% were reverts by him. Yes, some of the latter group were legitimate, but when 1 out of 3 of your edits are either reverts or being reverted, and you’re not on an anti-vandal patrol, that ratio is somewhat of a red flag. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Siteban KIENGIR

• Support as proposer for CIR, bludgeoning, and NPA, all of which is in my view just overwhelmingly demonstrated by the above posts, but also by the long line of diffs and complaints raised by a number of editors in this thread and before. Normally I wouldn't jump straight to this, but I don't see how any other remedy will help here. We can't TBAN someone from all history and politics articles, it's too broad to be effective. AGFing about motives, I believe Kiengir simply lacks the competence/attitude/English fluency necessary to productively contribute here, and it's costing an incredible amount of editor time. It's just not possible to fix this problem any other way. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: I think it's understandable that you would go to this, as this may be the ultimate solution, but what do you think about SnowFire's suggestion of a 0RR restrictions and a talk page comment throttle? Is that worth trying before a CBAN? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Question is how long do we babysit before the net negative of the editor is realized?Moxy- 16:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel that there should perhaps be some way to allow him to continue, 0RR, final warning and an obligation to seek a third opinion after 3 comments in cases where only two users are debating? Like I said, not a wikilawyer, the final condition might not be possible. This should be contingent on showing understanding of why the sanctions have occurred, and apology for his racist comment. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I would ordinarily support such lesser sanctions, but in this case restricting how many edits or reverts he can make in mainspace AND restricting how many comments he can make on the talk page AND doing this without any real self-reflection/take-on-board/work-with-us-here... seems like a lot of bespoke-ness, little hope of cooperation from the sanctioned user, and frankly I'm not seeing an overwhelming mountain of positive contributions that would make doing all that sanctioning work worth it. (To be clear, it wouldn't be worth the community's time to impose such sanctions on me, either. Few editors would be worth that level of effort, if any.) For me, the positive/negative scales are really tipped to one side here. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see much probability of comprehension of what is occurring, but if genuine understanding of why we are where we are could be demonstrated, I would support it. As others have said, it will not likely work, but if it doesn't, the discussion here will be quick and painless. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Levivich and the examples KIENGIR provided in this thread of the behavior that prompted the CIR/TEND concerns in the first place. I'm convinced that KIENGIR has been enough of a drain on the community's time and goodwill. OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above. I simply don’t see the value of an editor whose main contributions are small, often unnecessary “fixes” that come with a heavy baggage of revert-warring, personal attacks, draining time from productive editors, demonstrated lack of competence in the English language or in proper sourcing, and so forth. And who refuses to improve — keep in mind he’s been here since 2011, and this is hardly his first warning. Would this be an excessive first step? Maybe, which is why I don’t want to completely discount the proposal by Beyond My Ken. But I suspect that if something like a 0RR were adopted, we’d be back here fairly quickly. — Biruitorul ^Talk 16:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support unless KIENGIR can show clear understanding of their mistakes and a desire to avoid them in future, as well as an apology for their racist remark to Biruitorul. In the case of compliance with these conditions, sanctions to be agreed by community. My suggestion: final warning, 0RR, the obligation to seek and abide by DRN third opinions after 3 posts on talkpages where only two users are present.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No reflection has been shown in long response to comments, support siteban. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support siteban. This editor is an argumentative and pedantic time waster with poor English language skills and a love for bludgeoning discussions, as amply demonstrated by their bizarre contributions here. The only good thing to come out of the time I spent researching this is that I got to read Paul Erdős. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I reiterate my support after KIENGIR's response below, which lacks self-reflection or any commitment to change. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The combination of frequently taking absurd positions and then WP:BLUDGEONing discussions on them wastes too much time and effort from other editors - eg. bludgeoning a discussion to argue that Nazi Germany was not fascist stretches either the presumption of competence or good faith to the breaking point. --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per KIENGIR's awful reply above. All KIENGIR had to do was say "sorry, I guess I messed up, but I'm confident in my contributions and think I can convince other editors of my correctness via short talk page comments, and am willing to accept that sometimes consensus will be against me." Instead KIENGIR said "Actually, I'm right and you're all wrong" but in long meandering form. Okay, fine, let us all be wrong and you can go write a 100% correct blog elsewhere, so site ban. (If KIENGIR ever does develop any mild humility and realize the bridges he's burnt, this can be reconsidered for something more like my earlier talk page throttle + 0RR suggestion, but that isn't looking likely.) SnowFire (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I've come around to supporting this not simply because of the arguments presented above for why the other suggested sanction would be too complicated and not worth the energy it would take to enforce it, but also -- and mostly -- because I re-read the entire discussion, especially KIENGIR's responses, and I see there problems that are much deeper than can be dealt with by simple mechanical means. Wikipedia can support a range of different personalities and modes of operations, but I'm not sure that KIENGIR is capable of behaving in a way that Wikipedia can easily absorb. I think that as long as he continues to edit, he's going to be at times a deep time-sink over trivial or obvious disputes that wouldn't have been disputes at all if it weren't for him. So, with some reluctance, I have to conclude that he's just not cut out for en.wiki. I don't know what the culture is like on hu.wiki, where he's a "trusted user" (not sure what that means), but perhaps he can make a go of it there and report back in the future that he's changed his m.o. I would suggest that if this siteban passes, he be restricted not to appeal it until 6 months have passed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support CIR, bludgeoning, and NPA all demonstrated by their appalling posts in this thread. Made me look over their contribs: really there’s no value from them whatsoever - just a waste of everyone’s time. Clear net negative. DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The walls of text and racist personal attacks in this very thread have convinced me of the accuracy of the multiple attestations of how much of a waste of time this editor has been. It seems clear that removal from the project would be a net benefit to helping content improvement move smoothly, and that's more important than either trying to punish or provide second chances for individual editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Once again, KIENGIR's response below speaks for itself in demonstrating precisely the problems outlined by multiple editors above. Incapable of apologizing, worse, incapable of seeing that there's anything to apologize for, KIENGIR is in many ways his own worst enemy. He is unable to see that some of the "support" !votes above come from people who haven't necessarily had bad interactions with him in the past, but are appalled by his responses here. Being blind to this, he continues to do exactly the same thing, inviting more such !votes, showing his basic cluelessness about how his words are read by other people. Such a person, unable to adjust themselves to the needs of the community, will never entirely fit in here, no matter what their IQ is, and regardless of how many small productive edits they make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per Levivich and his replies. Per Cullen. Per BMK. Per David Eppstein. I will point out that KIENGIR has been blocked three times before for these same problems. They are NOTCOMPATIBLE --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE to ratioanale. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - intractable CIR at best; I have previously stated my support for an indefinite block based on one incident alone, the fact that this is a pattern of behavior leaves us with no other choice. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban. The user has bludgeoned this page with walls of text, made a rather insulting insinuation of another editor, argued for some absurd things (Nazi Party isn't fascist? Really?), promotes a Hungarian nationalist POV, and doesn't seem to be here to create an encyclopedia in a collaborative fashion. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support A short trip down memory lane of this user's "contributions" and subsequent edit wars and mentions on their own talk page goes to show how negative of an impact this user's contributions are. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Posted without comment - Boynamedsue posted this on KIENGIR's talk page. This was KIENGIR's response:

  Boynamedsue, please stop your harassment, you harmed so many rules of incivility, WIKIHOUNDING, recruiting other editors against me WP:HA, you should just silenty step back, because as said, WP:BOOMERANG may hit you as well, if you don't stop. Per other policies, I should not necessarily alter my already launched edits, as per the report, quite similar pattern is seen, which you even endorse by yourself "...It is worth looking at those discussion pages, for your scrapbook...". Btw. I used the same term in another ANI discussion back in the past when Biruitorul performed his first nice step, and there has been not any problem with it, I also inform you Communism has ended, and as agreed with Biruitorul, we support freedom of speech. Don't not try to censor me, and better apologize on your part and deeply learn our policies, and do not necessarily intervene on those issues wich fell outside your expertise area. You failed so many times, I hope this is your last abuse towards me, if you really wish to be sanctioned just continue. Thanks. [61]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• The lack of self-awareness really is something. I’d also point out this discussion from January — friendly advice triggering a meltdown. (While we’re at it, perhaps @Mathglot: would like to weigh in.) — Biruitorul ^Talk 04:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support siteban. The combination of CIR, lack of self-awareness, walls of text and bludgeoning demonstrated in this thread alone, plus a pattern of tendentious editing make it clear that retaining this editor would just be a substantial drain and a net negative for the project. The Nazi Germany episode is just bizzare and was close to indef worthy by itself. Nsk92 (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban. Everything that had to be said, has been said. Danloud (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Observation Someone may want to close this before the hole reaches China. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I saw this on Talk:Nazi Germany, where KIENGIR questioned the obvious and wasted time. That a RfC was need to delist Poland as a Nazi successor state is perverse. I am appalled by the other examples in this thread.Nyx86 (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support If this was only an issue of CIR I might be more reluctant (especially given my prior involvement), but walls of text and WP:PAs as mentioned above make this less difficult. I suggest this user try resolving their issues on other wikis (german; hungarian - where I'd guess there isn't also the issue of language miscomprehension...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The experience I made (described above) matches the experiences reported by so many other users. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above. KIENGIR's incessantly illogical counter-arguments and unwillingness to accept consensus opinion—even when academically substantiated—lead me to regrettably support a siteban.--Obenritter (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Response from KIENGIR

I will react a few remarks, but this will possibly my last reaction:

Boynamedsue -> Of course you may not debate with my qoute, since it is unfortunately true. About your newly invented and improper accusation of racism (which you try invent when nothing left), I have to tell what I said has nothing to do that. Hungarians were also member of the Securitate, as many other ethnics, etc. It just refferred to the method, but your ardent impartiality shows that Azure's clear racism you don't voice, but ignore. Are you not ashamed about this? Sorry, I have to laugh about the remark "can show clear understanding of their mistakes", escpecially this goes to you a long time ago, the "Poland discussion" is an illustrative example of that. As well, until you consider yourself wiser than a veteran administrator, we have nothing to discuss, and again i don't have to apologize anyone, since I did not make any racist comment, on the contrary you and other's should as demonstrated above, but as I see more editors have taken your decoy

Biruitorul -> this was a reference to your old report, how I would not stand it if you behaved like that? Sorry, for your behavior I am not responsible, it's on you, it has nothing to with any personal attack, you did the report, not me. Sure, "adding to your ledger" is a perfect symbolism. Funny you claim personal attack, despite you committed them cited above..."And who refuses to improve" -> WP:CIVILITY 2 (d), I improved very much, as my service record shows, and it has been acknowledged. However, after what you did, I am not surprised of your behavior, it's crystal clear anyone who don't wish to be blind for some reasons

Beyond My Ken -> you are a little bit overcomplicating the things, meanwhile you wish to look like neutral, in fact you are not really. It too bad if for you it is not obvious that Biruitorul's diffs were also selective, as I provided after the diffs he missed, which result is a complete boomerang or even worse. Levivich's diffs I explained there, what was important he by mistake (?) tried to assert I made some edits contrary the RFC, which was entirely fake, those had no connection to it, but other summary edits, resulted in agreement with the community. "trusted user" means like "extended confirmed" confirmed user there, and I have just edited there occasionally correcting some mistakes, it's not my major interest. I don't have any "m.o.", and if you think in case I would make "any appeal after six months", you are wrong, in such time many improvements would be damaged and would be a waste of time to do something twice

Rsk400 -> you repeatedly push already refuted claims. WP:CIVILITY 2 (d)

Moxy -> net negative? Sorry, my contributions are near flawlessly accuarate, so interesting content issues nobody could challenge seriously

Cullen ->"bizarre contributions" (?) can you specify what do you mean? As an admin, Erdős would be very sad seeing what's going on nevertheless, would grasp the root of the problem not the way you did

Aquillion -> I did not bludgeon anything, on the other hand your comment is very similar to those, who either did not read or did not understand what the topic was about. Since an administrator approved I did in fact nothing wrong, I am surprized some editor still play on this card. Why some editors feel compelled to form an opinion without thouroughly investigating the subject?

Snowfire -> could you thell me what the hell you are talking about? "Awful answer"? You seem riding the horse upside down long time ago, you did not read or just ignore Biruitorul really awful conduct of the category discussion, trying to set me up? Why you are silencing about it, or you consider fair what happened? Also you consider fair of the sending of hidden e-mails of recruiting, talking about me, without me? Hmm? Where did you let your objectivity? Why do you think you should put in my mouth what to say or what to do? Especially, when I have no problem to recognize if consensus is against me? (I always did, when it really was). Such remarks like where should I go and what should I do you should have abandoned - I won't write a blog -, unfortunately your approach seems awful when you are backing hidden coordinations, instead to reveal the evidence which would led us further. Extremely disappointed with you.

DeCausa -> Heavily disagree, NPA and CIR why didn't you mentioned of other editors who participate in these discussion and evidence is provided? There is no value? What kind of analysis you made my contributions? Sorry, the opposite is true, challenge me if you can regarding any edit's accuracy, it is disappointing how some from an opinion, without a valuable investigation

David Eppstein -> As an administrator, how could take the decoy? Racist personal attacks Azure did, why don't you mention that? As well, you consider as a fair conduct off-wiki, on wiki coordination in violation of a bunch of rules an wikietiquette, did you read, check the entire report?

All in all, what is striking that so far none of the opiners pointed out or even mentioned, or comdemned the OP's incivilities set-up's in the category issues, off-wiki and on wiki coordinations, recruitment and similarly other user's misconduct (however the latter is not the major issue of this report). This is annoying, however alarming, looks like a preset trial, which reminds me the showcase trial of the 50's. What's going on? So much silence about boomerang, though the diffs are clear... It's highly suspicious that just before with one of the admins we would be just one step before the investigtation involving Arbcom, the OP suddenly performs this preemptive strike even revealed how long time ago stalking my activity (for the record, ironically), but everybody is silencing. Even initially so many user's were pinged, and some puppet user's have been recurrently hounding me, even training other disruptive editor how to confront me...., it's clear the OP would have afraid of something, given the timing...so quickly this thread gets forward, before the involved admin would even log in....hmmm...these events seem as well very coordinated...

The result of this issue will rely on a quality admin, who would take the time and appropriately investigate the evidence and any emerging background/further issue on total, since by far it is evident the OP should get a sanction per WP:BOOMERANG and the other incivilities. heavy misconducts revealed, Boynamedsue something for the repatedly harming WP:CIVILITY 2 (d), WP:HOUND, including the canvassing and training other editors to confront one. Azure a block for the clear WP:CIVILITY 1 (b) violation. Rsk400 for WP:CIVILITY 2 (d), at least a level 3 warning so far, if not more. Of course, depending what Arbcom would reveal, would make the picture full, which remains to be seen. (at least, if no other coordination happened since then, if someone would enforce to shut down this report earlier, that means some clearly wish to hide something)

That said, I won't make any further comments here (regardless what strange accusations I would get), unless I am not pinged or an administrator does not wish me to do that (nevertheless I pinged those who tutored my career here, by any means I am curious about their opinion). Nevertheless, this sinistrous issue will be an ardent showcase, regardless of the outcome what kind of dirty set-ups and manipulations may happen contrary or guidelines or good faith conduct.

I admire and thank all of those few editors, who were brave enough to remain fair, despite the heavy counter-influence pressure, they have a solid backbone. Respect!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

Buried in that Wall of Text is what appears to be their principal response: that their contributions are “near flawlessly accuarate” [sic]. That seems to say it all. DeCausa (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@KIENGIR: I've read through this whole thread, and don't see what "Azure's clear racism" refers to. Can you please provide a diff supporting your claim, or else strike that comment? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The diff was inside the thread...but I copy here to you ([62]), I chose this because the admin told I should only bring this up in case here. Literally: "you're simply pushing your biased nationalist POV (it's not a surprise to me that you're a self-identified Hungarian)."(KIENGIR (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC))

I meant Azure's diff where the comments were made, which is linked in your comment: [63]. I don't see that comment as racist (and it certainly doesn't justify a block due to WP:CIVILITY concerns); he's accusing you of editing with a Hungarian-nationalist bias. I'm not familiar with your edits and am aware of the WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe topics of this sort, so I will not comment further. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@KIENGIR: It's unfortunate that you chose to post a jeremiad that can be summarized as "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong." There is a long tradition at ANI where CIR concerns provoke long posts that provide very clear evidence that the original concerns are justified. Good to see the tradition is being upheld. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I have defended the possibility of lesser sanctions, and made two posts on KIENGIR's talkpage aimed at allowing him to avoid a siteban. The response is above. I can personally say I have done everything I could to help him keep his editing rights, I think a siteban is inevitable now. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

OhKayeSierra, the very unprofessional approach that if somebody post something longer would mean it's content would not be quality is just ridiculous. Too bad I have to even explain. If you fail to understand (once I already explained) that if I could prove my point with diffs, asked questions and they are totally ignored, and I describe a conspirative phenomenon and there is suspicious silence about these striking evidence, I could say the same way like you "that provide very clear evidence that the original concerns are justified".

Your approach would be immediately ridiculed in any scientific community, or anywhere where there is just a bit of seriosity (I tell you as an engineer). Like matemathics is an exact thing, you may prove, or not prove something. Point. Unless my evidence is ignored, but other's misleading and disproved allegations are enforced, no serious discussion possible. Just see above, a user explained to me that a clear personal attack is not that, although it is evident it meant that being Hungarian implies you are pushing biased nationalist POV.

Just see above, like Swarm (an admin, and historian) repeated his earlier approach, however his summarization implies he did not read the discussion, the same wai ignored my other discussion with an admin (as well historian, connected Hebrew and Israel) that concluded in fact I did nothing wrong like I accused, even he would support other solution I did. Nsk92 just showed the same symptome (either not reading, or ignoring the case, or the presented diff, but dare to mention "self-awareness", oh Jesus Christ, really tragic). Like this, it's not more then a unserious witch-hunt, a conceptional trial akin the 50's, a cabaret. Boynamedsue, you don't have to defend/wash yourself, pretend the opposite, at a level for everyone is evident what you did in fact, again think outside of a box, and do not think with your planned provocations you achieve something good, what you do is not just ironic, but heavily rude concerning people with a high congnitive level, who see trough all of this. It is just a shame what you are doing, repeatedly.

It also interesting why BMK feel the need to copy-paste already presented diffs (however, since people really do not check diffs, it may be reasonable), as well why Biruitorul feel the need to ping in more and more people (initially Caffeinaddict e.g., whom with I have one friendly discussion in my life in a little everyday issue (??), even now more people...so apparent what's going in, meanwhile he is ignoring any evidence presented regarding his bad faith activity, the same way as in content issue discussion ignored to answers, when it was inconvenient, but replied with ironic personal attacks. As long as the community are ignoring these, they don't even pay attention just even to look like this theater a bit fair. So, unless I don't get clear answers to the concerns and questions I raised, I kindly ask everbody just cut the chatter, because it is so much pitiful. Any good standing and good faith editor/admin could finally react to hat, is it fair to set up an editor and accuse of misconduct contrary a discussion, if that discussion was not presented in the talk where the editor hismelf opened one per policy, if the user was not notified, pinged by any means, and the user who opened that discussion viciously start to attack that user on a directly selected editor's talk page in a misleading way ("contrary consensus", which was a lie), meanwhile it turned out with hidden e-mails already many editors were recruited to that discussion (just surprisingly the one affected and accused was ignored :-) ). So long there is silence about this and avoided (and I could point as well to all unreacted/unapoligized boomerand points I won't repeat here), nobody should make efforts to justify themselved of anything, since excuse me, we are not in the Kindergarten or in the elementary school, among teenagers starting puberty.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC))

Kiengir, what are you actually trying to achieve here? Do you see some way that this type of post might convince anyone you are a useful member of the community? Telling everybody that you consider yourself more intelligent than them and that your actions are always legitimate due to your superior logic is, at this stage (at any stage?), simply saying "ban me". And I have read your interaction with user:El C, he doesn't say what you think he does, if you believe that he has given you some kind of authorisation to behave in the way you did on the Nazism talkpage. I think this farce needs bringing to close.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for close

Per WP:CBAN:

Sanction discussions must be kept open for at least 24 hours before any sanction is implemented to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members.[1] For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours.[2] If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator closes the discussion, notifies the subject accordingly, and enacts any blocks called for.

In the current case, the sanction proposal has been open for over 24 hours, and there has been no opposition, except for the de facto opposition of the subject, KIENGIR. On the other hand, there have been 16 18 "support" !votes, which should be sufficient to establish community approval for the suggested site ban.

In the light of this, I request that an uninvolved admin close the discussion and levy the suggested sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Marveldc111

Marveldc111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user created their account on March 21, 2021. They vandalized the articles Anthony Mackie (diff) and Lil Pump (diff), changing the latter's nationality (American) for a gender (Transgender) which the subject doesn't use to identify himself. The editor later admitted to doing because he is a garbage person who wears women clothes and nails so I called him a tranny (diff), constituting a WP:BLP violation. In this same comment they told me to fuck you (diff) and referred to me and other editors as robots who do not think for yourselves (diff), constituting personal attacks. Their only mainspace edit that isn't clear vandalism is this one, the rest of their edits are either vandalism or poorly argued discussion at File talk:The Falcon and the Winter Soldier logo.png and Talk:The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. It seems clear to me that this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and collaborate with others. —El Millo (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo, as of about ten minutes ago, the editor has been blocked. -- /Alex/₂₁ 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed. Thank you Alex 21 and Deepfriedokra for taking action. —El Millo (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've unclosed 'cause I think there are more issues than can be solved with a 31 hour block for incivility and a warning about edit warning. I'd like the community to look at this user and see if a 31 hour block and warning are enough. I think the user is not compatible. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  They've at least apologized recently. I'm willing to grant them a VERY short WP:ROPE based on that; but the very next problematic edit should be an indef block without further warning. --Jayron32 14:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  I don't see any point in offering rope to someone who refers to other people with slurs like "tranny." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Please bear in mind the block expires in about ten hours, after which they get free rope. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  It seems the user has no intentions of being a regular editor or anything. I guess we can just let the block expire and if they start being disruptive again, further sanctions can be applied then. —El Millo (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• After rereading this thread (misread tranny for tyranny) and the user's talk page, I've made the block indefinite per maturity concerns. As always, any reviewing admin can modify or reverse at their discretion. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

109.78.199.4

This IP editor sends a message and expects it to be a private matter between two editors only, but they are somehow knowledgeable enough to be able to search for users' old nicknames. They tried to attack me by stating that I use a "fake name". They can be a banned user or a sock. Unfortunately, I do not think that the disturbing attitude will end with a warning. ภץאคгöร 21:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

IP warning for vandalism

187.189.135.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added a vandalism warning to an editor for editing their own TP, and then to me for cleaning up the same TP. MB 20:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped now. I've left them a note explaining WP:OWNTALK. Mz7 (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they seem to have tempered their behavior right after this thread was started and/or MarnetteD removed the warning from my TP. MB 22:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

thefallenpower

The fallen power has made unsourced edits on winx club I reverted the users edits cause I red the edit source and on the end date it says yes then present almost like the user is treating this like it's a fan page when you can see winx clubs final episode was on September 17, 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs)

Months ago I was reverting edits from thefallenpower physically the end date whitch she kept changing to present and on the source it said yes present but another user reverted his or her edit and now I came back today and It still says present and on the edit source it says yes present almost like the user is treating this like it's a fan page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Starting to think a WP:CIR block may be required until this editor matures a bit. They are screaming vandalism over content disputes (Special:Diff/1014681112), give indications that they will resume their edit war as soon as block ends (Special:Diff/1014615868), and generally disruptive (Special:Diff/1014682250). Plus user page claims editing since 2017 (and above comment references earlier edits though account is 6 days old), which would imply they should know better. Slywriter (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Also they left their comment unsigned, at the top of this page (despite the note), and failed to notify TFP of the discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

TheFallenPower hasn't changed the date there since October. The most recent change [64] was by 109.160.111.223; the source did not verify it according to the comment [65] by TheFallenPower on the talk page. So there is a possibly disruptive edit by 109.160.111.223 but it was undone; it's only one edit and not bad enough for any action to be taken. The edit and comment by Theshavia29912 are similar to earlier edits [66][67][68] by Kingkobra775; the username is similar to others in the same sockpuppet category (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zjholder). Peter James (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Can an Admin/CU review this without a formal SPI? I've noticed at least one linguistic similarity in the use of "dude" when referring to other editors (Special:Diff/983085708). Otherwise I'll submit one this evening. Slywriter (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've reported it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjholder. I haven't made it a CheckUser request as I don't think it's necessary. Peter James (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Antenna TV Programs Dispute

Can 173.166.139.137 be blocked for making Disruptive/Unconstructive Edits to List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV? LooneyTraceYT 21:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Various IPs and LooneyTraceYT have spent the last few days reverting to their preferred version of the article, but I do not see any attempt at discussion, either at User talk:173.166.139.137 or at Talk:List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV. I would suggest both parties read WP:Consensus and WP:3RR. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

174.105.177.231‎

User keeps adding irrelevant content to Thoroughly Modern Millie despite warnings. User's talk page shows that they had received numerous such warnings in the past and have been blocked in the past (apparently for too brief a time). - kosboot (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP user for 72 hours for the repeated addition of unsourced content. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism to Rupert Read article by IP editor

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

---

Yesterday, an IP editor added a screed railing against Rupert Read to the article: see [69]. Not encyclopaedic, no citations, breaches WP:BLP. This was reverted by Oshwah, who also put a warning at User_talk:82.26.229.45. The IP editor put it back, Wysprgr2005 reverted and left another warning. The IP editor put it back, and I reverted and left another warning. A different IP address, presumably the same person, put it back. I reverted, and they put it back, and I reverted again. Just take a look at the history for Rupert Read. Could someone take action? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for 10 days. Acroterion (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

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

SerVasi and slow edit war at Ivan Visin

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

I was patrolling WP:3RRN and found there a report against this user. Whereas the report itself is strange, but the matter is that, as fas as I see, the last seventeen edits on this page is an edit-war between SerVasi and a few other editors, including Sadko, who recently has been topic-banned from Eastern Europe. The users remove the info that the subject is Croatian, and SerVasi restores this information, citing the croatian Encyclopedia (which their opponents call a nationalistic source). I do not know who is right and who is wrong here (the sources originating from Croatia must be treated with great care but I have no idea about this encyclopedia), but they not a single time cared to add the reference to the article, and the article remains unsourced. The user has slightly over 1K edits. I am a bit puzzled about what to do. Presenting them at AE is probably a loss of time, at any rate it should not be a loss of my time. I would have blocked, especially since last year they have been blocked five times, escalating to over a month, on the other hand, they are not at the 3RR level. Opinions welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Croatian Encyclopedia (enciklopedija.hr} is published by a scholarly institution, Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography (LZMK). I found nothing bad about it. It looks like the kind of source I would use without hesitation. Narky Blert (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I provided RS on a common known fact, atleast in that general geographic area. There was no counter arguments or sources, just "croatian source bad". Normally i would start a discussion on the talk page but my opposition was a couple of anonymous IPs and a dude who reported me as a neo nazi for some reason so i decided to spare my time. They are not trying to build an encyclopedia. SerVasi (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a case for WP:BOOMERANG as the reporter JamesSandy64 (talk · contribs) was recently created, and immediately started making contentious edits to some of our favorite recent WP:ARBMAC-related hotspots. Their first edit was on Višeslav of Serbia, where it seemed fine, reverting anonymous vandalism, but then they moved on to striking ancient sockpuppet text from talk page archives, then a bit later dropping a long-standing book source from an article (this was reverted by Peacemaker67), then I found more sockpuppet talk archive business, removing a WP:HRV talk page tag from an article (?!), again an edit discussing sockpuppets. This just screams long-term axe-grinding to me, but I can't recall immediately whose particular style this is to file a checkuser request at WP:SPI. Would anyone object me blocking this account for gaming the system on simple behavioral grounds? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I think it is ok if you block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. If someone wants to further analyze the related edits, please feel free. In particular I haven't analyzed much of this SerVasi user. Vanjagenije I noticed you had to intervene a few times, do we have a long-term problem here? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Help talk:Getting started deleted

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T278350
Resolved

Hi Admins, your urgent attention is requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (Talk moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Help_a_move_showing_database_error) to put out a dumpster fire caused by a user moving the Help talk:Getting started to user space. Thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I tried to move it back, and I got a database error. Something in Wikipedia tried to perform the move, and it quit after 3 seconds and said "database error". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Anthony Appleyard, I guess an admin with "renaming" rights may be able to help us. Otherwise, copy-paste, histmerge, and move-protect. Let's see where it goes. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  @TheAafi: Has anyone asked you, yet, why you were moving it in the first place?! ——Serial 14:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, you were undoing User:Saisagione's move of the page into "his" new userspace. Bizarre! ——Serial 14:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, here's the result. Swapping turned unhelpful as well. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  I've requested system admin help on the meta. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 15:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've cleaned up the redirects that you left behind, as requested. So the problem is just putting User talk:TheAafi/Help talk and Special:Undelete/User talk:TheAafi/Help talk back at Help talk:Getting started it appears. Uncle G (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks. For information, a Phabricator ticket has been filed. Polyamorph (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Uncle G, Polyamorph, Worth noticing is that Help talk:Getting started is not accepting the move, but what is now at User talk:TheAafi/Help talk can be moved easily to some other destination. HJ Mitchell is trying something. Seems so. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
      • The stack trace implies that this is a database problem that is unlikely to be fixable by administrators with just administrator tools. Uncle G (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
      • The suspicion at Special:Diff/1013985028 has been reported as correct. The (earlier) page move is still being completed, all these hours later. Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
        • 5a5ha seven just moved it to Help talk:Getting Started without discussion - this is the WRONG page. Why could they not just wait, the sysadmins are on it. Polyamorph (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

          Polyamorph, this should be reverted quickly to prevent further disruption and Move-Protected as well so that an admin/sysadmin may perform the action only imo ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 20:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

          Not able to revert the move. It gives database error. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 20:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

          TheAafi, I think you should stop moving the page yourself. There was no need for you to move it to your own userspace in the first place, after several pagemovers had already highlighted the problem. Just leave it to the experts now, please. Polyamorph (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• If all of this isn't enough, I think this may be a block-evading sockpuppet that's caused this mess. Pahunkat (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Polyamorph, please update the phabricator bug report to note that the original page history is now split between Help talk:Getting Started and Special:Undelete/User talk:TheAafi/Help talk, because of attempts to revert this, and that that needs repair by whichever sysadmin takes this on. Everyone else, please note that it is a distinct possibility that repeatedly moving this page around will create further watchlist updates and exacerbate the problem. Please leave this to sysadmins to fix until/unless they hand it back to us. Uncle G (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Uncle G, I will update the ticket. Polyamorph (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• This could potentially be a new attack vector if left unpatched- a user could easily nuke a heavily-watched page by simply moving it. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. Polyamorph (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Uncle G and HJ Mitchell: on the phabricator JCrespo (WMF) states there have been no long running processes since 2021-03-24 22:48:23 UTC. No indication when/if they are planning to move the page back though. I don't know if it would be appropriate for an admin to attempt the move and fix the history split? Polyamorph (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  Polyamorph, still no joy: [7a5f5030-ba4e-4df4-84da-d0acf4182fee] 2021-03-26 08:13:02: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBTransactionSizeError". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  OK, I've updated the ticket to reflect this latest attempt. Polyamorph (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  JCrespo (WMF) has now elevated the priority of this task. Polyamorph (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  HJ Mitchell, Help talk:Getting started is back. Move-Protection is required to avoid such disruption in future ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 11:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Uncle G and HJ Mitchell: a sysadmin has completed the task, could you (or any other admin) check that the split history at Special:Undelete/User talk:TheAafi/Help talk is now resolved? I will request page protection. Polyamorph (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC) PP requested here Polyamorph (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  The history of Help talk:Getting started/Archive 1 shows that material was being added to Help talk:Getting started in 2020, but those edits are currently missing from the history. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  You're right. @HJ Mitchell: anything to do with your attempt to split off the history in an attempt to move only part of it? Polyamorph (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Polyamorph, possibly. I'll have a look when I'm at a proper computer but that won't be til about 1800 UTC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm deferring to HJ Mitchell here. Uncle G (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Restore history from 2020 and 2021

@Anthony Appleyard: Try doing the following steps if possible:

1. Restore the deleted edits for Help talk:Getting Started.
2. Using Special:MergeHistory, merge all of the edits for Help talk:Getting started from 2019 and earlier to Help talk:Getting Started.
3. Finally, using Special:MergeHistory again, merge all of the mergeable edits (i.e. January 2021 and earlier) for Help talk:Getting Started to Help talk:Getting started.

If not, then this would again need help from a sysadmin (perhaps Martin Urbanec). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• @GeoffreyT2000:  Done steps 1 & 2.
•  Not done step 3. The matter to be merged is currently at Help talk:Help talk:Getting started. The move or merge that you asked me to do, keeps on getting "Database error: [6fa2e052-6ddc-4f0b-849f-003cdb92e350] 2021-03-30 06:43:45: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBTransactionSizeError",. whichever direction I try to come at the destination. Wikipedia's storage for page Help talk:Getting Started is likely corrupted somehow. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the problems caused. One small clarification-data is not corrupted/lost. The issue is, as far as I see, the same as the original one- It tries to move a page's watchers in a single transaction, rather than in a multiples smaller ones, and that is too much memory because of the number of people watching the page. As commented on the ticket- the original issue was not corrected, only manually corrected. This was (briefly) indicated here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T278350#6948370 For now, based on the task, I think Martin is working on it. Thank you for your understanding. JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Legal threats by EmilyChen0

• EmilyChen0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshualeverburg1

Legal threat blocked by edit filter. See Special:AbuseLog/29475873. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This user is clearly angry, but I do not any anything that constitutes a legal threat in that edit filter log. That being said, I've closed the SPI report and blocked this user as a suspected sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I personally perceived terms like SLANDEREROUS and CROSED THE LINE as having a same chilling effect that WP:NLT is intended to prevent. That being said, any further discussion is moot due the sock puppetry block. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

"Slanderous" and "crossed the line" are absolutely not legal threats. There has to be a specific threat to take legal action for it to apply. The chilling effect is knowing that there is going to a lawsuit hanging over you. That's not the case here.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive POV editing

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

---

This user @HornerAfrican15: has been repeatedly edit warring in Horn of Africa and vandalizing the page, constantly removing Somaliland without any plausible explanation and pushing a nationalistic POV. Both @Jacob300: and I tried warning him as shown here. I have also tried to contact him and engage him on the talk page as shown here however so far my attempts and the attempts of other users have been futile.

Here are the diffs of his disruptive edits:

1. Here is where it all began. 2. 3. 4.

In these four revisions you can see that this person is removing Somaliland for no reason and is pushing a nationalist point of view. After the fourth revision he/she suddenly changes their attitude and starts actively including Oromia region in Ethiopia, which even though it has a separatist militia still has not declared itself independent nor is it a de facto independent state. His/her argument is baseless since he/she is comparing apples to oranges.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

This, along with the fact that this person has referred to editors as "hypocrites" and "biased", accused me and other fellow editors of "corrupting pages", "pushing a tribal agenda" and corrupting "international facts" along with this person's passionate activism in the edit summaries should clearly display that this person is not here to build an encyclopedia. This person has also constantly violated WP:3RR multiple times.

Dabaqabad (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Holy edit summaries, Batman. Woodroar (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I indefblocked per WP:NOTHERE--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring and Canvassing on Black panther

• Ddum5347 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BhagyaMani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Black panther (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gaur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Alright,

1. User:Ddum5347 has been edit-warring on numerous pages about Animals. He has been ignoring consensus, and as a result, has received six blocks. Today, there was an edit war going on at Black panther. It took multiple reverts, but he finally started a discussion on the talk page.

2. User:BhagyaMani has also been edit-warring on the Black panther page. As soon as the discussion was opened up, they sent me a message on my talk page telling me to not accept any pending changes by Ddum5347, or basically goading me into abusing my power as a pending changes reviewer in a content dispute.

This is my first report at ANI, so please tell me if this is a bad report or not a violation of policy.

Noah ^💬 19:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: #2. I can't see how a message trying to acquaint you with an ongoing situation is canvassing. Unfortunately Ddum has a history of edit warring over poor edits and ignoring advice to seek consensus. It's frustrating because Ddum also makes many good edits that benefit Wikepedia. There have been many discussions along these lines. I want Ddum to continue as an editor, but the phrase being one's worst enemy comes to mind. —  Jts1882 | talk  19:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Also edit warring today on Gaur. See the discussion at User talk:Ddum5347#Edit warring on Gaur. I am one edit away from blocking them again. - Donald Albury 19:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Your patience is commendable, Donald Albury!! I've been working on and added most of the content with refs to the black panther page since 2013, see here. A black leopard has never been recorded in *Europe, European Russia, Eurasia*, which I also stated in my edit summaries when reverting links to *..* added to this page by Ddum5347. S/he has been notified multiple times on other pages about either leopard main- or subpages that adding links to any of the 3 *..* regions is erroneous, and s/he never provided a reliable source that would justify such links. BhagyaMani (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

If you actually read the post that I linked on the talk page, you would understand why I made the edit. But you have continuously ignored my justification, even though we have discussed this matter before and I linked sources. Ddum5347 (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ddum5347: Are you saying in the above post that if your points are not accepted on the talk page and are, in your eyes, ignored that justifies then going ahead with reverting an edit? DeCausa (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Ddum5347 has had problematic editing for a while. They were at ANI a month ago, same issues. (The account is less than a year old.) BRD doesn’t come naturally and seems to often be dubious about the benefits of discussion, hence asides like this and this. If you look at their contribs the editing is at speed and i think a major part of the problem is not enough time is spent thinking about what they’re doing, which ends up as hitting the revert button. If they undertook to have minimum time gaps (30 mins say) between edits I wonder if a lot of problems would be solved. DeCausa (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've added some userlinks and pagelinks to the head of this report. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have much to add, but I have gotten involved in this ongoing saga a time or two (or a dozen). Ddum is mostly good when they're focusing on grammar, not so good on much else, and they edit very, very fast. I sometimes find my watchlist flooded with changes by them and I only watch the cats articles.

The repeated edit-warring on several different topics is troubling, however. I have had hopes for some time now that Ddum would adjust to Wikipedia and get better, but I also doubt, unfortunately.

Moreover, I would like to state that everyone needs to remain calm and polite in this conversation; while the repeated incidents have sorely tried everyone's temper, heated words will not help. And please use proper grammar and spelling, it is more clear and respectful that way. Good editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked Ddum indefinitely; if an admin reviews an unblock request and can come up with a reasonable way to ensure this will stop, they can unblock without talking to me first. If that can't be worked out, then Ddum is a timesink for other, non-edit-warring editors. This stopped being a don't bite the newbies issue about 4 blocks ago. I'll look at whether any other actions for someone else are needed in a minute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  @BhagyaMani:, you broke 3RR too. I'm not issuing a block, mostly because a look at your talk page history doesn't show a history of doing this, and I don't want to mess up a clean 13 year block log for what looks like a one-off mistake, but the same goes for you: there is no right to exceed 3RR because you think you're right. Keep it in mind please. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Ddum537 is now editing while logged out at 36.77.93.225. Should probably block. Noah ^💬 23:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of the activity on 36.77.93.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to have nothing to do with Ddum, like current events, which the IP was doing prior to and after DDum's block and the edits to the Black Panther article. Not convinced it's them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

ModernMan99

ModernMan99 (talk · contribs) has a long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs - plenty of warnings on their talk page from a number of editors, and I blocked them for it a few days ago. They returned today making more unsourced edits. The difference here is the misleading edit summary, which implies that a source is present - but when you actually read the website mentioned in the edit summary, it doesn't mention the information at all. Bringing it here for wider consideration. GiantSnowman 20:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I blocked them for a week and tried to explain what they are doing wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks! GiantSnowman 09:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

User:SauravKumeriya

SauravKumeriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a promo-only account who has reverted[70] my blanking of his promotional userpage.

Please can some admin take appropriate WP:NOTHERE action. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I've undone your edit and tagged the page with CSD G11. Don't blank pages, just hit them with a CSD next time. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Anti-transgender editing and edit summaries

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

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Zot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: might be worth removing TPA as he is leaving defamatory comments on there! Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 02:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Zot². --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I find it highly amusing that they're trying to thank Crossroads for "fighting against these trans activists" when they're just removing socked edits. Does WP:NONAZIS cover transphobes and homophobes? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Xprincessarix's copyright violations

Xprincessarix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been inserting copyrighted lyrics multiple times (yust some examples, contributions list contains more) despite being told muliple times to stop. IMO a block is in order, so they can familarisize themselves with copyright rules. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Had been already reported and now blocked. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That account also tried editing your user and talk pages ([71]). The abuse log for that also has some copyright-infringing material, despite the edit not actually going through. (Sorry if that's not important; I was just poking around and saw that. Not sure if it gets deleted automatically or not.) 2600:8803:9A00:D02:ADD9:7ECF:9C56:139 (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't look like those edits went through. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is Special:AbuseLog/29496561 is still public, has the full text of a news article, and is linked on that user's logs. I don't know if that stays public forever by default. 2600:8803:9A00:D02:ADD9:7ECF:9C56:139 (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Revdel doesn't work, but oversight does; since I'm an oversighter I just did that, copyright violations are oversightable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Giano

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

---

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

Giano, arbcom, and incivility, again. For background, in November 2019, Giano was blocked for disruptive editing and harassment (comments about arbcom/arbs, and edit warring at arb pages with clerks). It was appealed and endorsed. (There are previous blocks/unblocks in 2014-2015, but I don't know about them.) In the past 12 months, Giano has made about 300 edits, about half in the past three months [72], including many uncivil comments, directed towards arbcom but also towards a number of other editors, such as:

• Nov 25: "Oh the joy of it all! Everything else in the world is cancelled, but the Arbcom elections continue. A group of second-hand mediocrities and has-beens will parade their limited talents for our approbation. There is indeed a God." [73]
• Mar 1: "...I was going to make a statement in your defence, but the opining Arbs all seem to be beyond my ken. Where on earth have they all come from? I suppose it’s connected with the schools all being currently closed. It’s a pity because I have vast experience of trumped up incivility cases. Anyhow, I can only point you in the direction of this: coping with idiots. It’s very old, but I think you’ll find the types of Wikipedians still prevail..." [74]
• Mar 5: "Disgraceful, weak, cowardly behaviour by a group of children who need to return to their neglected education and stop interfering with adults, who in this case do know better!" [75] (edit summary)
• Mar 7: "”hopefully” Hog Farm, you will be finding the cites then, or are you just done dull little drive-by, glory seeking editor, who knows zilch, but thinks you can sound clever by turning up and pointing out what you imagine are faults? “Hopefully,” I’m wrong about you." [76] followed by "Well, I’m not editing any content until RexS receives a full apology from the so called Arbcom for their total disrespect. So you had better start reading up on the Veneto." [77]
• Mar 14: "User:Jimfbleak, I think this is really highlighting one of Wikipedia’s most serious problems. From looking at the history of this page, there are probably just two people on Wikipedia who properly understand this building, [[User:Firebrace|Firebrace] and myself, and even we two haven’t always completely agreed...So it’s either Firebrace jumps to your tune or the page is overwritten by those with insufficient knowledge. bearing in mind, this is one of the projects most important and viewed pages, I suggest you go quietly in your way and come back in a couple of years." [78] [79]
• Mar 22: "How very droll to see the wasted hot air being ejaculated on that page, by the cringing, little mediocrities who pass as Arbs these days..." [80]
• Mar 23: "I expect the motion (why does that word always sound so medical?) was necessary, as most of the Arbs aren’t actually following the case, but just marching out to vote as their cohorts are telling them elsewhere." [81]
• Mar 27 00:29: "What passes for Arbs these days, will realise, if and when they grow up..." [82]
• Mar 27 20:50: "What is so terribly sad is that there is quite clearly not a single atom of regret or shame amongst this utterly vile, miserable, lacklustre cohort of inadequates and unfortunates." [83] Arb bradv removed this comment. Giano restored it, twice.
• Mar 27 21:00, posted the same comment again [84]. Arbitrator Primefac blocked Giano for 31 hours, log entry "Personal attacks or harassment".
• Mar 27 21:02: arbitrator CaptainEek removed the post with edit summary "Remove. Add it again and get your talk page revoked too." [85]
• Mar 27 21:05: "Wikipedia hasn’t really changed since 2004 when it was openly run by bullying, narrow minded, undereducated morons. The only difference is the “BUMs” have become less open in their behaviour. Never mind." [86]
• Mar 27 21:06, posted the same "utterly vile, miserable, lacklustre cohort of inadequates and unfortunates" comment againt [87]
• Mar 27 21:11 CaptainEek revoked TPA, log entry "Personal attacks or harassment, removing TPA after being warned"
• Mar 28: Admin JBW reinstated TPA, log entry "Reverting improper removal of talk page in violation of WP:INVOLVED", and wrote, "...That being so, I shall restore talk page access. I have also seriously considered reverting the WP:INVOLVED-violating block. I have also seriously considered blocking both the offending administrators." [88]
• Mar 29 15:47: "No doubt those supporting this block are fans of the Chinese, Russian and Banana Republics’ Goverments. That is something which Wikipedians should find deeply troubling." [89]
• Mar 29 18:25: "Have you thought about joining the Chinese Wikipedia? I’m sure they’d love to have you with your views concerning the criticism I’d Government." [90]
• Mar 29 20:14: "This whole affair concerning Rexx’s desysopping, and all the stench-filled hyperbole and self-righteous posturing, excuses/lack of excuses and orchestrated silencing of opposition from members of the Arbcom and their sycophants is reminding me of a bag of fish guts left on the harbour wall for an August afternoon." [91]
• Mar 29 22:03: "I know, the Arbs are beyond contemptible, it can only be deliberate. I had though better of One or two of them, clearly I was mistaken." [92]

Everyone has the right to criticize arbcom, but Giano isn't criticizing arbcom, he's harassing them, and being uncivil to several others to boot. At the point at which we have admin undoing arb actions and threatening to block them, it's clear that Giano's commentary about arbcom is hurting far more than it's helping. Giano returned to this behavior after TPA was restored and the block expired. The community should step in here and regulate. So:

• Propose Giano indefinitely TBANed from Arbcom, broadly construed. Meaning, Giano would not be able to comment about Arbcom on any page. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• sweet baby jesus why would you do this now. As if this here and now has any possibility of lowering the temperature. nableezy - 03:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The colorful imagery of hot air ejaculating notwithstanding, what we're seeing here is largely criticism levied against a body, not individuals. Penalizing critics of the system is something one would expect to find in Russia or several of its former "-stan" satellite states, not the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• JBW's reversion of TPA revocation was INVOLVED, as JBW had endorsed the personal attacks. This is concerning. Still waiting on a response from JBW regarding this, but it's so blatant that it potentially rises to the level of an Arb case in and of itself. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• ...an INVOLVED reversal of an INVOLVED admin action? Could we not just call that a draw? Black Kite (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Except it wasn't an INVOLVED admin action to begin with, that appears to be a fabrication. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• No. The world is a big place and Wikipedia needs to accommodate different people. There would have been no problem if people had left Giano's original complaint alone (it wasn't over-the-top or nasty), and there would be no further problems now if those of us in the peanut gallery were to leave it be. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Whatever your view across the spectrum on this issue (both the specifics and the more general policy-based viewpoints), one thing most people will agree on is that this kind of noticeboard conversation isn't going to achieve anything positive, for anyone. We all have better things to do, than this. Especially right now. Daniel (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• JBW must retract his threat made on Giano's talk page to block Primefac and CaptainEek diff It is unacceptable for an administrator to make threats to block members of the arbitration committee. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • He should accuse them of outing with no evidence instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Floquenbeam: I struck the claims when asked and them you redacted them entirely, which I did not oppose. As an administrator you are entitled to block me if you feel that my misconduct was egregious, and I have no problem with you persuing further action against me with uninvolved administrators. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Propose temporary topic ban of everyone who cares way too much about this mess from Internet connections, broadly construed. Vaticidalprophet 03:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• I propose an easier task than resolving this conflict. The Kobayashi Maru is drifting in the Neutral Zone and needs our help. Let's all go and rescue the crew and then (if we're still alive) we can come back and deal with this situation. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Giano was not acting as a gadfly, or a loose cannon. The Arbs ran for election to make the tough decisions; they knew when they ran that they would get brick-bats hurled at them over some if not most of those decisions; and if we are not allowed to hold them to account, including criticising them honestly and strenuously, they will indeed become a Govcom that we dare not criticise for fear of being punished for lèse-majesté. I have had cause to excoriate Arbcom in the past (and Giano commiserated with me on one occasion), and now I feel I must rise in defence of Giano for exercising this right, even though in this instance he is on the opposite side from me. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - alot of people were upset regarding the recently closed case and some venting is understandable. Right now, my sense was that folks were taking a breather and reflecting. There is alot of context behind alot of the feelings expressed recently and just listening and not jumping to sanctions I think is prudent. I won't opine on this conclusively as am an arb...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• WOW! What a blast from the past! Almost makes me feel nostalgic. What's next? Complaints about Betacommand, Eric Corbett or Captain Occam? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Still, it's nice to have Giano back in the spotlight, since he makes me look downright phlegmatic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• If people don’t like to see petrol thrown on flames, then they should consider very carefully where they light their fires. Giano (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• I'm whistling a tune. Nick (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• For the benefit of those not following this long-running surrealist soap opera, can someone summarise in a few words what exactly any of this has to do with creating and maintaining an 'online encyclopaedia'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Continued Intimidation and Threats of Blocks by Floquenbeam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Floquenbeam has adequately addressed these concerns, and I am feeling too mellow to indefinitely block NH for the third time in my career. People, be nice to each other during these hard times. Jehochman ^Talk 02:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Me too: Jehochman, mellow is good. I just want to add this: Neutralhomer, I'm sorry, you know I've been on your side a time or two, but you are in the wrong here and you are walking a very fine line. Please do NOT go around throwing down threads like this, because you're wasting everyone's time. Your opponent's behavior, that's another matter--but this, on this board, come on. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Floquenbeam responded to the ANI thread regarding me above (I did respond with no response back). His response wasn't a very "calming" one, but the conversation had already moved to to here and has concluded. This is not about that (this the backstory).

We proceeded into conversing on his talk page. As you can see, I am attempting to get Floquenbeam to back off the threats, but that's basically all he will say. In so many words "I'm going to block you". Won't talk about why, what his problem with me is, why he holds me to such a high standard (threatens me with a "2 week block", but Rusf10 would probably not get blocked...even though he engaged in the same behavior. Hypocrisy anyone? I thought Admins were supposed to be neutral?

My point here, Floquenbeam is not being neutral. In fact, he in intimidating, openly threatening with blocks, allowing other users to break his own set of rules he sets for other users (Wikipedia rules be damned), then threatens the users who points this out or even attempts to politely try and discuss this. I think an admin with "Meh" on top of his talk page might need a break.

I don't want any sanctions or blocks, but a break. This year hasn't been easy on any of us (I. Know.) and maybe Floquenbeam just needs to get out of the house (genuine concern). But he can't act this way here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:15 on March 30, 2021 (UTC)

• In accordance with the rules, the user has been pinged and manually notified of this thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:20 on March 30, 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: Floquenbeam didn't say Rusf10 won't be blocked for the same behaviour. They said from what they've seen you are looking like you need to be blocked but Rusf10 doesn't, but they will need to look more carefully at Rusf10's behaviour. From what I saw in the above thread or the talk page discussion, it's not clear to me anyone shares your view that Rusf10 was as bad as you, which doesn't mean their behaviour was perfect. Frankly, your comments on Floquenbeam's talk page and this follow up also seems to provide some additional albeit limited support the view that your behaviour may be worse. Nil Einne (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Actually what Floquenbeam said was I also need to review your comments to see if a block there is necessary as well. From what I've seen, it isn't, but I haven't reviewed it all. I should double check. "From what I've seen, it isn't..." He hasn't reviewed it all, but has already made a determination. That tells me what I need to know, and what you should know, right there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:31 on March 30, 2021 (UTC)

Is this anything but needless Wikidrama? If Flo blocks you for wrong reasons, that would likely be rather easily resolved (I was blocked for 6 months for wrong reasons, so don't worry, it's not that bad)... Otherwise, as someone entirely not in the know of this particular dispute, the best course of action I could suggest would be to take a moment of self-reflection and see if there's indeed anything uncollegial in your actions, and if you can avoid it in the future: an appropriate mea culpa is likely to help in avoiding further drama. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I was blocked in 2020 for wrong reasons and topic banned and it wasn't OK, but I wear those like a badge of honor. But I understand your point.

As for walking away from the previous ANI, I have done that twice now. I'm ready to be done with it. Have been. That is over. This...needs to be addressed. I'm more than willing to talk it out. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:48 on March 30, 2021 (UTC)

• You (NH; there have been 1000 edit conflicts here, but this was originally a response to him) are repetitively accusing another editor of vandalism, and requested they be blocked at AIV (!). You say they are a liar, using the word "lie", on the article talk page. Then, you say they are acting poorly when they ask you be blocked for personal attacks, and label them the aggressor. Including being shocked that they consider your AIV report bad faith. This is gaslighting. You continually insult them in the ANI thread above that was started about your behavior. You continually denigrate the judgement of anyone who tells you you're in the wrong. You insist on keeping the insults you made on the talk page of the article when they are removed. You're being hypocritical. You say on my talk page that you're "just trying to understand", but you do it in a way calculated to cause offense. I cannot imagine how all this can be considered collaborative behavior; it is battleground behavior. You have a long history of it. That is a really, really long block log. But most of it is from 10 years ago, with an exception last year, and I really thought that had changed. But you keep doubling down, and then tripling down.
  Let me ask you, did you think at the time that you were being disruptive 10 years ago? I doubt it. But now you say you realize you were being disruptive then. And yet, you mock the very idea that today, there is the slightest possibility that you are being disruptive again. If I were you, I would ask an experienced editor whose judgement you trust to look at your behavior the last few days and give you their honest feedback. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

First, I'm Autistic, I know what "gaslighting" is and that isn't it. Second, the "insults" (they called them "personal attacks") were me bringing up past sanctions that were readily available on their talk page (right now) after they had already brought up my block log.

Third, ladies, gentleman, non-binary friends, this is the behavior I am talking about. I am threatened for "battleground" behavior. Holy crap! Battleground anyone? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:52 on March 30, 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Neutralhomer, why did you have to start this thread? Floquenbeam is considering blocking you because you (unapologetically) accused Rusf10 of vandalism in a content dispute (and reported him at AIV), edit-warred [93] [94] to intermingle personal attacks in a content dispute, and ignored site etiquette (editing others' comments, trying to close an ANI thread about you). I was hoping things would calm down and blow over, but now you're saying Floquenbeam is at fault for being concerned by your editing? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)"

I think if you look up, you'll find out why I started this thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:54 on March 30, 2021 (UTC)

• Everyone concerned with this conflict please just take a break. Disengage for a bit and let me know if anyone starts needling you. If there's an article in dispute, don't touch it. Leave it just as it is and go work on something else. Jehochman ^Talk 02:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly, as I said, needless Wikidrama. WP:TROUT for everyone seems required. And it's April fools in 3 days time! Perfect for a well timed break. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  No, not trout for everyone. It is not wikidrama, nor is it trout-worthy, to respond when an ANI report is filed about you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  Amazingly, the discussion at Talk:WDSI-TV seems to have resolved the content dispute. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, another user took care of that. I think we can consider that discussion closed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:54 on March 30, 2021 (UTC)

• "Threats and intimidation" generally implies that an involved user is inappropriately using threats and intimidation to tilt a content dispute. Floquenbeam states that they have no opinion on the content dispute, and is instead observing that you are on the verge of being blocked again for the same behavior that has led to at least one previous block. Yes, that is "threatening" and "intimidating", of course, but it's not the willful, malicious tactic of using "threats and intimidation" to manipulate a result to suit one's biased POV. There is no such concept that an admin cannot remark that a user's behavior is inappropriate and may result in a block, because such a statement would be "threats and intimidation". I'm sure you know this by now. I'm more inclined to see this thread as a form of harassment. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm more inclined to see this thread as a form of harassment. Thank you. Exactly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

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

IP prolifically adding inapropriate categories

109.255.38.231 (talk · contribs) is busy adding articles to inappropriate categories, and has not responded to warnings on their talkpage from me and from @Number 57 and from Binksternet.

Please can some admin intervene? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This has been going on for some time, and it is not the only IP they had edited from; they have previously used 86.42.31.72 (talk · contribs). Number 57 16:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a week, they didn't listen to many warnings. Some of their categories are verifiable, but often not verified in the article and they're sometimes plain wrong. Fences&Windows 22:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

And 86.42.31.72, clearly the same user. They've been going since December on at least these two IPs, that's some trail they've left. Fences&Windows 22:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

COI on Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia

I have twice reverted User_talk:Shutehaven who is keen to make reference to their published theories on the Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia page. I have welcomed them and also tried to alert them to the concept of COI. Their account appears to exist for only for writing on this topic. I must stress that the writer’s opinions have been published in two short articles in serious journals. I have added reference to these to the Dieppe Maps page but I am concerned the writer’s enthusiasm for self promotion and unwillingness to engage with the concept of COI will end up creating undue weight in the Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia, despite the fact they seem well intended. Could some unconnected admin have a look and perhaps explain policy to User_talk:Shutehaven? Nickm57 (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

He's disclosed his COI and it's not part of a dispute or a financial COI, so we don't need a nuclear option. WP:SELFCITE allows self-citing if it's reliable and relevant, which this seems to be, and he's discussing on the talk page. I think you can work with him to include this material in some form. Fences&Windows 22:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Siamese fighting fish

This might be the silliest thing to sockpuppet over, but admin attention might be required at Talk:Siamese_fighting_fish#Requested_move_26_March_2021. I count five votes by likely sockpuppets. [95] [96] [97] [98] [99]. Thank you -- Calidum 22:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

New users going straight to the article's talk page to support a move? Yeah, that's worth looking into. This may be a case of meatpuppetry, but this is concerning nonetheless... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Confirmed multiple sock puppet account creations. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antony Willianson; the nominator created numerous sock puppets to self-vote the discussion to an actionable close. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't tell you how much joy it gives me to learn that people are so passionate about the taxonomic name of Siamese fighting fish that they would create handfuls of socks for a move discussion. Just when I thought life was getting irreparably serious. People truly will get passionate about anything eh. Keep up the good work, and thanks for this little pocket of surreal happiness. doktorb _words^deeds 06:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

As someone who follows source material on fish content, I can report that there are some weird things in the Far East about certain kinds of freshwater aquarium fish where there are extremely high-priced varietals of the fish species, that attract various kinds of money-motivated interests, sort of like the historical tulip mania in Europe. Just in case people were (understandably!) wondering why there would be such activity over such a seemingly obscure topic. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Might be a candidate for WP:Lamest edit wars. Fences&Windows 23:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Michigan–Michigan State men's basketball rivalry

More eyes on this, please. A long-running feud between multiple accounts; add content, revert content, call out the other editor, repeat. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I've warned two accounts and locked the page for a week. Please open a discussion on the talk page. Fences&Windows 23:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Fences and windows. It was brought to the talk page, a compromise seemed to have been reached, and it was broken by the registered account. Hence the continuation. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Shravan Gupta

Persistent back-and-forth between those who want to give undue coverage to legal troubles, and those wishing to whitewash the article. I've issued a final warning to an account engaged in the latter. Needs more attention and perhaps page protection. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring and removal of sources by User:82.16.238.5

• 2A02:C7F:BAD8:600:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.16.238.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Edge (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This anonymous user appears to be very persistent in edit warring on the Edge article which includes unexplained removal of a valid source. The IP does not discuss when contested. I cannot identify any possible block evasion by an already blocked user, so looks to be purely anonymous. Both the IPv4 and the IPv6 range appear to be run by the same person, based on behavior and Geolocation. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you'll need to paste this section (less this post) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

All Saints Church, Gainsborough

Sorry just a small request for help, could someone take a look at and fix the broken infobox on the article please. I can't seem to fix it. CheersRailwayJG (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done, there was a single missing square bracket hiding in there! ~ mazca ^talk 13:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@RailwayJG: This tip is more WP:TEAHOUSE than ANI, but anyway. Comment out the innards of the infobox using <!-- -->, then move those markers down or up a little at a time, previewing as you go. When the infobox breaks again, you've located the error. Narky Blert (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Extreme AIV Backlog

I know other users would appreciate this as well, but there is an extreme backlog at WP:AIV. Currently 30+ deep. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:16 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

User:Äggpizza

Äggpizza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new user rapidly reverting edits, without explanation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• Bizarre; I didn't see an obvious pattern. They seem to have stopped for the moment, and I followed up your warning with one of my own. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, @Mackensen. I assumed that they were following recent changes, and randomly reverting whatever appeared there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

    BrownHairedGirl, Mackensen, please see this edit. Ashleyyoursmile! 12:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

    Ashleyyoursmile, I would say that's unconstructive, at best. Anyway, they kept reverting so I've indeffed them. Mackensen (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Good block, @Mackensen. Äggpizza's latest edits ([100], [101], [102], [103]) show them to be clearly WP:NOTHERE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Editor creating sock account to avoid Paid editing disclosure

I was not sure which noticeboard to post this as it falls between two stools (Undisclosed paid editing and abusing multiple accounts). If this is the wrong place, then I can only apologise and learn from the mistake. But here goes anyway.

Accounts:

Hooising (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SOPHIASONGPANDA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hooising started editing on the 7th Feb 2021. All of their edits fall into one of three types.

1. Changing any reference to the old company name of Agilent technologies to the new company, Keysight technologies.
2. Adding spam links for (what I suspect is) their company, Keysight technologies. Often in the form of an in-line URL within an article but nearly always for a particular product rather than any specific claim.
3. Changing an existing reference to one that points to Keysight's advertising website (often removing any actual support to the claim(s) made).

No edit that does not involve Keysight has been made.

Suspecting paid advocacy and as the editor is relatively new, I added a comprehensive note to Hooising's talk page about undisclosed paid editing with reasonably comprehensive advice on how to comply with the Ts&Cs. That note can read here.

No declaration or response has been made. However, following my post, a new account, SOPHIASONGPANDA was created and has carried on making direct edits on behalf of Keysight technologies that fall into the three types outlined above.

The suspicion is all the more obvious because of the reference to 'sing' and 'song' in the account names.

Both accounts have been notified of this referral (or they will be once this is posted) CliveDunford (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I indef blocked Hooising, they were spamming the Keysight website. User:SOPHIASONGPANDA might be the same user, but I'm not sure. The edits are to change the name from Agilent to Keysight, so this is possibly another person but given a similar task. I've left a notice about paid editing. Fences&Windows 22:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's meat, both UPE (can't disclose on-wiki how I know). They're a big company, so presumably they have a large marketting department. DMacks (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

By the looks of it, both accounts have the task of updating external hyperlinks to point to the right portion of the company's WWW site. Hooising lacked competence and mucked things up, some of which I have just cleaned up or reverted. SOPHIASONGPANDA seems to be someone else brought in who actually knows how to edit a wiki, and doesn't, at least after a quick review, seem to be doing more than adjusting external hyperlinks that are already there but wrong, as ironically discussed by another editor entirely at Special:Diff/834103883. Edit summaries like Special:Diff/1015010159 are quite clear, so I don't think that we can complain that the competent editor is not being up-front about what is being done. Uncle G (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

My answer to question: Editor creating sock account to avoid Paid editing disclosure

Hello, Team, First of all, thanks for your questions and great suggestions! My name is Sophia SONG. SONG is my family name. I am a newcomer here. I setup my account 7 days ago (March 26,2021). I am not a paid contribution. I am an employee of Keysight Technologies. I try to clean up broken links and redirect links due to website migration starting from March, 2021. Our goal is to improve users' experience on Wikipedia and make sure all links are valid to avoid customer dissatifaction.

Another reason is that Keysight was spun off from Agilent Technologies in 2014. Agilent does not offer or support any test and measurement equipments and softwares anymore, those went with Keysight when the company split. That's why we change Agilent to Keysight to avoid misleading our readers. You can see a sample page, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_integrity There are a lot of PDF files here on this page should be updated and a couple of dead links need to be fixed.

Thanks again for your time and help to reveiw my edits. I will try my best to follow all related guidelines. Sophia SONG SOPHIASONGPANDA (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• SOPHIASONGPANDA As noted on your user page, if you are making edits related to your employer, you are a paid editor and must disclose it. You don't have to be specifically paid for your edits to be a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• People will no doubt explain at length that if marketing and dealing with "customers" is your job then you very much are being paid to edit Wikipedia. I think that Fences&Windows has made the right decision with respect to both of these accounts. This account is in your own name, and you must treat it as your own. If you do things like let anyone other than yourself use it, or start doing company things that are more than fixing link-rot, you will get into hot water; and it will be publicly associated with your name for a long time. I hope that editors will help you to make an appropriate disclosure on your user page. Uncle G (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to provide some closure: as this is a new editor, I have added a comprehensive note of advice on how to comply with the paid editing requirements on SOPHIASONGPANDA's talk page. CliveDunford (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing unsourced/problematic edits by Tastypotato0932

Tastypotato0932 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite a plethora of warnings on their talk page for repeated unsourced edits, Tastypotato0932 completely ignores them and continues unabated as can be seen in their latest range of edits. I've rarely come across a talk page where so many warnings have been issued and though they have had a single 24 hour block, they totally ignore these warnings. As such, I have not bothered to issue one for these latest edits. This editor desperately needs a severe reminder that ignoring warnings, lack of communication and continuing with their highly disruptive edits come with consequences. Please could an admin cast an eye. Thanks. Robvanvee 09:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Repeated warnings, a 24 hour block, and absolutely no effort at communicating with anyone... yeah, that's grounds for an indefinite block. Any unblock would be contingent on showing understanding of how to properly source material, maybe this will finally get the user's attention. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Blade. Robvanvee 14:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Page move

SteveBrownIreland (talk · contribs) has moved the page Violent Thing to Worst Song Ever, in what I can only assume is an attempt at humour or poss April Fool's joke. The humourless git that I am, I tried to roll back the move but couldn't, and didn't want to move the article again in case that creates more problems than it solves, not without checking here first at least. Any advice? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have moved it back without a redirect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Shoot, is it April Fools' Day already? Can't we shut down en.wiki for April 1st? This will be my 15th one and it's gotten to be pretty damn boring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Even on 1 April vandalism in article namespace is not allowed. I looked at their contributions, and the last several ones are indeed not good, but others seem to be ok.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
      • tbh, I don't get why people aren't happy with what we already do, which is more than sufficient. the main page is always a blast. I'd support pending changes protection + no IP editing every April 1, but I think that'd get quite some pushback. especially as a lot of this stuff is from experienced users, sigh. OwO (what's this?) 08:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Experienced editors need to have experiences like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climbing jack. Uncle G (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Can't we put a banner on the mainpage that says we have closed down WP because April 1? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
      • @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: that is the most evilly ironic compromise solution I have ever seen Nosebagbear (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• I think you are all quick to assume here based on little to no evidence that this is related to April 1st. Vandalism is vandalism... things like this happen on any given day of the year. What makes vandalism occurring on April 1st any different? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Well one outcome of the vandalism at Special:Diff/1015428810 and elsewhere from this account is that I've discovered that Osaka, Virginia (Special:Diff/1015428685) was indeed a coal mine. One drop in the ocean of mass-created GNIS article problems. Uncle G (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Add copyvio to the problems at Kovic (musician) 97% similarity. When the CSD A7 tag was removed a couple of times by a 1 day old IP I was going to start and AfD for the article and the BEFORE search found copyvios so re-tagged as G12. JW 1961 ^Talk 19:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Serols

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

---

I didn't want to have to come here in order to get what should be a simple and straightforward answer, but it seems I have to. Anyway, I made a small number of WP:APRILFOOLS edits today - all of them were properly tagged and, to the best of my knowledge, followed all of the guidelines. However, Serols reverted three of them (the only three that were still standing live at the time) with a generic edit summary, and then gave me three vandalism warnings on my talk page [104] [105] [106]. Since I believe that all of my Fools edits were within guidelines, I removed these warnings [107]. I then proceeded to leave a message on Serols' talk page, asking why they had given me vandalism warnings for clearly-marked April Fools edits [108], which they subsequently reverted using the same or a very similar generic nondescript edit summary [109]. I restored my question, since I expect an answer [110], which they reverted again [111] and then proceeded to give me a "final warning" for vandalism [112]. To avoid edit warring, I am now bringing this matter here for further review/attention.

Please note that I am not seeking sanctions against Serols, other than maybe an admonishment for misuse of the term "vandalism". I am however seeking a response to my question about why they warned me for clearly-marked Fools edits. If by some chance any of my Fools edits were in violation of guidelines, I'm willing to accept that and I don't plan on doing any more, though I believe they were all within guidelines. 192.196.218.215 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Just curious but did you read WP:FOOLR? Making jokes at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention isn't going to be seen as funny. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I did, and I don't see where on that page it says that UAA is off limits. In fact, the user who reverted that one indicated in their edit summary that they were reverting purely to avoid clogging up the admin page, and that edit even got logged in the yearly log. I interpreted that to mean that at least someone found it worthwhile enough to preserve in the log. 192.196.218.215 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

As a general rule, the people editing the yearly log are the people making the April Fool's jokes, not the ones cleaning up after them. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see where on that page it says that UAA is off limits It specifically says that only the Main Page is exempt from rules No 1. M.Bitton (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I will propose an addition to the rules then that specifically prohibits people from making jokes on admin pages. They already have enough to deal with as it is and won't find this stuff funny on pages they monitor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we get rid of this silly tradition which is more hassle than it's worth? M.Bitton (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Because I am all for editors having fun once a year if it can be done the right way. Most editors have abided by the rules and just make or comment on joke deletion pages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton:, which proves what exactly? Rule 1 states: All jokes and pranks must be kept out of the "article", "help", "talk", and "help talk" namespaces. Jokes that affect articles, including files, categories and templates that are used in the article namespace, will be treated as vandalism. Depending on the nature, you risk having your account possibly blocked from editing. which says nothing about UAA Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

If an editor's silly jokes disrupt the project and administrative processes, then they're disruptive regardless of the day they are made. Humour is allowed, within reason, but common sense is required.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

You have also been reported to AIV. I guess you will have your answer when an admin takes that on. The whole point of vandalism warnings is to initiate a conversation so that the editor has a chance to turn productive. So, I find myself agreeing with you that you deserved an answer. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like an admin removed the AIV report. Regarding rule 1 that was mentioned above, project space is specifically not listed as a prohibited namespace. 192.196.218.215 (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm just saying but.... if you want your joke to be noticed and appreciated then try making comments on joke AfDs. The only people who are going to notice "jokes" on redirect or admin pages are going to be unamused editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It's an unwritten expectation that April Fool's jokes in project space will be made by established, registered editors from their registered account. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I'm sorry but telling an IP that its a "unwritten expectation" seems to mean its not a rule, which is not written down and therefore they had no way of knowing and therefore seems like quite a weak argument. Arguing that something was bad because it didn't abide by a non existent rule, only a unwritten expectation, seems quite unfair agains the IP. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think WP:MOLEHILL applies (by the way, I *knew* User:Jehochman wrote that as soon as I read it. All the hallmarks.). Serols, don't call things vandalism when they aren't vandalism. 192.196.218.215, when you play the April Fools game, you're going to run into people with no sense of humor, particularly if you're making their lives more difficult. Please don't come running here when you run into a grump. FWIW, the {{COI}} template on WP:WPWP was funny (YMMV). Most of the rest, like the use of actual {{db}} tags on the sandbox, and the minor clogging of WP:UAA, not so much, as people had to actually clean up after it. In general, you want to avoid disrupting workflow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  Floq, don't you get tired of making sense all the time? :D Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  No, it's awful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't come here because I ran into a grump. I came here because Serols refused (twice) to answer my question, and just reverted my question like it was vandalism. Even if the answer was as simple as "I didn't find them funny", my response would have been "just please don't revert edits as vandalism" or something similar. It is the deliberate refusal to even provide an answer that brings me here. Also, unwritten expectations are bad. If the expectation is that only registered users can do Fools edits, that needs to be documented in the rules. 192.196.218.215 (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe you could stop being a Wikipedia:Dick. A) Serols is not obliged to respond. B) Serols is not going to be reprimanded. C) If you want policy changed or clarified WP:VPP is thataway. MarnetteD|Talk 19:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Serols is obligated to respond, unless I'm misinterpreting that guideline. 192.196.218.215 (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Can we just all walk away from this one? OP made some April Fool's jokes, not all appreciate it, no one wants to talk about it. This isn't worth any more of anyone's time, we aren't going to make Serols to issue an apology or whatever is desired here, and ultimately this isn't an intractable behavioural problem. It's just like every year at this time. I say everyone just go on about their day and regular editing, no sanctions, no warnings, no compelling anyone to do anything, just forget it and get back to encyclopaedic editing. Canterbury Tail talk 19:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• (1) Making April Fools joke edits is allowed, with limitations. (2) Deleting joke edits is allowed, with no limitations. Therefore (3) Editors making a joke edit should do so with the understandng that it might be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  Quite. A joke is no longer funny (if it ever was in the first place) if the perpetrator starts arguing about its deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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

New user leaving vulgar welcome messages

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

Example - Note the text before the timestamp in their sig. That's the worst of the bunch. Most of them just say "fartcunt." Also, they're signing their talk page posts as "Muffturd." Squeakachu (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The offending User has been blocked indefinitely. Dolphin (t) 21:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Recreation of 2017 AfD?

Going on holiday right now so don't have time to look into it, but Small country syndrome appears pretty much the same as what was deleted in 2017. Schwede66 20:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, so I deleted it. If anything, it's a slightly inferior copy of the original. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Not following notability guidelines due to COI

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

---

I would like to report this user Msp7com for moving some WP:TOOSOON articles back into mainspace. I am an AFC reviewer and I moved these two [113][114] into draftspace because both of these politicians clearly fails NPOL and does not have enough sigcov. They may become notable if they wins and becomes an MLA in the upcoming 2021 Kerala Legislative Assembly election. So I moved these two into draftspace with a hope that they may pass NPOL within a month. But it seems that this user has no idea about our notability guidelines about politicians as they moved these two back to mainspace by saying these [115] [116]. I already notified this user regarding this. But they are not replying. It is also evident that this user has COI towards Indian Union Muslim League related articles. See this [117]. They also moved this article [118] against consensus. See this [119] talk page discussion. This user has been also warned several times for disrutpive editing and was also blocked once. So I request for an immediate administrative intervention to take necessary action against them and move these two articles back into draftspace as I dont want to engage in an edit war. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 11:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the moves, Kashmorwiki, WP:DRAFTIFY says Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD. I think the creator moving them back to mainspace registers as "an objection". You can nominate the articles at WP:AFD. Schazjmd (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Per Schazjmd: AFC is an optional and voluntary process; every autoconfirmed user is allowed (without penalty or repercussions or even anyone complaining) to just create an article in the mainspace. I've done it many times myself. It is not disruptive to put an article you create in the main space. So, that's a non-starter. The process for finding a inappropriate article in the mainspace is to nominated it for deletion, we have three deletion processes, WP:CSD, WP:PROD, and WP:AFD. I am actually shocked and surprised that you, Kashmorwiki, did not know all of this already and that you are reviewing articles without even a basic knowledge of Wikipedia processes. --Jayron32 15:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32, I dont know on the basis of what you are saying I dont have any knowledge about WP:CSD, WP:PROD, and WP:AFD. You can verify my knowlege by checking my log. (Just see my AFD log here [120] ) First of all, please try to understand what Im actually trying to convey. The thing is that, I do not want these articles to get deleted as there are high chances these subjects will become notable within a month. So why should we just delete it now instead of moving it into draftspace and incubate. This is actually one of the basic steps in new page reviewing process. Very TOOSOON articles are generally moved into draftspace. Thats what I just said here. I also request you to go through the complete edit history of this user first. I havent said this user did some disruptive editing this time. What I said was they have been warned in the past by other users (basically for copyright violation and Im sorry if I used the term disruptive) and have high amount of COI with a particular topic. This is actually what I said here. So its ok for you and others to say that I should not have brought this discussion here and I totally agree. But saying the things like I do not have any idea about CSD, PROD and AFD cannot be accepted. Most of my time here have been spent on AFD. And do you think an admin will make me a member of Wikiproject AFC without even knowing these basics? Pleaae dont tell things like this. It really hurts you know, when someone totally ignores your contributions here and says that you have no idea about what you are doing. That is just happening here and Im worried. Im sorry if I became emotional. Nothing personal against you. This is just because I'm really worried and shocked by your comment against me.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Forget it. You're right and I'm wrong. What do you want me to do for you? --Jayron32 18:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32, both of us has made mistakes and nobody is perfect here. First of all, I should not have brought it here. Thats the mistake I made. Anyway, I had done the necessary steps after the advice you give.Thankyou so much for spenting some your time with me. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

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

accusatory, slanderous edit summary?

I'm not sure which guideline or policy is relevant here, but is this sort of edit summary by Honey-badger24 (talk · contribs) beyond the pale? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Their edit is fine - the previous description of someone on the lam for child pornography as a "wayward Floridian" is itself obnoxious, but I've revdel'd the edit summary and left a note asking them to keep edit summaries to the point. Acroterion (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, it's the edit summary about which I was concerned, not the changing of my obnoxious contribution. Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you should not use ridiculously flippant words when describing pedophiles? How did you even think it was a good thing to say???? "Slanderous" LOL. Grow up. Amazing how you care about words used when they refer to yourself, not when it's words you yourself used that were inappropriate. Cope harder. Honey-badger24 (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

[121] Blocked for a week. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello. User:FrontRoadGirls posted a prod on Comedian (artwork) with the message "In order to delete it, you need to buy it for $150,000". Obviously spam, I reverted. The editor then came to my talk page and called me a "B*TCH" for reverting their "April Fools joke." This editor is clearly not here for building an encyclopedia or working in conjunction with others. --Kbabej (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Dude, I tried to participate in the april fools day thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrontRoadGirls (talk • contribs) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

April Fool's Day jokes are supposed to be funny. This wasn't. MarnetteD|Talk 21:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Now a bad faith AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedian (artwork). MarnetteD|Talk 21:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I was talking about me editing Comedian, not something i am sincerly sorry for doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrontRoadGirls (talk • contribs) 21:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I blocked indef, to start with.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Now, that's funny. M.Bitton (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yet another reason to ban April Fools' "joke" edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Why because 1% don't bother to read the rules? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• No, because there shouldn't be any rules which allow one to f**k around. I'll tell you what, let's make some rules for what vandalism is acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Problem editor

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

---

Earlier in the day (my time at least) a new editor, BestDJofAllTime (talk · contribs), started a genre war on an article by adding unsourced genres to an album article: This Is Not the End (Manafest album). After explaining that Wikipedia requires sources, and they need to be explicitly listed in prose, the editor continued to add the genres and using a review that did not directly claim the genres. He then began claiming he was a music journalist and knew better than reliable sources and he refused to use them. I requested support from the albums project: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Genre sourcing. An admin and another experienced editor tried to explain the issues to the editor (see the editor's talk page) and the editor continued to edit war and argue that we were all idiots and were wrong to rely on reliable sources (multiple comments left on the subject's talk page). I am reporting the editor now not for the WP:3RR issues, or the WP:INCIVILITY, but for the WP:NOTHERE statements in this edit: "They don't know what they're talking about, but we do! That's why with their communist regime, I will NEVER go by what they say". To me, the editor is showing 1) a narrow self-interest (attempting to prove that he knows more than music media), and certainly 2) shows no interest in working collaboratively. There are likely other problems, but I am growing more concerned with the editor's increasingly extremist comments and disruptive behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"Walter" has no idea what he's talking about! He's a mentally insane Nazi communist who refuses to change Wikipedia for the better! Do NOT take what he says seriously! Kick that communist Nazi whackjob off of Wikipedia forever! He's getting butthurt over the truth and the most logical ideas that are here to HELP Wikipedia for the long run, not harm it! Of course, Mr. Delusional refuses to accept it! He was also given plenty of reliable sources that actually DID claim the genres that he claims were never included, but as somebody who knows who wrote the review, I'd know that those sources were there better than anyone! Mr. Gorlitz is having a mental breakdown, and needs to be institutionalized- most likely for life, or at the very least until all his communist Nazi mindset views are wiped clean from his memory! As a psychiatrist, I am EXTREMELY concerned for Mr. Gorlitz's well-being, and I would STRONGLY recommend that someone get him some help immediately! At this point, Mr. Gorlitz is a raving lunatic, and even I can no longer do anything for him! I leave it in the hands of the authorities to deal with this madman! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"He's a mentally insane Nazi communist...whackjob...raving lunatic..." Banhammer, I hear you calling! Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This edit is a clear WP:NOTHERE statement. Should be an instant indef block. — Czello 07:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Back in the day, the worst we ever got called was "Commie faggot junkie". Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked indef for making personal attacks. Not sure if this was a genuine attack or some sort of April Fool joke, and happy for another admin to unblock if we get a credible assurance of future good behaviour. ϢereSpielChequers 08:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"I'm NOT a novice, dumbass! I've been around the block more times than you'll ever know! I've been on Wikipedia for years- longer than you've ever been!" by an account created 04:12, 1 April 2021. An unjustified boast or an admission? Narky Blert (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Could be either, or could be that up to now they've just edited as an IP. If their unblock request starts "please AGF and treat this account as a newbie entitled to all four levels of warnings" then I get to complete a whole row of buzzword Bingo just from this one account. ϢereSpielChequers 11:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

That's Gamerguy94 (talk · contribs). I've blocked a few more socks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Abuse while deleting other editor's posts at talk pages.

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

---

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly reverted a post that I gave made to Talk:Zinc-air battery regarding the magnitude of units required to express a particular characteristic of these small size batteries (dif1, dif2, dif3), they were reverted claiming that the talk page is not a forum. If one is not allowed to discuss a change to an article, what are they for then? I note that this user's block log reveals a history of deleting other users posts.

Having posted a note to the user's talk page (dif4), the note was summarily deleted with an abusive edit summary describing me as an 'anonymous coward' (dif5) along with a claim that discussing changes is somehow against WP policy.

For the record, there is another (completely unrelated) post to their talk page that was similarly dismissed with exactly the same edit summary (dif6).

It should not ne necessary to point out that: editors from IP address are far less anonymous than account name users who hide behind a completely made up account name. 86.181.0.242 (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Well it doesn't help things when you make xenophobic comments about Americans who can't spell - [122]. Insults like that won't make people take you seriously.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Interpreting mWh/gramme (or mWh/gram if you are one of those Americans who can't spell) as a "xenophobic comment" when good-natured ribbing about EngVar on Wikipedia is hardly uncommon seems uncharitable. If the objection was to that portion of the comment, perhaps Wtshymanski could've been a little clearer that that was the specific objection, so the IP could've left the comment again without the spelling aside—the general comment on units certainly seems appropriate for a talk page. "Anonymous coward" was absolutely out of line. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

ISP is the same as in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright/Archive; geolocate from contributions page puts IP addresses in the same county. Behaviour is similar. Peter James (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Aside to discuss Nigel Ish's characterizations

As apparently insulting people for their nationality is "good-natured ribbing" I will strike my comment - does criticising people for their ethnicity or gender also count as "good-natured" ribbing?Nigel Ish (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a pretty huge and obvious difference between making a joke about American spelling variance, and "criticising people for their ethnicity or gender", and I think you know that. I am not going to insult your intelligence by suggesting you think the IP is genuinely saying that Americans' usage of the spelling "gram" rather than "gramme" is due to a collective inability to spell. This does not strike me as a good faith question, and your edit summary describing my comment as "admin approval of nationalistic attacks" is completely unacceptable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(taking the opportunity to agree w/ GW on ANI...) Teasing about spelling differences is something that goes on all the time. Calling it "insults" or "xenophobic" - or equating it to "criticising [sic] people for their ethnicity or gender" is a rather severe over-reaction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, lots of factors have to be considered when evaluating whether or not something is likely to be offensive to anyone, but I agree with GW that a bit of engvar humour (or humor, if you prefer) is not at all offensive; I have done it myself, and have often encountered it coming back the other way, but I've never heard of anyone being offended by it. If someone told me they were upset by it, I would be prepared to apologise (apologize?), strike what I'd written and never use it towards them again - but it hasn't happened yet, I think it would be a fairly rare occurrence. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

As I would hope that it is clear, I do find this behaviour and the toleration of it offensive, but it is clear that my opinions are not considered valid at ANI and that everybody is happy to accuse me of bad faith and attack me. This is just another example of the toxic culture on Wikipedia when admins encourage this behaviour and then express surprise when the abuse spreads and grows.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, I haven't accused you of anything. I will make a mental note that you don't appreciate humour of that type, and ensure that I don't use it around you, but I assure you that lots of American (and English!) colleagues use it with me in good faith, to our mutual amusement, there's nothing toxic about genuinely friendly banter. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare has however accused me of bad faith and said that my expression of my opinion is completely unacceptable.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

And I stand by it. It's one thing to not appreciate jokes over variations in American and British English spelling; that is your opinion and you are more than entitled to it. It is another thing entirely to say that a person making such jokes is making "xenophobic comments", that an admin who has explained that jokes about spelling are commonplace and generally taken to be in good faith is "approving of nationalistic attacks", or to imply that said admin must also approve of "criticising people for their ethnicity or gender". Those things are what I have described as bad faith and unacceptable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Spelling is a choice, but gender really isn't. Please don't equate the two. As someone who's trans, I've never had to go through healthcare to ensure I use a z instead of an s... --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Zhit? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Back to the topic

Perhaps as the originator of the subject remarks, I may be permitted to jump in. If I had any idea that a simple humorous remark was going to cause so much discussion, I would not have made it. Of course Americans, like every one else, can spell. They just spell differently because that is the way they are taught in school, just as they are taught different rules of grammar.

My comment was no more xenophobic than the often touted axiom of "America and Britain - two peoples divided by a common language". Believe me, professionally, I have to communicate with people from the US (and Canada, Australia and India) on a regular basis, and it is often very difficult working out what we are saying to each other - and many a policy was implemented other than as intended as a result.

Now can we get back to the central issue of the deletion of posts with the actually offensive comments of being described as an "anonymous coward" which no one has addressed and are hard to pass of as 'humour'? 86.181.0.242 (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed; I split this subsection out to try to avoid derailing your initial complaint. I did comment on the "anonymous coward" comment above the fold, btw. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages for articles are for discussions related to improvement of the article. Random musings, unsupported by any citations of reliable references, on what the poster thinks should be are not directed at improving the article. The inability to deal with national spelling differences is the poster's POV, and does not address improving the article. The posting was superfluous to the talk page and should have been removed entirely, as it is not appropriate to edit other's comments on a talk page. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

If you objected to the joke, you could've asked them to strike or remove it. But I don't see why the gist of the comment ("For the size of batteries typically encountered, mWh/gramme would be the more appropriate unit.") ought to have been removed–if a source was needed you also could've asked. It certainly wasn't a WP:NOTFORUM comment on an article that was about batteries. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This is almost certainly I B Wright, as Peter James observed, and WP:DENY should apply; recommend closing this, blocking the IP, and moving on. Grandpallama (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This is certainly, and really pretty obviously, I B Wright. OP blocked 72 hours. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Same ISP as someone else? Who would have thought it? It is a stretch to believe that Britain's largest telecommunication operator and ISP only has one customer? It would have gone bankrupt a long time ago. 86.181.0.242 (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

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

For the historical record, 20 years ago Slashdot was a relevant website, and non-loggedin editors there were referred to as "anonymous coward". It wasn't funny then. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Geez Mindhack

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

---

Geez Mindhack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was registered today at 17:30 (UTC) and immediately began editing in opposition to Huldra across a range of articles, with all of the users edits so far being reversions of Huldra or edits immediately following hers or challenges to her on talk pages. Several of them include personal attacks in the edit summaries (eg here and here) All of the users article edits are also violations of the 50/300 rule for ARBPIA, but as this seems pretty clearly to be a case of an account created for the sole purpose of hounding another user I think it would be useful to skip the part of figuring out what the past account is and blocking per WP:NOTHERE. nableezy - 18:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the account, it was obviously created to pester Huldra while avoiding scrutiny (or avoiding a block, not sure which) in the ARBPIA topic area. Their talk page comments can be reversed if they're disruptive, but be careful before reverting article edits; in several cases they did fix the grammar caused by Huldra's edit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Have taken said care. nableezy - 20:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Floquenbeam, and User:Nableezy; Umm, yeah, I'll try to be a bit more careful in the future, eg not leaving "1948" in the sentence when I change to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Must say I'm pretty flattered have such fans though, going through my every edit, ;) Huldra (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Logged out editing by User:Oguzkaan76?

So as one of the very few that patrol the "mw-removed-redirect" tag in Recent changes, I came across some redirect overwrites by IPs on pages created by Oguzkaan76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) within minutes of creation. This pattern is confusing me and makes me curious as to why this user would do this since August 2020. I have sent them messages on their Talk page regarding this, but they've seem to have gone unnoticed. I do not expect any administrative action as this appears to be done in good-faith, but why overwrite your own redirects while logged out and expose your IP address like this? Jalen Folf (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like they're using the account to lay the ground for an article using a redirect then otherwise editing as an IP user. It cannot see why anyone would do this, but perhaps they don't like accounts but are forced to use one to avoid going via AfC. WP:LOGGEDOUT and WP:IPSOCK seem to permit this. Fences&Windows 12:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Theshavia29912 and User:FlutterDash344

With at least 2 ANI discussions and an SPI currently pending this editor is back to their revert war with less than friendly edit summaries such as Special:Diff/1015549733 Slywriter (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The user has been blocked from editing the main page, so has turned attention to the episodes page instead, perhaps a siteban would be suitable, not to mention WP:CIVIL violations such as [123]. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 13:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah I didn't do anything he's saying as told by ginger ran from 2000-2016 whitch it didn't it ran from 2000-2006 then it was cancelled — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked both edit warriors for 2 weeks. Edit warring on a page while a partial block, for edit warring on a related page is still active shows a severe lack of clue. Hopefully this is a wake up call to both that edit warring will not be tolerated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(moved from an improperly located second thread, kept here for reference) This user is making misleading edits on wikipedia and stating as told by ginger is a Show that ran from 2000-2016 whitch no it did not run for 16 years the show only had a 6 year run and 3 seasons whitch there were 4 unaired episodes that aired for a day in 2016 but the show had already ended 10 years before that and saying that the show ended from 2000-2016 can really mislead people

Also the cramp twins he's putting the end date for the cramp twins as 2004 whitch I've checked every site looking for that and I couldn't find any site that says the cramp twins ended in 2004 and

Also teen titans he's reverting my edit and calling it unsourced but how could it be unsourced if I didn't even edit I just removed a a part of the page the talked about reruns cause it could never be confirmed nor will it be confirmed nobody knows when the show stoped airing reruns

I could keep going — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs)

@Floquenbeam: This should probably be noted (as Slywriter had initially mentioned)... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjholder. Magitroopa (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Agastya11 – Competency issues and copyright violations

Agastya11 (talk · contribs) has been here since 24 July 2020 and have over 2,000 edits. During this period, they have been warned dozens of times, made aware of discretionary sanctions in the IPA area, and despite all of this still continue to regularly violate a range of policies and guidelines.

Diffs of issues for which they were warned, in the last month alone.

• Special:Diff/1009450827 – MOS violation, warned in Special:Diff/1009633913.
• Special:Diff/1010744305 – MOS violation on same page, warned in Special:Diff/1011552180.
• Special:Diff/1011486865 – Unsourced addition, warned in Special:Diff/1011493237.
• Special:Diff/1013520352 – First of a series of reverts with no explanation, warned in Special:Diff/1013545969.
• Special:Diff/1014470856 – Removal of material with no edit summary on same page, warned in Special:Diff/1014482521.
• Special:Diff/1014673753 – Removal of material with the edit summary "Not reliable source", there is consensus otherwise, warned in Special:Diff/1014738007.
• Special:Diff/1014779163 – Removal of the same with no edit summary, warned in Special:Diff/1014785389. They repeat this removal in Special:Diff/1015368560 stating in the edit summary that it is an "opinion report", when the cited article is explicitly not one.

One of the most concerning and overlooked aspect of their pattern of editing is however that they don't seem to be understand copyright. From their additions to articles within the last few days that I checked, I could find two major instances of copyright violations on N. V. Ramana and Arvind Sawant respectively. There is likely to be many more copyright issues going by the pattern of their other violations. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, blocking indefinitely. This has gone on for far too long. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Are either of you able to file a case request at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations? I can, if you'd like or are unable to. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Done, thanks for showing me the CCI process. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

My pleasure. The Inquisition appreciates your assistance. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Constant live editing by User:Sami baladi

This has been going on since October 2020: they continue to do one of two things: updating footballers' statistics without updating the date, or updating the statistics while the game is going on (violating WP:LIVESCORES). Multiple people have tried telling them to stop, to no avail. Whether they are purposely going against the messages on their talk page, or just choose not to read them, something should be done. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• As this is a mobile editor, they may be unaware of the comments. A logged-in mobile web editor is more borderline than either a mobile IP or an app editor, as they have some indication of alerts, but it's quite subtle and talk pages in particular are difficult to find. I can believe someone with a poor grasp on technology would miss them. Vaticidalprophet 23:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: What do you think the best course of action is in this case? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Not reading talk page messages is not an excuse for continued disruptive editing. GiantSnowman 13:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) When mobile editors are blocked, do they see block reasons? If they do it might be worth blocking them to let them know to check their talk page with a link to it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Increasingly, I suspect "indef every mobile editor on sight until the WMF starts paying attention". Vaticidalprophet 20:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that the user very likely is unaware of their messages on their talk page (they're probably unaware of even having a talk page; to be honest on my phone I always see a red icon indicating a notification, but ok). However, as GS says, if we just turn a blind eye in the name of assuming good faith, nothing will change, and editors will keep on having to clean up after the (voluntary or not) mess. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

So, should no action be taken? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

User: WikiEditorial101

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

---

WikiEditorial101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

In this edit and this edit, WikiEditorial101 removed "anti-Semitic" from the description of Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies, citing some rigamarole about Luther being "anti-Judaic and not antisemitic" because he was OK if Jews converted to Christianity.

In this edit on my talk page, they said, about me:

"But I do, however, have an opinion concerning you. I remember you. You're a Freemason who regularly polices various kinds of articles in service to your brotherhood."

Normally, I would simply ask for a sanction for their violation of WP:NPA, but I think it's obvious -- in the spirit of WP:NONAZIS, if not the letter -- that this editor is WP:NOTHERE and needs to be indeffed before they can do more damage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

P.S. FWIW, I'm not a Freemason. I don't even own an apron. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• In all fairness, the Rosicrucians did contact me once about becoming their agent for Wikipedia, but they couldn't meet my price in coin of the realm. They kept wanting to pay me in relics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• True, true, ever since the crisis in the late middle ages and the concomitant hyper-inflation, Fragments of the True Cross (FTC) never recovered as a viable currency.--Mvbaron (talk) 08:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to go into the content context. Our article said: "In modern terminology, therefore, Luther expresses an anti-Judaic rather than a racist antisemitic view", however, what the source said was "[...] one must be clear as to what [Luther] was recommending and why. His position was entirely religious and in no respect racial." So the source distinguishes between antipathy towards Jews based on religion, and antipathy towards Jews based on race, but it does not set up a dichotomy calling one "anti-Semitic" and the other not. They are both, in fact, forms of anti-Semitism.

I have altered the text of our article to read "In modern terminology, therefore, Luther expresses an anti-Judaic antisemitic rather than a racist antisemitic viewpoint", which more accurately reflects the source.

There is still, of course, the matter of WikiEditorial101 calling me -- for no good reason -- a Freemason, reflecting their obvious belief that being a Freemason is a bad thing that causes being to do bad things "in service to their brotherhood". We wouldn't tolerate someone saying that about Jews, or Catholics, or Black people or transgendered people, and there's no reason we should tolerate them saying it about Freemasons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe there may be a specific LTA with this pattern? Vaticidalprophet 09:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The comment was unacceptable and WikiEditorial101 needs to apologise.

There seems to be a pattern of conspiracist comments, e.g. "I didn't realize that the subject of this article was part of a psy-op", [124] "bereft of any actual scandalous secret-revealing concerning the nefarious nature of your cult—the entire plot was a ruse by your "society" to create the Anti-Masonic Party as controlled opposition", [125] "Reminding inauthentic people of what they say to present themselves attractively. Because ignoring a person—especially their goodwill—is being polite and considerate" (self-reverted edit summary),[126] "Fun with Freemasons" (edit summary), [127]. Fences&Windows 19:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Following up on what Vaticidalprophet wrote above, there's an LTA report on Lightbringer (usurped - blocked) who seems to be fixated on Freemasonry. The first entry in the "M.O." section is A firm belief that anyone who disagrees with his view must be a Mason, and he makes this claim in edit summaries in articles and on talk pages of administrators. This seems to fit Wikieditorial101. Could they be one and the same? Should I file an SPI? It looks pretty DUCKy to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I would genuinely like to appreciate your sense of humour in regards to said enemies of the Jewish people, however, I'm afraid that—being (a) Jewish (Christian) myself—I hardly find anything at all amusing about your quips about aprons or any other sort of oven paraphernalia, nor about secret societies that you seem to (falsely) believe are enemies of the Jews (there are many prominent Jewish Masons). Yet I am called conspiratorial? And insensitive? My comment was clearly misunderstood. I do realize that I made a faux pas in assuming that you were doing a "deed" for one of the "brethren". Luther's Freemason membership was the only reason I could figure that you'd revert a perfectly logical edit, and without a thorough or clear enough explanation. Whether or not Luther would hate me since I'm a Christian convert (a Messianic Jew to be exact) had nothing to do with my edit. I don't think that it is inherently anti-Masonic to not be in favor of the violation of Wikipedia policy against bias. Whether or not I believe that secrecy has a place in business or government is unrelated to the antisemitism that we Jews—both religious, ethnic, and both—experience on a regular basis. I apologise for my scathing presumption. Here I was thinking that it was I who am owed an apology, but I see now that it is because you believe that Masons are antisemitic (again, that is absolutely false) that you are so loath to associate yourself with them and their lot. I will say though, my dear boy, that in my humble opinion your edit doesn't make sense to me. It sounds like a creative attempt to force an ethnic agenda on Luther when his bigotry rested in his religious intolerance. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

There was an editing conflict when I was saving my response, so I didn't see the above until after I backed out and reattempted to save. I am not that person, nor anyone else. I have never been banned. Please do run your checks so that this latest false accusation can be answered by the truth. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"Luther's Freemason membership was the only reason I could figure that you'd revert a perfectly logical edit, and without a thorough or clear enough explanation." This sounds like the guy, fer sure. Can we please have a sock/LTA block here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that this is the same LTA user as BMK indicates; I do know that the response above by WikiEditorial101 indicates a battleground mindset and insincerity incompatible with editing here. I have blocked them indefinitely. Fences&Windows 00:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, I didn't link to this earlier as it was stale but WikiEditorial101 was warned for calling another editor a "Satanic spook" in 2018.[128] This block has been a long time coming. Fences&Windows 00:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Thanks for the indef, under whatever reasoning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Repeated BLPNAME violations re:April 2021 United States Capitol attack

User:Love of Corey is repeatedly violating BLPNAME and reverting my edits which reference that policy, even going so far as to call me a vandal. I fully respect that names are appropriate in some instances, but BLPNAME suggests that clear consensus on the talk page that the encyclopedic value of the name outweighs the privacy concerns is necessary prior to inclusion. This user is continually reverting my edits to enforce WP:BLP on a page, and at one point called it "vandalism" to do so. I'm not sure whether full protection (without names) would be better, or what - but there is no consensus on the talk page (or in archives) for inclusion of names in either April 2021 United States Capitol attack or 2021 Atlanta spa shootings, thus BLPNAME trumps until such is formed. Will notify user shortly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Consensus was already reached on 2021 Atlanta spa shootings, and you're already getting a lot of pushback at April 2021 United States Capitol attack (which I never intervened at, just so you know). Love of Corey (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to point to a consensus on the talk page or in the archives of the spa shootings regarding the names. Mere BRD does not override policy which requires clear consensus for inclusion of names in this sort of situation. Furthermore, people who are arguing for inclusion but ignoring the policy in doing so are ignoring a project-wide consensus, which a local consensus cannot override. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I just want to note a consensus can be reached in an article without using talk page, whether it be through edit comments, or through the actions of articles editors. If an article has over a 1000 edits by dozens of editors over two week after something is added in, there could be a local consensus on the contents. I am not going to state myself that that is the case for the Atlanta shootings here, but a local consensus can be formed that way. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This probably belongs on the edit warring or BLP noticeboards and not here. Also, boomerang applies. User:Berchanhimez, the submitting editor is clearly a bold, competent, and passionate editor and knows better than to violate 3RR (at least 8 reverts) with claims the assailant's name should be excluded from the article under claims of WP:BLP, even though the assailant is deceased. There is an excellent policy based discussion regarding this topic on the talk page which for some reason User:Berchanhimez is preempting and reverting any and all comers. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I only violated 3RR because BLP violations are an explicit exemption to 3RR, and no editor has provided a plausible reason that BLPNAME does not apply in these situations. As such, I have been provided no evidence that the BLP exemption does not apply, thus I assumed it applies. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

He's dead. WP:BLP does not apply instead WP:BDP applies. The content is also cited and verified. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, I think you meant WP:BDP - but note that the BLP page explicitly says that the policy applies for an "indeterminate amount of time" after death - that indeterminate amount of time is certainly not "same day", and requires discussion on the talk page to "sever" the BLP policy from it before a name can be included. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The suspect is not deceased, Octoberwoodland; he is currently in custody and awaiting trial. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

He is deceased. I think you have your articles confused. We are talking about the April 2021 United States Capitol attack and not the 2021 Boulder shooting. Octoberwoodland (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the 2021 Atlanta spa shootings, which OP has also roped into their crusade (and how I found out about the discussion to begin with). I was not initially aware the discussion was beyond that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't care. I accept responsibility for my actions and will not fight this ANI discussion despite wherever it goes, but I will not apologize for my actions either. That policy needs an overhaul in regards to clarification, judging by the obvious disparity of opinions over what its definition actually entails. Love of Corey (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Both parties are acting in good faith here. I have some thoughts on BLP application I mention here. This is mostly a disagreement on application of policy, and it's a reasonable disagreement as the application of BLPNAME and BLPCRIME in these cases tends to stray a bit from its literal wording (which is over a decade old and, as I've said many times, in need of rewriting). This is best sent to the BLP noticeboard. As far as administrative action goes, it's unlikely any action against either party would be smart or helpful, and so I'd suggest an admin close this thread. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I agree, aside from the personal attacks and combativeness from the other user - I am okay if this concludes with a trout to everyone, but I still don't appreciate being called a "vandal" for what you admit is a reasonable interpretation of the policy page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think we've adequately addressed the problem of calling edits made in a content dispute vandalism. Love of Corey I will remind you not to do that.. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Can someone block the racist vandal please

Came across this edit by The Wrigley Guerrilla. Not much more info is needed i think, as it is so clear cut. Hope i did not mess any bureaucrtic steps up, never reported anyone here. Have a good one anyway. 85.16.40.231 (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked, in the future vandalism or other inappropriate editing can be reported to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, will try to remember that. Hope i won't need to anyway. At least i have seen the tiny and hardly noticeable red box somewhere in no mans land that told me to notify the racist haha. Surprised i did see it to be honest. 85.16.40.231 (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Request to enforce WP:FOC & WP:NPA in Talk:Malassezia

There is a discussion in Talk:Malassezia that's going on right now. I made a bunch of separate proposals in a series of WP:RfCs to try to move things forward in an apparent stalemate at Talk:Malassezia#WIP (per WP:DR#RfCs). Before everything gets out of hand too quickly I'm asking to detach an administrator to supervise matters and enforce WP:NPA / WP:FOC.

These are kind of replies that are left out there right now:

• Revision as of 12:29, April 2, 2021 by SMcCandlish
• Revision as of 12:28, April 2, 2021 by SMcCandlish
• Revision as of 12:25, April 2, 2021 by SMcCandlish

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Davronov, I haven't read the whole conversation, but I don't see anything wrong with the comments in those diffs. What do you believe is the problem that requires administrative action? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I'm asking only for supervision as I think some parties involved won't comment on content, but on me. SMcCandlish was called by WhatamIdoing in the Revision as of 21:28, April 1, 2021 and immediately started to discuss RfC proceedings unrelated to proposals and other stuff. The latter are already discussed at Requests_for_comment#Volume_problems. Thanks. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Davronov, the editors you are engaging with there are all very experienced, I think you should consider listening to what they are telling you. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I expect that all incoming parties focus on respective topics, not on the matters discussed elsewhere. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov: You seem to be overlooking the main issue here: opening 4 RfCs in one sitting. M.Bitton (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: This doesn't prevent anyone from following basic rules and discussing related matters elsewhere.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton, I think you might see the main issue too narrowly. The main issue might be someone pushing very hard, across multiple pages, to get a specific primary source cited somewhere in Wikipedia. Starting four RFCs on the same talk page in the same edit could merely be a symptom of the larger problem.

This editor has asked us "to detach an administrator to supervise matters". I think that is not a bad idea, especially if the admin feels free to issue topic bans and partial blocks.

In the meantime, there is a discussion at WT:RFC about formally writing down a rule that says a single editor should not be running a large number of concurrent RFCs. We have been discussing this problem at that page for a couple of years; if memory serves, the record is 11 concurrent RFCs on the same topic (by an editor now TBANned from that topic). If you have ideas about where and how to help editors get the help they need, without any one person dominating the RFC system, please join that conversation over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Feel free to fill a separate ANI/I complaint. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

No, thanks. That's not how we organize ANI. We don't want separate sections for the same problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing is correct; at most we'd make a subtopic, but this is short enough that such subsectioning is not necessary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I was only referring to the issue that the other editors raised concerns about, i.e. the elephant in the room that the OP cannot ignore if they want to achieve consensus for their proposed changes. Whether concurrent RfCs are allowed or not is irrelevant in this case since, from what I can tell, some editors think that AD is trying to game the system. M.Bitton (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• At this point, there seems to be a general perception at Talk:Malassezia that Alexander_Davronov is a disruptive presence, either playing WP:IDHT games or genuinely exhibiting a WP:CIR problem, and (either way) clearly engaging in WP:POV and WP:OR issues, using primary sourcing, and not complying with WP:MEDRS, plus a bunch of WP:BLUDGEON behavior. I believe this person needs at bare minimum a short-term (3 month?) topic-ban from this and related articles (e.g. a scope of fungal infections, broadly construed, to prevent the behavior just jumping over to another article of the same sort). This person's unconstructive activity has also inspired a consideration of new rules about RfCs, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Volume problems.
  PS: I did not receive the required {{ANI-notice}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Regarding 'This editor has asked us "to detach an administrator to supervise matters". I think that is not a bad idea, especially if the admin feels free to issue topic bans and partial blocks.' – That also applies to Talk:Goths, which is presently subjected to the same kind of shotgunning-RfCs-all-over-the-place approach (four so far, all on essentially the same thing).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: I didn't report you. Calm down please. I will withdraw current request once discussion is over. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, you did report me (three diffs worth), but I don't really care. I just noted for the record that you did not comply with the hard-to-miss ANI instructions. But there's nothing non-calm about me or my response to you. You've been warned repeatedly that your behavior at that page was disruptive in various ways, so here we are. And you don't get to rescind an ANI; once you open one, your own behavior is open to scrutiny. From what I can see, no one in the debate at that talk page is non-calm but you, other than to the extent your antics have exasperated some of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

IP edit warrior has returned

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

---

• 117.111.0.0/19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP edit warrior is right back at it at not only 2019 World Figure Skating Championships but also Mariah Bell, almost immediately after expiration of the previous rangeblock on this range. Requesting a re-block and/or page semiprotection (minimum 1-2 weeks).--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Thanking spam by German people

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

---

German people (talk · contribs) has thanked me 55 times for edits on my userpage, and has been randomly thanking other editors too. Can an admin give their thoughts about this? --BlueCrabRedCrab 13:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

BlueCrabRedCrab, Sorry, my computer has a problem, I just thanked you once but got back to it German people (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Uh huh. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I don't buy it either. –Fredddie™ 14:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72h for spamming the thank feature, which I interpret as DE or trolling at best, or a form of harassment at worst. It does not make sense that a a user's computer would somehow spend nearly 20 minutes going through a user's userpage history, systematically clicking the "thanks" button, and the secondary confirmation button due to some sort of "glitch". You can see from the user's thanks log that this is not some random occurance, this user spams the thanks button to an extreme degree, and has issued many rapid-fire "thanks" to many other users. In at least one instance, the user issued multiple "thanks" to an abandoned account with 3 edits that had not edited since 2007. This bizarre behavior borders on CIR-blocking in my opinion, and I went with the more lenient option here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Swarm: If Google Translate isn't failing me, this suggests viwiki admins think they are a sockpuppet of of Nguyễn Phúc Vy. They're indeffed there, at least. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indef, good catch. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the history, I've taken the liberty of requesting a global lock at Meta. Jack Frost (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

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

IP keeps bothering me

Apparently upset over the Minecraft page.

• 174.255.130.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 174.255.128.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Both geolocate to Texas, and the edit filter log for 174.255.130.113 shows them trying to blank User talk:174.255.128.131. They also posted to User talk:EDG 543 and tried to post to User:Yamla -- no idea why. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Simple solution. Blocked the current IP. They were already warned this harassment on talk pages was disruptive. Whether a range block is needed can wait till next occurrence. -- ferret (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Frank6292010 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Personal attack at User:BlueboyLINY on my talk page. User_talk:Mvcg66b3r#File:KAVU_25_News_Now.png_creation_announcement Keeps spamming Blueboy's talk page with nonsense. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• This diff-free parties-not-notified incident centres around Special:Diff/1015550156 apparently. Uncle G (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent reports involving the same editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#User:Frank6292010; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Ownership_problem_at_articles_about_TV_stations. Ping Acroterion and MelanieN. Fences&Windows 20:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack at User:BlueboyLINY on our talk page after messing up WXTV-DT, User_talk:Mvcg66b3r#April_2021 Keeps spamming Blueboy's talk page with nonsense. Frank6292010 (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

And then there's this bit of nonsense. – ².O.^Boxing 21:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Leitmotiv

I'm a little concerned here by behavior I've seen from this user concerning edits to the page Northwest Post-Grunge. The article was deleted via afd and then recreated at very nearly the same level less than four days later with no attempt to address any of the raised issues in any meaningful capacity, which has forced the community into a fifth deletion discussion for the article but the editor appears to insinuate in posts on the article's talk page and at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_March_21 that they will recreate the article again and again until the community gives up and lets it stay. Moreover, the editor appears to be engaging in a campaign of personal attacks against anyone who appears to threaten the article's existence. As the article has been relisted for the 5th time at afd, I'm posting this here to see if the community feels the editor's failure to abide by CONSENSUS and the personal attacks justify an admin intervention at the user level. Notifying editors who have participated in the AFD and DRV leading up to this post: @Doomsdayer520, TimothyBlue, Lennart97, S Marshall, Jclemens, Robert McClenon, Lard Almighty, Hobit, and SportingFlyer: If you have something to add, now is the time. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mandatory notification delivered. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Tempest in a teapot. First, Northwest Post Grunge (NWP) was deleted. But your argument is unsupported by the consensus at the deletion discussion page. When you mention it was "recreated at very nearly the same level" and that I "didn't address" the concerns. To reiterate the deletion discussion page which you summarily ignore: I recreated the article with 400% more content than it originally had from scratch. The original AfD concern is that it didn't have a non-trivial source, but it does now. Since that time I've added 2 more sources, one of them also non-trivial. It's pure hyperbole on your part to argue I haven't made a genuine attempt to address the concerns at those discussions. Secondly, the nominator admitted they never compared the current article to the original that got deleted, and you're misrepresenting the argument to make you look better. In essence, it was a kneejerk deletion without doing their due diligence of review. The nominator complained "how are they supposed to review a deleted article for comparison?" and I rebut "why are you in charge of nominating articles for deletion if you can't confirm?" Personal attacks is overstated in my opinion, I feel like I'm defending from poor wikipedia editing and calling it out - people just can't stand criticism of their poor wiki-editing. Additionally, some editors just plain refused to discuss on the talk page (probably because they couldn't defend their actions with wikipolicy). I didn't disagree with the original AfD, but I did alter the article from the original and addressed the concerns from the AfD, and that means the nomination for deletion was in error and the consensus at the deletion discussion appears to agree with me. If there are any new concerns, a new AfD has to be raised. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  Tempest in a teapot. first, Northwest Post Grunge was deleted, but you argument is unsupported by the consensus at the deletion discussion page. To reiterate the deletion discussion page which ‘’you’’ summarily ignored, the article fails the general nobility guideline and makes no credible claim of significance. Adding 400% more material doesn’t do anything for the article, it merely demonstrates how desperate you are to keep this thing here. Additionally, you failed to provide any meaningful reason why an article recreated in blatant violation of community standards for inclusion on the talk page (probably because you couldn’t defend the action with wikipolicy). I didn’t disagree with the case rational, but I did see no effort on your part to adhere to community stands nor any attempt to address the concerns from afd beyond a pathetically misguided attempt at pretending that two paragraphs and a non notable source would somehow else rather spare the article from the axe. That means you deletion review was in error, as the prevailing consensus at the afd’s on either side of this pathetically misguided attempt to keep the article have thus far been powerfully in favor of deletion - and with you or demonstrated failure to abide by our rules concerning deletion and consensus the article will end up locked on re-deletion to prevent further disruption to the project. In hindsight, we should have done that right out of the gate, but lessons learned the hardest are those remembered the longest. 2600:1011:B125:2D5B:21BF:EE1E:AED6:5B3C (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - The issue here is mostly WP:CONSENSUS. As seen at the multiple AfDs and contested deletion nominations for Northwest Post-Grunge, and at that article's talk page, User:Leitmotiv appears functionally unable to accept community consensus and probably does not understand how it works. Leitmotiv accuses others of offenses like "red herring" and "inquisition" but clearly does not understand what those terms mean. I have voted in the AfDs and would like to point out the bizarre semi-argument that Leitmotiv started with me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Post-Grunge, with Leitmotiv obsessing over one half-sentence of colorful background prose, ignoring the policy discussion in the other 95% of my vote, and concluding that the vote was invalid. I don't consider that a personal attack, but it is definitely a sign of someone unable to debate and lacking knowledge of how Wikipedia works. A personal conflict of interest with that album might be worth investigating too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I address some ofthe misrepresented concerns in my comment above. I didn't ignore the remaining 95% of the AfD discussion. Perhaps I wasn't in disagreement and had nothing to add, much in the same way your initial argument started out not adding much to the conversation? Which you know is my real complaint about your post. I did converse with more than just you, so I feel you're misrepresenting reality... just a smidge. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

If that were true we wouldn’t be having this discussion. 2600:1011:B125:2D5B:21BF:EE1E:AED6:5B3C (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI user in question is creating articles on the more-obscure bands in the compilation, link. May need review. ValarianB (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've used as many non-trivial sources as I can find. Each article has non-trivial sources. I'd review them before speculating. To get to the reason why I'm creating articles for these bands... Because I'm addressing one of the concerns at the original AfD by Doomsdayer who essentially said "too many redlinks" as one of their arguments. Even though that is not a valid argument, I've tried to appease @Doomsdayer520: and started creating articles for those redlinks as I have time. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

it’s not about sources, it’s about proving why we should care, and your failing that in spades. Quit while your ahead, or go through afc. 2600:1011:B125:2D5B:21BF:EE1E:AED6:5B3C (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I recommend reviewing those bands on their own merits during a separate process. Some may have achieved some notability outside of their appearance on that non-notable compilation album that is the focus of this dispute (for now, at least). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The "non-notable" album now has two non-trivial sources, plus a couple sources I like to describe as inbetween non-trivial and trivial, as well as the still useful trivial sources. The article has greatly changed from when it appeared in AfD. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

it’s hasn’t changed at all: no notability, no credible claim of significance, no consensus to retain the article, and no effort on your part to address any of those concerns beyond sweeping them under the rug and pretending this time will be different. The fact that you can’t see that favors my intervention here, I think a topic ban would do you some good. 2600:1011:B125:2D5B:21BF:EE1E:AED6:5B3C (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's a problem yes, but it's a relatively minor problem from an overzealous editor. I don't think any intervention is necessary, just, perhaps, a warning, and a reminder that if an article gets deleted, the problems can be sorted out through draftspace instead of warring over whether a deleted article belongs in mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 15:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I am confused. User:TomStar81 says that there have been five deletion discussions. I count three, the first AFD, the DRV in which I took part, and the second AFD, which is currently in progress. Also, is there a reason why community or admin action is needed, other to let the second AFD run? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Added Comment - I will count four deletion discussions if we count the 2018 PROD. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Prod, afd 1, speedy deletion, deletion review, afd 2. I should have clarified that, my apologies. 2600:1011:B125:2D5B:21BF:EE1E:AED6:5B3C (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Question I'd like to ask a sincere question. Everyone is saying this article is non-notable. To determine it's non-notable it basically has to have no notable sources (at least on the current grounds of argument), right? And the main argument before, if I understand correctly (and explains my actions up to now) is that an album must have multiple, non-trivial sources. And I guess there-in lies the rub. How do you define non-trivial? I added Gavin Report which a couple folks have acknowledged as non-trivial. Even Doomsdayer has acknowledged the other NW Music News source may be non-trivial because they can't verify it one way or the other. Wouldn't two non-trivial sources qualify as multiple? I'm honestly looking for an instructional moment here, because my actions up to now are based on this premise. 2+ is multiple, right? But all I see are editors claiming non-notable as a whole. What am I missing? Leitmotiv (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Lets start with this link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Deleting an article. Have a read through and lets see what that addresses and what you're still unclear about, after which we (by which I mean the community) will start taking questions. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • User:Leitmotiv is stating a good-faith but serious misunderstanding of the relationship between verifiability and notability, and I think that is the whole problem. They say: "To determine it's non-notable it basically has to have no notable sources (at least on the current grounds of argument), right?" Wrong. If it has no notable sources, it is non-notable. But the existence of sources does not establish notability in themselves. The sources verify the content of the article. If what the text of the article says is not notable, the sources will not change that. Sources are a necessary but not sufficient condition. The idea that sources are THE key to acceptance or retention of an article is a common myth in Wikipedia. In this case, the problem is the album doesn't satisfy the album notability criteria. At least, that is what is being argued in the AFD. And the place to discuss the notability of the album is in the AFD. User:Leitmotiv is not acting in bad faith, only mistaken as to policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Hey thanks for trying to help. People often think that because I've been on Wikipedia for 10+ years that I know all the ropes, and I just don't. If people see my silver editing star they will see they are not in synch with my time as an editor. I do this for love when I have free time. Anyhoo...@Robert McClenon: I still don't think I'm getting it, but bare with me. I'm going to go through the WP:GNG checklist here. Of all the content I've written on NWP, 100% is derived from the sources listed. The article is not a stub. No original research involved. Significant coverage, as I understand it, has been supplied with two non-trivial sources, which as I interpret it is the "multiple sources" needed. The trivial sources are used to flesh out the remainder of the article. As for reliable, editors have been able to verify one non-trivial source in Gavin Report, and I've offered to supply the other non-trivial source for verifiability but no one has taken me up on that. All sources provided are secondary sources and none are primary, and they are independent of the subject. Nothing else, as far as I can tell, at WP:GNG appears to related to the subject at hand. So to my understanding, that covers your comment on notability - and everyone else's comments that it doesn't qualify per WP:GNG. But again, correct me where I'm wrong or presume something in error. You mention that the AfD is discussing WP:NALBUM as the main reason it fails. So let's delve into that. It mentions only 1 criteria is needed to pass WP:NALBUM. Point 1 says it has to have multiple, non-trivial sources that are reliable, not self-published, and independent. The article has 2 of these. Does 2 qualify as multiple? Wikipolicy is not clear on that. The end of WP:NALBUM notes that a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a detailed article. Well... the article as it stands now has 5 paragraphs of material, most of which has come from the two non-trivial sources, that presumably pass criteria number 1. Again, I'm not trying to be obstinate here. I feel like I understand what is required, even if wikipolicy is not 100% clear on what "multiple" means. If I am missing something, please inform me, my aim is to learn. I recreated this article trying to satisfy the original AfD by adding two non-trivial sources and to eliminate redlinks per Doomsdayer520's observations at the original AfD. There was never a bad faith attempt on my part. I feel the only bad faith that occurred is the original nominator nominating it for speedy deletion claiming it was identical, when they admitted on the talk page that they couldn't verify it was identical, and despite their admission, they still wouldn't retract or replace it with an AfD like the deletion discussion concluded with. I could understand taking it to another AfD, but the article was never identical to the one before which is why I staunchly opposed the speedy deletion nomination. At that time the article had roughly 300-400% new content. Perhaps the misconception is of scale? That's all I can glean from the discussion. Does significant mean a book needs to be written about the album? A chapter in a book? An article spread? Gavin Report has a half column devoted to the album review, and the NWI Music News has a whole album review as well. Are those not significant? Leitmotiv (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv: Speaking for myself - and only myself - I consider anything that has a very notable impact on culture (IE the "bullet time" sequence in the matrix, Eminem's hip hop, donald trumps books, superman's comics, etc), anything thats won an oscar/emmy/tony/grammy, or anything that has been nominated for appearances in halls of fame to be ipso facto notable. Below that are glass ceiling moments and record setting things, which I take as proof of significance (ie: Will chambers 100 point game, Secretariat's 39.5 length win for the triple crown, Don Haskins decision to start 5 black guys in the NCA tournment in 1966, Barrack Obama's election to the presidency, etc). Below that, it's taken on the strength (or lack there of) of citations, sources, and information present weighed against the relevant guidelines for notability and significance as the subject matter determines relevance and significance (HMS Vanguard was the last battleship built and had a small career, but enough to eak out an article; Apollo 25, by contrast, never got past the planning stage and I see no significance to its mission to moon other than a few people were probably considered to crew the flight). Most article clearly satisfy the first or second points, for the third point articles are hit and miss. Most of the old C&C stuff I wrote got the axe for non notable content, USS Illinois (BB-65) by contrast has remained despite having no real anchor to the first two points because we developed just enough material for the article that it was thought better to keep it spun out - and even then it took an afd to establish that point. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Needs more rope.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to Close

This is a dispute over whether to delete an article, and it is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Post-Grunge (2nd nomination). I do not see any conduct issues that require administrative action. Can we close this as a content (deletion) dispute, with a reminder to all editors to be civil and concise? The above 597-word statement by User:Leitmotiv and 277-word statement by User:TomStar81 have two problems. They are too long, and shorter statements should be in the AFD rather than here. Can we close this as a deletion discussion to be decided by AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Post-Grunge (2nd nomination) it looks like the consensus will be to delete yet again. Will Leitmotiv accept consensus this time? The above discussion indicates that we will be doing this again sometime soon. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on nationality issues

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

---

There are a couple of editors - Voice4People and Wiki1Voice2 - who are actively on a campaign to change the nationalities of sportspeople and entertainers born in one country but long established in, and sometimes representing, other countries. The examples I've picked up are John Barnes, Raheem Sterling, and Nicki Minaj, but looking through their edit histories there are many more. The editors have a very clear and shared agenda, and in some cases go to great lengths on talk pages to "explain" why they are right and everyone else is wrong. It's all pretty tedious, and I'd be grateful if someone could take a look, and hopefully take some action to resolve this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Surely this is a case of sockpuppetry. Similar names, same type of editing on the same type of biographical articles. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Both use the term "Correct" in their edit summaries, such as "Correct terms" (by Wiki1Voice2) and "Correct update" (by Voice4People), while marking their major edits as "minor". M.Bitton (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

They could have tried being a bit less obvious. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I've also just been accused of racism, which is nice... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The cover story varies slightly: Special:Diff/1007878756, Special:Diff/1012073818, Special:Diff/1007897755. It certainly looks like sockpuppetry, and that would make the edit warring at John Barnes and Raheem Sterling using both accounts a problem. I suggest getting this checkusered. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Also use of @ when addressing users in the edit summary: Special:Diff/1016024014, Special:Diff/1016030777. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Both are now CU blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Born on leap day in 1996 does NOT make a person 6 years old!

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

---

Hello, could somebody please take a look at [this edit] and inform the editor that his reasoning is incorrect. It took me a couple of reverts to realize that he was actually making a good-faith edit and truly believes that a person born on February 29, 1996 is six years old today! Thank you! Johnnie Bob (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but with a username of NoBLOCKplease (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I assume they know that they are trolling. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

In addition to that the user now has found a love for personal attacks. Was blocked two days ago as Ripple346 and today as OiramMario1 already. – NJD-DE (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"User:Ripple346 - The correct title of this page is User:Ripple345. It appears incorrectly here due to technical restrictions.". Not their first rodeo. Narky Blert (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Incivility by User:Superastig

I did some edits on a draft for an article about an upcoming series which will be airing this week. I specifically followed the guide on WP:MOSTV on the lead and succeeding sections. I included a short summary of the plot because the lead is supposed to provide a summary of the entire article. However, User:Superastig has reverted my edits, removing the short plot summary on the lead. In the talk page (diff here), he explained that he "honestly found it much neater to follow" without the short plot summary. He ended conversations with other users with "Sige, pre. Sabi mo, eh." twice which means "Okay. If you said so.". It comes off a bit rude. This specific edit summary (diff) in the draft article even says "Fix listing style due to whininess in the talk page.", which I believe is uncivil behavior towards other editors.

I stand by my edits because I believe this is the right thing to do per WP:MOSTV guidelines as it will be under WP:TV once it is published. HiwilmsTalk 14:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like there is enough blame to go around with both of you arguing. I'm not inclined to throw sanctions at someone for saying "ok if you say so". You both are making points on the talk page, but you are talking past each other, treating it like a battle. At this point, it is purely a content dispute and I don't see any reason to get involved. I would also add, you need to have thick skin to work around here, and be able to look past little comments. No need to tolerate personal attacks, but this is miles from that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not looking for an argument and I'm not interested in arguing with any editor. However, I tend to blow up whenever an editor whines over my edits. This has happened a few times before. I was just fixing parts of the draft. It would've been better if Hiwilms was bold enough to fix it rather than to bring his complaints to the draft's talk page (or my talk page). It's. That. Simple. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Superastig: First of all, I have explained all my edits via the edit summary yet you kept reverting it, hence the notice on the draft talk page. You have did 2 reverts already on my edits and was heading towards WP:3RR so I stopped pushing my edits. Despite explaining on the talk page why my edits should be kept (with basis on the WP:MOSTV guidelines), you said that you "honestly found [your own edit without a plot summary in the lead] much neater to follow. So, BE IT." You even ended your conversation with two editors with "Sige, pre. Sabi mo, eh" which comes off as rude. HiwilmsTalk 11:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Hiwilms, had you just left a longer explanation in the first place instead of complaining in the draft's talk page, I wouldn't have meddled with that "part" at all and we wouldn't have this heated argument. Sheesh. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Reywas92

Reywas92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps reverting edits I am making to aviation pages (airports in particular) solely because he does not like the edits. I have been trying to clean up airport pages for some time. WP:NOTEVERYTHING states A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Unfortunately, many airport articles in particular have been overloaded with massive details through the years, some of which violate WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:USEFUL. They also can contain outdated and irrelevant information that has little to do with the airport itself. The goal of my edits is to remove excess and outdated/irrelevant content and get to the point on things. Frankly, there is even more than could be done than I am not doing (such as in the history sections).

Until now, there has been little objection to my edits. I have even received thanks on a few occasions for cleaning up pages. Then this user comes along and simply reverts edits, saying no consensus has been reached and WP:STATUSQUO applies. Alternatively, he attempts to get me on technicalities in my edit summaries, saying I was lying or wasn't specific enough. I'll admit I didn't always have the best edit summaries, but once again, he has been the only major objection to these edits up to this point. It is extremely difficult to get clear consensus on a lot of things aviation related because of the different motivations the editors of those articles have. I tried to talk with him on his talk page, but he ignored me and instead communicates through the edit summaries. While I'm not always perfect, I see no problems with the overall edits I make. It appears this user is at times (unintentionally?) WP:STONEWALLING. I am asking for some mediation here. Blissfield101 (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Blissfield's edits are almost entirely to airports and airlines, most of which deletions of vast swaths of material. His edit summaries are often "consolidation" or "reorganization" but are actually often huge overhauls with much content deleted, both sourced and unsourced. While a lot of it is in fact outdated or extraneous – I would thank him for some of it too! – a lot may be reasonable content that I object to his cutting in bulk. Never once has he gone to the talk page to discuss his changes, it's just an imposition of his own restrictive format that excludes what he doesn't like. If I object to your removals, then YES you should have a consensus to reinstate such removals. There is no need for administrative involvement, rather Blissfield should take his case to WT:AIRPORTS and stop saying things should be removed because we're a vague "NOTEVERYTHING". In isolation many edits and portions of edits are fine, but with such large changes to dozens of airport articles at once, it seems like a crusade keep them formulaic and free of individual details. Reywas92^Talk 03:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Reywas92: But instead of simply adding back in certain content, you usually revert all the edits, which comes pretty close to WP:STONEWALLING. Again, you are the only one seriously objecting, there were no issues until you started reverting. You should know how difficult it is to get consensus at WT:AIRPORTS is, given the lack of response to my latest RFC. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not pages that satisfy airliners.net users. Blissfield101 (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Because your many edits that are sometimes in the tens of thousands of characters removed and much more moved around are a pain in the ass to target just specific portions to change back. No previous issues does not mean no issues, plenty of big edits go under the radar. A but more information about terminals than the number of gates in a concourse does not make us an avgeek discussion page, nor "a complete exposition of all possible details". Reywas92^Talk 04:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think the solution here is to draft a neutrally worded and clear RfC on the matter (of what to retain/remove, not of who did what), and host it somewhere much more watchlisted than WT:AIRPORTS, like WP:VPPOL. However, given that Reywas92 concedes that some of Blissfield101's work was good and desirable, "it's hard" is no excuse for blanket revert-warring. If Blissfield101 can do the hard work to weed out all this outdated and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE-failing claptrap, then Reywas92 is not in a position to avoid work and just mass-revert all of it to get at a handful of things they object to or have a question about (see WP:FIXFIRST in particular, as well as WP:SATISFY and WP:REVERT#BEFORE). Remember that WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and proposals to make it a guideline have failed specifically because it sometimes is not appropriately applicable. Remember also that, per WP:EDITING policy, no one has to get permission beforehand to edit. Also that, per WP:V, incorrect or unverifiable information is presumptively removable; the burden of proof is on those who would retain it. That said, it would be better at this point for Blissfield101 to ensure there is consensus for these changes moving forward, and perhaps divide them into types of change (e.g. removal of errors and verification failures first, as essentially incontrovertible changes, then more subjective changes as separate matters). This would also reduce the likelihood of improper blanket-revert stonewalling.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• I make no determination of the rights and wrongs of anyone's past actions, but would say that in the future Blissfield101 should break up the large edits into revertible-sized chunks and Reywas92 can then revert only those edits that he thinks should be reverted. Then we can know where the content disagreement is, and you can talk to each other about it on the article talk pages. I don't see any need for administrator action here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• It looks like some of Blissfield101's edits are good and some are really, really bad - they've basically removed all of the information we have about airport terminals on specific airports without discussion, in spite of the fact airport terminals actually are an encyclopaedic topic (I've myself read through/contributed to the history of airport terminals at different airports.) WP:NOTEVERYTHING doesn't apply to things you don't like. I don't see any issues with Reywas92's reverts - I would have reverted on sight as well. SportingFlyer T·C 20:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptively WP:TAGBOMBING North Carolina Town articles

Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) has been adding {{Use American English}} and {{Use mdy dates}} banners to quite a few articles about North Carolina towns where those issues have not been present and then edit warring when they were reverted:

1. [129], [130]
2. [131], [132]
3. [133], [134],
4. [135], [136]
5. [137], [138]
6. [139], [140]
7. [141], [142]
8. [143], [144]
9. [145], [146]
10. [147], [148]
11. [149], [150]
12. [151], [152]
13. [153], [154]
14. [155], [156]
15. [157], , [158]
16. [159], [160]
17. [161], [162]
18. [163], [164]
19. [165], [166]
20. [167], [168]
21. [169], [170]

Since those issues have not been present in the articles, I'm not sure what WP:POINT the dude is trying to make. If this was a recurring problem in the article, putting that info in an WP:EDNO might be useful to prevent it from recurring but that is not the case. The discussion on the dude's talk page when nowhere fast even when @Magnolia677: chimed in wondering what the dude was up to. Instead the dude proceeded to the edit warring. Given the scope of the bombing and edit warring, I think some intervention is in order. Toddst1 (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, don't see how this falls under WP:TAGBOMB, an essay that says using several tags on the same subject (such as various "citation needed" tags) is disruptive when one template on the subject (ex. one "refimprove" tag) is enough. Along with another essay (WP:RESPTAG) Toddst1 led me to, he hasn't given me an actual link to a rule saying adding "Use ___" are disruptive only because there's no evidence of disruptive behavior. As I've pointed out and said in my own talk page, "one of the purposes to the "Use American English" tag are for future reference for new users, who might not know why type of English to use. The addition of the "Use mdy dates" tag is for consistency with the article, to fix sources, and again, for future reference so disruptive good faith edits don't occur. I don't see a problem with adding the tags to American articles using mdy dates, and there's no clear rule (not an essay) stating that they can't be added. If you guys find it disruptive, make a discussion, or send me to a rule that says I'm in the wrong. I don't see how you guys are helping by reverting edits that do more good, than whatever you guys find to be bad." Don't see what Toddst1 is looking for in "some intervention", when all he has to counter my argument are two essays and not any actual rules on Wikipedia. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't see any urgent issue arising from adding these templates that remain unseen in read mode; they're not intrusive. As someone who primarily copyedits on here, I don't mind seeing these templates, as new users do not generally peruse the entire Manual of Style and may not be aware of MOS:ENGVAR or MOS:DATETIES. It's a non-issue that's being fought over. I'll note that the documentation for both {{use dmy dates}} and {{use mdy dates}} have the following bolded paragraph:

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. It is not a temporary "cleanup" template. Therefore, do not remove the template without valid reason, such as a determination the article uses or should use a different date format.

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

These aren't cleanup tags, so I don't see what the issue is. The metadata should be ideally stored in a separate place - I've suggested this - but the tags are what we have. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• While I admit I find it mildly annoying when my watchlist lights up with one user making the same more-or-less-invisible edit to a bunch of related articles, I don't see an actual violation of any policy or guideline here. I'm certainly not inclined to block the Dude over it. Edit warring is another matter and I'm very willing to block over that,but as of now I've ot seen evidence this user is engaging in blockable edit warring. I'd advise all parties to just chill, to someone looking in on this from the outside it looks like much ado about nothing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• It isn't tagbombing, but it does seem unnecessary and is still an edit that is subject to getting you blocked for edit warring, AND it is subject to WP:BRD (yes, an essay, but it is treated as policy for all intents and purposes). If someone reverts you, you do NOT add it back. You go to the talk page and explain why it should be included. If there isn't a consensus to add it back after say a week, then you don't add it back. This is no different than any other content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Articles about North Carolina towns should obviously use American English and American date formats per the subject matter, so I'm not sure why the reported editor feels the need to tag the articles, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with doing so. Yes, as Beeblebrox says, there's the watchlist annoyance factor, and, as Dennis says, edit warring is a problem if it occurs, but, then again, if some editor is removing those justified tags en masse, that is a bigger problem, in my opinion. It ought to merit a "knock it off" warning from an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  And, no, it's not TAGBOMBING, nor is it disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with a number of others. This clearly isn't TAGBOMBING. While these tags technically belong, an argument could be made that they're fairly unnecessary on articles where it's so obvious, or especially that it pointlessly fills up watchlists and so they should stop from making it to new articles if that's the only thing they're doing, similar to concerns over making mass WP:cosmetic fixes. Clearly reverting them doesn't help with this aspect, it just makes it worse so the OP needs to stop that. If Toddst1 had asked Some Dude From North Carolina to stop adding it to new articles pending further discussion and Some Dude From North Carolina just continued, I could see a plausible argument to blocking Some Dude From North Carolina if they continued. As things stand, I can't see any solution involving blocks that doesn't block both Toddst1 and Some Dude From North Carolina. Nil Einne (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• I get that spamming unnecessary edits is a nuisance 100% of the time, and I sympathize with the complaint, but the tags are not necessarily incorrect and don't visually change the articles in any sort of way, much less a contentious way, so I wouldn't jump right to disruptive editing. It's a content dispute, not an admin issue. I don't see guidance from either of the template docs that the tags should not be added without good reason, nor am I aware of any consensus regarding this that exists. Host a discussion and get a consensus, but as of now this is not actionable. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

• 70.77.224.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user is persistently engaging in disruptive editing against consensus; has not taken part in discussions about this; and has similarly used quite often uncivil edit summaries. See also Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Rural_municipality_edit_warring_against_consensus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comments: IP70 had been IP-hopping for sometime but seems to have settled on a single one for now. Please see the edit histories for List of municipal districts in Alberta, List of rural municipalities in Saskatchewan, CFB Cold Lake, and Census geographic units of Canada. For the first two, see the consensus for the former here and extrapolation of such to the latter here. The editor reached out to me on my talk page here but disregarded my reply that articulated the consensus and then proceeded to continue edit warring against that consensus. At CFB Cold Lake the editor is now deliberately introducing factual errors. The editor appears to have since had run-ins at Canadian political-related articles and has resorted to being uncivil (see [171] and [172]). With three additional fourth-level warnings in thirteen days since the first one, the editor is evidently WP:NOTHERE. A complaint was registered at AIV two days ago but the incident was archived with no action for some reason. 07:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Other suspected IPs and account:

2604:3D09:37F:E110:C192:9FB0:C2A7:E75C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2604:3D09:37F:E110:C43A:A1BB:25C9:F0D3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2604:3D09:37F:E110:CC09:48B3:8053:8F41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2604:3D09:37F:E110:B570:DAB6:8E60:8595 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2604:3D09:37F:E110:75EE:3CF9:7252:DCA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2604:3D09:37F:E110:A46C:760A:DECC:32DF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2604:3D09:37F:E110:E103:FD6A:BA03:545A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

If any of the above require an SPI, I can do so after this incident is closed. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Still disruptive editor

47.16.81.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous reports here and here, problems are the same: Virtually every edit consists of changing formal wording to informal and adding unneeded hyperlinking of commonly understood words and phrases, previous reports have lots of examples listed. They were banned for a few months, now they're back doing the same thing. Eik Corell (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Also WP:DONTFIXIT edits like this one, which replaced a direct link to an article with a redirect. (I've left it alone, per WP:NOTBROKEN.) Narky Blert (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hizubiki25

• Hizubiki25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is very keen on getting any version possible of Naver Matome into mainspace, where it actually is at the moment, as Naver Matome (Service). But it's been deleted astonishing number of times today (7 times? Maybe more) and two versions were protected. As far as I can see, the editor does not understand that the article is quite poor and looks like an ad. On top of that, they have left messages about how I don't understand fu**ing this and fu**ing that, four times today on my talk page (1,2,3,4) and a couple times on other talk pages. Some of the creations and deletions were kindly compiled by Alistair McMillan here, where you can also see some good faith attempts to explain things to Hizubiki25.

• 19:11, June 19, 2020 Hizubiki25 created Naver Matome
• 22:30, June 19, 2020 Seraphimblade deleted Naver Matome
• 00:55, June 20, 2020 Hizubiki25 created Naver Matome
• 11:33, June 20, 2020 Athaenara deleted Naver Matome
• 22:35, April 1, 2021 Hizubiki25 created Naver Matome
• 14:50, April 4, 2021 Deb deleted Naver Matome
• 00:06, April 5, 2021 Hizubiki25 created Naver matome
• 04:22, April 5, 2021 Neel.arunabh moved to draft leaving redirect
• 08:27, April 5, 2021 Deb deleted Draft:Naver matome
• 13:20, April 5, 2021‎ Hizubiki25 created Naver matome (service)
• 13:48, April 5, 2021‎ Eostrix moved to draft leaving redirect
• 14:35, April 5, 2021 Liz deleted Naver matome
• 19:52, April 5, 2021 Hizubiki25 created Naver Matome (service)
• 21:28, April 5, 2021 Stwalkerster deleted Naver Matome (service)
• 21:30, April 5, 2021‎ Hizubiki25 created Naver matome
• 21:44, April 5, 2021 Fastily deleted Naver matome (service)
• 22:27, April 5, 2021 Anthony Bradbury deleted Naver matome

I did report this to AIV but they opted not to take action, since at the time the page had been deleted. But in this case, it's sort of an interstitial moment, as it comes back. I've also just been pinged that an SPI was opened.--- Possibly (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I think a block is now necessary given the socking and personal attacks in addition to the outright refusal to stop creating a page that multiple admins have deemed worthy of speedy deletion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked both indefinitely at the SPI. No objection to the master appealing, but they do need to engage constructively with the wiki first rather than being unblocked automatically. Cabayi (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Note: I protected Naver Matome a couple of days ago because it kept being recreated, but of course they will still try to recreate it under other names. There's no way round that, I'm afraid. Deb (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• FWIW, Naver Matome is probably notable (though it could be part of Naver Corporation, and some coverage is due to a hoax). It is unlikely this is an ad, as it is too poorly written and formatted and the service is defunct. I agree the creations, at the least the version I saw and draftified, are very poorly written and formatted and in no way ready for mainspace. The real problem is Hizubiki25 not communicating, and not responding to feedback here.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Racism, personal attacks and edit warring by user:Springfühler

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

---

Springpfühler has engaged in an extraordinary outburst of racist attacks and personal attacks recently, here are just some examples:

• "u kiss my ass, you are from a no country, a fake one, gypsy land, you are gypsy king, ti si CIGAN i tvoja majka takođe, she's being jebela in your gypsy camp," [173]
• "I come from Western Europe, it is you who are an analphabet poor immigrant coming from a fake country where not even their people want to live. They are mostly immigrants, everywhere. The "country" is parted. You and your friends are either fake Serbs or fake Croats. You are not just "fucking retard", as you say, you are also an analphabet, and an ANONIMOUS one." [174]
• "Jeo ti coddo a mama, sorre e fiza tua, fiz' e bagassa, su cunn'e mama tua àliga de muntonarzu. I am NOT from Balkan, cozone tontu, fiz'e coga" [175]

This is just completely unacceptable. It goes hand in hand with very extensive edit warring at Miroslav Stevanović [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185] and declaring they'll go on edit warring "I will always revert you until u'll be blocked," [186] We considered banning Springfühler in 2019 for the same pattern of constant edit warning and they were warned [187]. Unfortunately, their behavior has only deteriorated from that, this latest round of extreme edit warring, racism and personal abuse is just the latest example. In light of this, I move that this user be indeffed. Jeppiz (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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

lowercase sigmabot III malfunction?

Resolved

 – bot is fine, archive is fine...now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Look at Talk:Parler/Archive 3: Difference between revisions April 5, +114,139‎ bytes. The diff shows that there was a section "== Part of a series on Antisemitism ==" starting with the words "This discussion is focused". Now search for "Part of a series on Antisemitism" in the table of contents or for "This discussion is focused" in the text. Those words are not there. It appears that the bot only added the bits in "Part of a series on Antisemitism" that begin with the words "Additionally, Parler ...".

Look at Talk:Parler/Archive 3: Difference between revisions April 1. Notice that it contains, within the section Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021, the words "Parler is the solution to problems". Now go back to the April 5 version. Those words are not there. It appears that the bot wiped out part of a previous section.

The User:lowercase sigmabot III page says reports should go here.

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I am personally not a fan of archive bots, they seem to break, a lot. One click archiving is super easy and less prone to this sort of thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That being said, I'm not sure what the issue is here exactly, but it doesn't appear to be the bot. The header and the missing content are there in the edit window, just not displaying on the live page. I tried a few cheap tricks in preview and none of them worked, not sure what the deal is but WP:VPT might be able to help. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#coding error?. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

If text is missing in rendering then look for unclosed tags where it starts. A closing ref had the wrong syntax, easily fixed. It was done by an IP and unrelated to the bot or archiving. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, and sorry for my initial bad diagnosis.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and Edit-warring by User:Strawberryseed08

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

---

Strawberryseed08 has been disrupting the List of best-selling music artists for days now by adding non-existent certifications. Despite all the warning on the user's talk page, he/she continue edit-warring and disruptions. I suspect this account is being operated by the same user as User:Никита-Родин-2002, which is the person who's been disrupting The Police related pages for years now. I have also opened up sockpuppet investigation, but admins there haven't gotten to it yet.--Harout72 (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Harout72, there's a big backlog at SPI. I've blocked as a duck and endorsed to look for sleepers. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock for Ottawa music vandal again

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

---

• 2607:FEA8:BD41:0:0:0:0:0/46 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• March 2021: Challenging rangeblock for Ottawa music vandal

Again we have long-term abuse, hoaxing and vandalism from multiple Ottawa IPs, discussed last month, resulting in one IP blocked. The /46 has been active lately with vandalism in music articles. Isn't it time for a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I support this request. Not doing this myself because I have no idea how many Ips would be affected.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the range for a month based on this report and the fact that the 52 edits made in 2021 have almost all been reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Shamonte.webster143 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Uploading images without proper license; sometimes claiming them as "own work". Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've Blocked as a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPWTulsaOK1213.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Editor prompting an edit war on the basis of opinions vs fact

I've got a problem with user Zefr who is removing a cite I placed into Canola oil that references an article in a peer-reviewed health issues publication named "Healthline." Apparently the editor is of the opinion that the publication is substandard and not peer reviewed, but the publication itself states the exact opposite. "Healthline journal is a peer reviewed official publication of Indian Association of Preventive and Social Medicine (IAPSM). It is an indexed medical journal (in DOAJ, Index Copernicus, OPENJGATE, CABI and Index Medicus-SEAR) published biannually." The editor is also refusing to follow the normal process of discussing the issue on the article's talk page and instead keeps repeatedly trying to enforce his will on the edit, going so far as to make threats of removal of editing rights if he doesn't get his way. This is completely inappropriate. Flybd5 (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Flybd5, it takes two to edit war, but from the articles history it appears that you are the one who has ignored WP:BRD. You added a source; another editor reverted your addition. At that point, rather than reinstating your change, you should have started a discussion about the source on the article talk page, or at WP:RSN. I'd suggest that you self-revert and start that discussion. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and while ANI isn't the place to discuss content or sourcing - I don't know where you get the idea that Healthline is a peer reviewed official publication of the IAPSM. It doesn't say anything about that on their homepage. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Flybd5: I've figured it out. You are confusing two different sources. Healthline the IAPSM journal is one thing; the source you added is another. I'm sure this is just an honest mistake on your part, but it might be best for you to apologise and self-revert. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussed here on the canola oil talk page per WP:BRD. Zefr (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Uncivil language

I have warned user PRFAN13, because he keeps vandalasing List of Power Rangers Dino Fury episodes page. See what was his answer - User_talk:PRFAN13#Vandalism. Lado85 (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Lado85, that is clearly an uncivil response, but let's start at the beginning. You have accused them of vandalism - this isn't obvious to me, why do you say that their edits are vandalism? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

He and othera are adding unsourced information and making other wrong edits. Another user, Sentai Kamen Rangers, was banned for same edits. He ignores everything. Lado85 (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Lado85, Sentai Kamen Rangers was blocked for repeated copyright infringements. Adding unsourced content is problematic, but we don't usually categorise it as vandalism: WP:VANDALISM explains that we should only call things vandalism when the intent is clearly to cause damage to the project - is that what you think is happening here, can you present any diffs which make that clearer for me? (I know nothing at all about the subject matter.) GirthSummit _(blether) 12:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

PRFAN13 made same edits with copyright infringements (episodes overviews). One of them - COPYVIO Lado85 (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Lado85, hmm, OK, that's not good. It's not vandalism though unless it's obviously intended to damage the article - that looks to me like someone who was trying to expand the content, but didn't know about our copyvio policy. In the absence of any evidence that they are intentionally vandalising pages, I'd be inclined to give them a warning about copyvio and civility at this point and see if they are able to improve. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:2950:3CD0:4477:7C16:B95C:5054

Four times now, this IP editor has attempted to force this content onto the Lock Martin article. I've removed the material several times as unsourced, and placed appropriate warnings on the IP editor's talk page. The IP editor has accused me of censorship despite my explanations on their talk page, and has refused to supply a source to support their claim. He's also accused me of being the "reason few people contribute anything worthwhile to Wikipedia!" As I noted on the article's talk page and on the IP editor's talk page, I've tried to find reliable sourcing for this claim and have not found it. Nevertheless, the IP editor has once again added the material without providing a source [188]. I'm not going to act as an administrator. Another set of eyes, please. The IP editor has been informed of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• All of their edits are unsourced and they've run through the warnings. I've given them a short block. Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

IP user 2601:240:4180:6A50:4443:DBC7:C2FC:DCDB repeatedly breaking WP:V and WP:BIO

2601:240:4180:6A50:4443:DBC7:C2FC:DCDB (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeatedly adding information to articles, including biographical articles, without citing sources, breaking WP:V and WP:BIO. I engaged them on their talk page which ended with them saying they were marking Carl Hodges as dead because "I'm sick and tired of Carl Hodges living." This user has used at least one other IP to tedit List of Thomas & Friends voice actors: 2601:240:4180:6A50:608C:C7C8:F32E:315C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - this IP was warned multiple times on their talk page before they switched to 2601:240:4180:6A50:4443:DBC7:C2FC:DCDB, where they were warned multiple times again. They clearly have no intention to follow WP:V which is especially problematic as they are editing a lot of biographical articles. Laplorfill (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

MowgliDm

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

---

I was originally going to post this to WP:EWN but the addition of an obvious sockpuppet has made me bring it here instead.

MowgliDm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA who has been edit-warring non stop on the Michael Farmer, Baron Farmer article. As was noted in his WP:EWN report, he has a possible COI on this subject. Nonetheless, he continued edit warring with a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, as he has a total refusal to engage on the talk page. Consequently, he was blocked from editing. His first edit back has been to resume the exact same pattern. I reverted him and left a note on his talk page warning that this was a bad course of action. 20 minutes later a new account was made, Mate8888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has resumed the edit warring[189][190]. This is such an obvious case of WP:QUACK that I request both accounts be indeffed as this guy is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. — Czello 11:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

having engaged on this, agree with above, have requested temp page protection. Acousmana 11:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Moving On With Brit

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

---

• Moving On With Brit (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia: Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_Moving_On_With_Brit - admits to using her own website as a reference multiple times but sees no COI violation
• Wikipedia: Sockpuppet investigations/Brit On the Move
• Albert Goldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - edit-warring to include the source she's added that's a copy of Lenny Bruce
• After asking that all her edits be removed [191], she's mostly done so (see her edits 02:14, 6 April 2021 through 03:07, 6 April 2021, other than at Albert Goldman.
• Threatening to involve a lawyer [192] I expect my account to be shut down - totally fine, but I will be getting a lawyer - I've done nothing wrong at all.

Though the COIN and SPI discussions are both still open, I think there's enough for a block at this point. --Hipal (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Moving On With Brit (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Of course, there is... In Hipal/Ronz' opinion, that would be perfect. Hipal/Ronz retaliates against me for my outing their disgusting behavior - the bully tactics (and fake profiles).

1. Did not admit to using her own website as a reference multiple times but sees no COI violation

I said I have an affiliation with a site that I linked to 3 times out of 70 PLUS edits. The verbiage was chosen by Hipal/Ronz - the multi-named user who is inaccurate and misleading. Throughout (he/she/it's) witch hunt of me, it's been apparent that the sole issue here is "do I have any affiliation to any site I ever linked to"? I do, and I clearly stated that when asked. However, I have also cited the policies numerous times to Hipal/Ronz that does not preclude me from doing such. If there is an error on my part, it was a lack of disclosure before the fact- AND I've been adequately schooled on since then.

2. Sockpuppet investigations/Brit On the Move

All initiated by Hipal/Ronz - a known spamming editor! SEE BELOW - a small sample.

REFERENCES: https://www.wikizero.com/en/User:Ronz

Advertisements up the wazo: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists/Archive_10#/should_everything_in_a_list_be_referenced

Ronz – aka Hipla https://nofelizz.com/2014/08/13/the-dark-side-of-wikipedia/ https://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hipal#top

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hipal#A_Script_You_Might_Find_Useful

We’ll take wrong info from a credible source vs. correct info?

Janet Dubois[edit] The sources may differ on the year of her birth, but if she had a child (Raj) who died in 1987 at age 36, Raj was born around 1951. So most likely, 1932 is the correct year because the odds of her giving birth at 19 is more realistic than at 13 or 6. Also, Raj must not have been the youngest of 4 kids (as listed) unless Janet had 4 kids by the age of 19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6A48:9700:1828:C6F4:CEE7:CB63 (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC) The place for this discussion is the article talk page, where you will see the same argument and the response that, as far as we know, he could have been adopted. But, yes, primary sources, which we should not be used alone, suggest 1932. Too bad the New York Times punted on her year of birth. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Personal Bias and personal “opinion.”

Andy Gross[edit] • Andy Gross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views) I am confused why you decided to revert my edit of this article to a misquoted and incomplete older edit. The page, as it currently stands, is not only far less informative of the events that transpired and made national media headlines but is also blatantly false, a fact you would have been able to determine by actually reviewing the sources I added. Everything on the page was properly cited and factual, again qualities that are not shared by your edits. I wish to settle this dispute in a civil of a manner as possible, which is why I am writing to you rather than simply reverting your edits.Nucleartaco123 (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Hi Nucleartaco123. Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for following up with me on this. To me, it seemed like far too much coverage and detail for a single event that has apparently no lasting impact.

Can we agree to disengage mutually?[edit] Can we both please agree to mutually disengage? And take a break from each other? Thank you, Right cite (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC) If you need to take a break, go ahead. I suggested WP:COOL already. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Can you consider disengaging from articles I have worked to improve and/or new articles I have created from scratch? Can we both do that together, please? Right cite (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Can you? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Can we both? As a show of mutual good faith? Together? Right cite (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Please identify what articles you will disengage from. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Sure. These three -- Al Seckel, List of think tanks in the United States, List of hunger strikes. I created Paul Seckel from scratch -- you appeared there 4 minutes later before it was linked to anything on Wikipedia. I saved Casey Calvert and Alexis Texas from deletion at AFD. I would like for you to disengage from those 3. Agreed? Thanks, Right cite (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC) While I appreciate the offer, I have to decline. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Why? Right cite (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC) I hope you will respect my request that we end this discussion at this point. Thank you again. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC

That said, it certainly could be written better and the references formatted. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC) User: Ronz/Doubtful sources[edit] Nice list. We have been doing some other work about dubious reference material and its coordinated use at WP, some discussion about how we can work with this at User talk:Praxidicae/fakenews, and noting that I can do some of that configuration for COIBot reports. Let me ping @Vexations, Praxidicae, and ThatMontrealIP: to your build. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Thanks. I've been meaning to link any RSN discussion for each entry, but the list grew too fast. It's mostly scraping or publicity sites. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC) Moving comments out of an RfC

Hipal??[edit] What the t¿≠}{\¶‰¢¥”, Ronz? Bishonen | talk 11:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC). "Hip Al"? "Hi pal"? Does someone have a script to auto-rename renamed accounts so they look like the old account - all this account renaming is too confusing :-) ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I'm with Bish, fwiw. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) LOL. Yes. I put this off way too long. I'm sure there's much more fun and confusion to come. X^P --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

MY PERSONAL COMMENT TO HIPAL - AKA Ronz: Hipal/Ronz (whatever you call yourself these days). How many claims do you have open? Is it that people don't typically challenge you? Or is it your change of name and consistent assertion of authority similar to that of Northern Korea that intimidates the average person from challenging you? I've stated MULTIPLE times - I have done nothing wrong, violated no rules as "legally written out here" and yet you continue to harass me. When will you stop? Seriously, this is enough...... You are a spam editor - let's investigate that.

3. After asking that all her edits be removed [193], she's mostly done so (see her edits)

Yes, I did. I've been attacked by Hipal/Ronz and harassed. I spent hours - hours cleaning up pages. Hipal/Ronz undid all that work along with one other editor and many of the undo's post this debate - see the timeline. I returned the gesture as taught and cleaned up the remaining citations. If my edits are unacceptable, then they are unacceptable. Hipal/Ronz do not get to wipe out TONS of edits and keep a small fraction. Let's not use double standards. And, let's be clear here. Hipal/Ronz initiated this claim upon undoing edits.

4. 02:14, 6 April 2021 through 03:07, 6 April 2021, other than at Albert Goldman.

And?

5. Threatening to involve a lawyer [194] I expect my account to be shut down - totally fine, but I will be getting a lawyer - I've done nothing wrong at all.

Not threatening, simply stating my next step. Hipal/Ronz have bullied and badgered me and many users with bias. Unless Wikipedia does something to stop Hipal/Ronz this is what is needed. One person, Hipal/Ronz, operating under personas who violate freedom of speech, facts, accuracy, and operates with bias needs to be challenged, period!

I am disgusted by the witch hunt - but be as it will.

Nikki - SIGNED Moving On With Brit (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NLT, if you want to file a legal dispute, that's up to you. But you will be blocked while it or the threat of it is ongoing. I didn't read your long response in detail, but suffice to say if you evidence includes Conservapedia and some random person's blog you aren't likely to get anywhere. In that vein, please provide proper evidence for your accusations against Ronz or withdraw them, as they are personal attacks otherwise. Also whether you've added your website 3 times or 70 times, just stop doing it. Instead propose changes on article on the talk page making clear your connection to the website. Finally you have no freedom of speech on Wikipedia, see WP:NOTFREESPEECH. If you want freedom of speech, please go somewhere else. You already have a website so you could stick with that. Nil Einne (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Get a grip... That's exactly what is wrong with this moderate and highly biased platform. I know I will be blocked - so what? Some random person's blog? Comical....I've provided several sources of evidence - you chose not to read it. To quote you "I didn't read your long response in detail" - perhaps you should - then get back to me. And, if I personally have no freedom of speech or opinion then neither do you - nor the other editors that censor FACTS. Moving On With Brit (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Moving On With Brit: You're entirely right and that was my point. None of us have free speech here. I understand that, and I'm fairly sure Hipal does as well. And yes, I have no idea who runs nofelizz, but a quick check showed it is some random person's blog. Please provide evidence in the form of WP:DIFFs. That's what we need. No one gives a fuck about what Conservapedia of Nofelizz says. Until and unless you provide diffs, you have no evidence. It would be far better to provide one diff than 100 links to Conservapedia and Nofelizz. Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked Moving On With Brit as an obvious sock of Brit On the Move and closed the SPI. FWIW, I believe that the legal threads were also blockable, particularly since they have been given a number of opportunities to retract them but have instead doubled down on them. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Moving On With Brit: You're entirely right and that was my point. None of us have free speech here. I understand that, and I'm fairly sure Hipal does as well. The problem is you don't seem to since you explicitly mentioned "who violate freedom of speech", which is completely irrelevant since no one, not me, not Hipal, not Jimbo Wales, not Katherine Maher and of course not you, has any rights to freedom of speech here. So no one can violate freedom of speech here. And yes, I have no idea who runs nofelizz, but a quick check showed it is some random person's blog. (Even if it was the personal blog of António Guterres, it's still a random person's blog from my POV.) Please provide evidence in the form of WP:DIFFs. That's what we need. No one gives a fuck about what Conservapedia of Nofelizz says. Until and unless you provide diffs, you have no evidence. It would be far better to provide one diff than 100 links to Conservapedia and Nofelizz. Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Conservapedia??? I'm proud to be able to say that I got indefinitely rangeblocked after a single edit to that site, adding an incontrovertible fact (the definitions of two scientific units specified by IUPAC). I confess I was trolling. Narky Blert (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've now revoked TPA since they have continued to persist with the legal threats on talk; they have acknowledged that the earlier account was theirs. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Nationalistic edits by Semsûrî

• Semsûrî (talk · contribs)

This user keeps removing Laks/Lurs and adding Kurds instead on the article of Lorestan Province. People of this province in Iran speak Luri by 91.5% based on Iran's official claims.

Kurdish is almost non-existent in this province(0.5%) based on official survey in 2010.

Lurs in Iran, Lorestan province is 91.5% Lurish.

Kurds in Iran, Lorestan province is 0.5% Kurdish.

These images are from an official resource from Iran in 2010, Luri is majority of this province by 91.5%.

Based on this book from Erik John Anonby, It's says there's three theory on how Laki should be described, Luri, Kurdish or independent. But he changed Lak article many times to keep only Kurdish theory on the article. Also Britanica describes Laki as one of Lur people languages.

There was a long discussion on the talk page between him and Rizorius (talk · contribs) and Valereee (talk · contribs).

After this discussion, he stopped his disruptive edits for a while but he came back and continues to do the same edits.

Setenly (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Reading through the discussion at Talk:Lorestan_Province#Survey, it looks like other editors were told to find reliable, secondary sources, not primary sources. These maps were made from primary sources and aren't used anywhere on the English Wikipedia, because their sources aren't reliable. Woodroar (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The OP seems to be giving a less than honest readout of the talkpage discussion to which he linked, given that it backed the edits by Semsûrî as appropriate and determined that inclusion of the sources the OP is bringing up is inappropriate. Grandpallama (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this survey... as I argued on the talkpage; 1) it is published by Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance thus a primary source and not reliable. Secondly, since it considers a Kurdish dialect (Laki) as part of the Luri language, the results of the survey become unreliable. The reliable Iranica Online puts the Kurdish-% in the province at 65% (a reference Setenly removed, why?), so why should we use a reference that puts the Kurdish-% at 0.5?%(!!!!!!) This is incredibly absurd and dishonest. Regarding, Britannica, it was deemed a non-RS on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. --Semsûrî (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Comparing first Semsûrî's edit on Lak article from 26 May 2019 to his last edit in 4th April(This is complete different article!!). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lak_%28tribe%29&type=revision&diff=1015947891&oldid=898872483

This is what Lak article was like on his first edit:

Laks are an Iranian group in southwestern Iran. They speak Laki (or Leki), an independent Iranian language, or a dialect of Kurdish or Luri languages.

Why did he removed all the sources and replaced it with what he liked??! Setenly (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The page Laki language needed a full revamp back in 2019 because of now-blocked Shadegan and his POV-push. --Semsûrî (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This is your edit not his. this change was a POV-push by Semsûrî over time.

There's three theories on the Laki language. Laki should be called Laki. and in the article Lorestan province it should be Laki not Kurdish since it's representing only one POV. Setenly (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

In his works, Anonby puts Laki in the Kurdish group.(page 176)("Laki, a second major variety, is also part of the larger Kurdish language family. "). Sure, he gives three theories but he ultimately picks one himself. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Setenly, ANI is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. We don't decide content issues here. If Semsûrî has behavioral issues, then you need to prove that with diffs.

I don't know Semsûrî. I'm not Lurish or Kurdish or Iranian and I've never been to that region. I don't have a dog in this fight. But I do know that every year or so, someone shows up accusing Semsûrî of POV pushing without any evidence. And when we look into it, that person has usually been POV pushing themselves or they turn out to be a sockpuppet, often both. So excuse us for not taking your word for it here.

As far as I can tell, Semsûrî appears to be editing based on reliable, secondary sources. I see 10 other editors working on Laki language in that same ~2-year timeframe, but you're blaming only Semsûrî. Why is that? Woodroar (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

He's been adding Kurdish to many articles with vague references in other languages.

These are a few of them:

Lorestan province is only one of these nationalistic edit campaigns he's been doing. some edits in the same minutes!! Who can confirm if the references are correct? Setenly (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Source have been given for these edits. Adding info on these settlements is suddenly a nationalistic edit? C'mon. Aşiretler raporu is a gem on this subject and you're more than welcome to check the book yourself. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why this spam-like behavior should be tolerated?!! Who can confirm these references? He's doing these on many articles.Woodroar

Setenly (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Setenly, It looks like Semsûrî is adding sources and categories to articles, which is a normal part of the editing process. But it's impossible to tell from a screenshot. Again, if there is a behavioral problem, you need to provide diffs. Woodroar (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is adding info on the ethnic composition spam? This is going nowhere... Are you going to question all info on Wikipedia sourced with a reference not available online? --Semsûrî (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

He keeps removing texts from other ethnicities like Lurs and Assyrians! Why is that?! is it based on your POV those people should have weaker articles??!

I want admins to look at these diffs, Isn't this POV-pushing?:

Assyrian culture

Assyrians in Iraq

Assyrian cuisine

Abdanan Removes a lot of text about Lurs, Laks and Arabs. and just calls it "clean up!!"

Lurs

Ilam Province Yet another "clean up"! a clean up that removes Lurs from the article!!

Setenly (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I do frequently remove unsourced info and info based on bad references like blogs – also on Kurdish-related articles. Moreover, info that is off-topic. These reasons encompasses all of the links above. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

And this removes include half of a page and removing an ethnic altogether from that article?!Setenly (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Its that time of year again...someone accusing Semsuri of POV pushing while blatantly doing it themselves. There must be some forum out there dedicated to harassing Semsuri...this is just absurd at this point. Can't we let the fellow edit in peace? AdmiralEek (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

A random user bulit in 2020 says this time of the year?? how many years you have been here? are you Semsûrî's sockpuppet??! Setenly (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, given that their userpage declares that they are an alternative account of User:CaptainEek, who first edited in February 2014, let's call it seven years and change. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the reason adding such a comment under this section, and taking side. Setenly (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You asked AdmiralEek how many years you have been here?. I'm answering your question. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know!Setenly (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• The long term harassment of Semsûrî is both obvious and pointless. +1 to letting Semsûrî edit in peace. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Setenly, I looked at those diffs. First one - removes unsourced material. Second one - removes contentious material sourced only to a POV blog. Third and fourth one - removes unsourced material. Fifth one - removes unsourced material (there is a source, but it apparently only cites the definition of Greater Iran, not the rest of the paragraph). The sixth one simply moves 99% of the material around the article. Feel free to let me know if Ive made any errors there. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Just search Lur on these articles, Abdanan and Ilam province.

Do you see any Lur in Semsuri's edit?? Why is it removed altogether and just called it clean-up?! Setenly (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

What info on Lurs did I remove in Abdanan? All I removed was the unsourced 'Geograhy', 'attractions', 'economy' and 'famous persons' sections. The only thing I changed on Lurs was making clear that the group was the minority in the city. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It's Ilam province. Why is that Lur was completely removed from article?Setenly (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Info on Lurs in Ilam Province has not been 'completely removed'. The info "For around a thousand years, Ilam was controlled by Kurds and Lurs: From 961 to 1140 CE, Kurds such as Hasanwayhid and Annazids dynasties ruled;..." was unsourced. The reference '=Sustainable Urban Development "Case Study of Ilam City"' had nothing about this subject. --Semsûrî (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Setenly, you have brought a content dispute to a behavior noticeboard, and you're the one behaving badly here by making unsupported accusations, which is not likely to help your case. Because you are very new here, others are trying to be patient with you, but you should stop now. I suggest you withdraw this case, and I also very strongly suggest you go edit in noncontentious areas until you understand Wikipedia's policies a lot better than you currently do. —valereee (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

A lot of references
References

Bad Faith accusations by NeutralHomer

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

---

I made a series of edits to List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group to update the list of stations owned by Sinclair. As a source I use Sinclair's most recent 10-K filing which lists every station they own or operate. User:Neutralhomer insists without a source that they operate WDSI-TV. While Sinclair did purchase the assets of that station and transfer them to another station that they do own, they did not purchase the station itself and there is no proof that they operated it at anytime. It is is not part of their 10-K filing. NeutralHomer took the extreme step of reverting my entire series of edits and accusing me of vandalism. After I warned him that his bad faith behavior was borderline harassment, he reverted a second time and has now reported me for vandalism and demanding that I be blocked. His behavior is completely out of control and unacceptable. I made a good faith edit and accusing me of vandalism is straight-up WP:HARASSMENT. Aside from the fact that he is wrong about the disputed material, he is trying to weaponize what is a content dispute by calling my edits vandalism. There is no place for this behavior here.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, can we turn down the over-dramatics? Sinclair has a history of making "shell companies". The above user took this literally and shouldn't have. For a user who edits TV station pages, they should know this. Anyway, when I warned the user, I provided the sources needed, especially for WDSI. Their claim they had no proof, is wrong and a lie. It was provided to them before their created the above ANI post. They reverted, claiming "harrassment" (which is hysterical), and I reported them to AIV. Their revert to the WDSI page hilariously included the edit summary "you failed to provide a source", when I provided it on their talk page within the warning. Something I didn't have to do. I provided the source. They have claimed my report at AIV is "bad faith".

What we have here is a user who is wanting to operate within their own rules. 1) Do whatever they want. 2) If they get called out, complain with wild overly dramatic nonsense. Um...no? This isn't the way this works. We all follow the same set of rules. I didn't have to provide those sources (which took a two second Google search), but I did. That's not "bad faith", that's a paddling to a user who has been previously sanctioned and then handed something to continue editing....only to have it thrown back in my face. That's bullshit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:06 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

Over-dramatics????? You're the one who came to my talk page and accused me of vandalism! That's one of the most offensive things you can do here! Not only that, you reverted a whole series of edits not just over the disputed material. I made a good faith edit, you are exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP. Your two sources does not say what you think they say Source #1 does not even mention WDSI. If you read beyond the headline on source #2 it says Sinclair purchased the "purchased the programming and assets of WDSI-TV and WFLI-TV." They did not purchase the broadcast license and there's no mention of them operating the station. Why? Because they moved the Fox affiliate to their own station WTVC. It one thing to have a source, but you actually have to read the sources you're providing (and not just the headline). NeutralHomer is operating within his own rules. If he disagrees with someone's edit, he just accuses them of vandalism. No talk page discussion, nothing! More proof of NeutralHomer's ownership is in this other unpleasant interaction I just had with him. Um, who's been here for almost 16 years, has multiple GAs and an FA under his belt? Yeah, that'd be me....I know what a damned primary source is, ya damned fool! Finally, that's a paddling to a user who has been previously sanctioned and then handed something to continue editing What has I been sanctioned for? The only sanction imposed on me was quickly rescinded by the community, so please don't make even more false allegations (you've made enough already). I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise, but your own block log is already a mile long.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This just keeps getting worse, now NeutralHomer edited his post to include more "sources" [195]. Problem is that none of these mention WDSI nor prove his allegation that New Age Media (the owner of WDSI) is just a Sinclair "shell company". Zero proof has been provided that WDSI was ever owned or operated by Sinclair. They purchased the programming assets, moved the Fox affiliation to their own station, that's it. They do not own or operate WDSI, never have.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That's one of the most offensive things you can do here. = Over-dramatics. Trust me, after 16 years, that's the least offensive thing you can do here.

Now, what you got sanctioned for, no idea, I just can read your talk page. :) 1, 2, 3, and 4. I never said I was an angel. :) In fact, if asked, I would readily admit that I wasn't an angel. :) You don't get to be here for 16 years without going through a few pairs of horns. But I did something right, cause I'm still here. :)

By the way, we are verging on "content dispute" territory and "admins really aren't gonna care" and "take it to talk" territory. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:42 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

Every time someone brings me to ANI is not a sanction. And the actual sanction that was rescinded, I have no obligation to explain that to you, so please do not talk of things that you have no knowledge about. What is important here is that you cannot edit my comments as you did here. Please do not do it again. Yes, this would have otherwise been a content dispute, but in content disputes you don't make bad faith accusations of vandalism which is exactly what you did and why this is now at ANI. And yes it is offensive to have someone like yourself come to my talk page and accuse me of vandalism on a series of edits I made in good faith.--Rusf10 (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You do understand that that is called an edit conflict. It happens. Usually the system catches it and throws an actual edit conflict warning up, but in this case, it actually copy/pasted my edit over yours. Calm down, wasn't intentional.

Now, to once again, show you this and this proving that, yes, indeed, Sinclair owned or at least operated WDSI-TV and has since at least 2015. You've known this for at least 2 hours now, though I suspect much longer....but at least two hours. Stop acting like you have no idea about this. You've known for at least 2 hours.

The bad faith is, and continues to be, entirely yours as long as you continue to act like this is totally unknown to you. You still have not addressed any of this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:11 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

Redirect: A "sanction" is not someone taking you to ANI. A sanction is someone placing a punishment against you. Especially when ArbCom is involved or a TopicBan. That's not just "[being] taken to ANI", that's a punishment. You did something wrong and you got punished for it. Also in this post, the "sanction placed on you...is now removed". Now, why would someone say you had a sanction placed on you or had one removeded, if you were just "being taken to ANI". That makes no coherent sense.

In this post, an admin, warns you (they say "you should still consider this a warning") that if you continued to "[file] vexatious requests for admin intervention against ideological opponents and recognize that if you continue to do so any admin is likely to hit you with a standard sanction like a topic ban." So, you have a history of receiving sanctions and being warned about coming damned close to getting them. Getting TopicBans and InteractionBans. Not cool, dude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:22 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

First of all, don't call me dude. Second, what the hell that that have to do with anything? I am not going to waste time here explaining previous sanctions that were rescinded (and for good reason). None of this concerns you, all you need to know is I'm not under any sanctions currently. Repeatedly bringing up the topic is a WP:PERSONALATTACK and you should be blocked for it. Here is Neutralhomer's block log and you have what seem to be active sanctions, proving that your record is far worse than mine, so cut the crap.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

In some Class A hilarity, Rusf10 removed the source with the edit summary removing false information, source provided does not backup claim that Sinclair operates station (or ever did), they simply purchased station's assets and moved them to their own station. No mention of master service agreement either. Just wow! Nowhere in the source does it say that. They just made that up in their heads. Without showing any evidence to back it up...except one SEC filing, which I've proven isn't worth squat since Sinclair has a history of shell companies.

Sorry, dude (it's a non-gender conforming "beach" term to mean any human who's gender is unknown...otherwise I would use "Sir" or "Ma'am"), but you have taken out a reliable source (I can add another) because it doesn't confirm to your world view. Just cause you don't like it isn't a personal attack. Oh, and since you bring up my block log (nope, not under any active sanctions) and make accusations about me (yeah, you just did), I can do the same. That's not a personal attack, I have receipts, as the kids like to say.

Let's talk about my block log. The one in July 2018, I earned that, I was dick. The one later that year, that was an overzealous admin and was quickly overturned, still on my record. The one in 2020, definitely earned that one and I'm proud of it. Yes, that came with a topic ban, but a very "unethical" one in my and many other's opinions. I'll leave it up to you to find those discussions. But I'm proud of the issues we raised in that conversation and hopefully, one day, that topic ban will be lifted. If not, I'm OK with it. We did good work in raising attention to a major phobia and erasure here at Wikipedia.

So, yeah, pre-2012, I wasn't an angel....I readily admit it. Post-2018, I had blocks, but with I earned them in one way or another. Since you won't even discuss yours, consider my bringing them up a "personal attack", that says more about you than me. Says you'd rather distract from the real discussion, your actions, and spin it around on me, then actually deal with the problem. I'm not it....it's you. You haven't address multiple issues. Also notice, no admin has posted on this thread.....they don't care. They are letting us deal with this ourselves...or letting us "punch ourselves out". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:10 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

I've already explained the content dispute and why you didn't actually read your source.it doesn't confirm to your world view No, this is a simple matter of fact. Either Sinclair owns and/or operates this station (even through a shell company as you allege) or they don't. one SEC filing, which I've proven isn't worth squat Let me try to educate you. The SEC filing is highly reliable since there are legal consequences for putting false or misleading information on such filings. If you actually read it Sinclair not only lists every station it owns or operates (and doesn't own), but discloses its relationships with these other companies you are talking about (and New World, owner of WDSI is not one of them).

It would be a waste of everyone's time to explain my previous sanction which the community rescinded because they found it to be inappropriate. It is also not related to the issue here and your repeated mention of it is just a WP:PERSONALATTACK. The fact that you're proud of your sanctions shows you've learned nothing and I am not going to waste my time trying to research them because quite frankly I don't care.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

As I've explained to you, the fact it is not mentioned in your precious SEC filing is moot (and at this point not even worth mentioning...repeatedly), as Sinclair has shell companies. Shell companies that they operate as completely seperate entities from Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. (SBGI), making that SEC filing...pointless. They give two shits less about FCC consequences (seeing as they have been fined repeatedly), you think they care about the SEC?! Look at the sources, I provided proof on two of those fines. The fact you'd rather overlook that, speaks more to you than I. Also, the fact that an SEC reference is "highly reliable", but FCC sources aren't highly reliable is just hypocritcal...and funny. :)

As for WP:SANCTIONS and WP:BLOCKs, I think you need to read up on those. You seem to have an issue on tell which is which. Yes, I am proud of that 2020 block and TopicBan. It was "unethical", it was against the rules of Wikipedia, should never have been issued, and I will wear it like a badge of honor until it is removed and the articles that were vandalized by the same users are restored. I have a fairly large and vocal community behind me on this one, so we'll keep at it. :) Oh, and your calling everything a "personal attack" is removing all meaning of what a personal attack is. Calling you out on your hypocracy is not a personal attack, it is what it is, calling you out on publically available information. You do it to me, I'll do it to you. You did, I "returned fire". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:30 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

I never said the FCC was unreliable, I just said it didn't establish notability. That's two completely different things. I don't know what your personal beef is with Sinclair (I have no feeling on the company one way or the other, I just wanted an accurate list), but making the accusation that they are falsifying an SEC filing is very serious and I suggest you retract it. 10-K filings are not only are signed off on by company executives but are also reviewed by an independent registered public accounting firm (In this case Pwc). I have not personally attacked you, but you continue to do it to me. Accusing me of vandalism for a good faith edit and repeatedly bringing up unrelated (and rescinded) past sanctions are personal attacks.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually your words were "They are not even close to be 'highly notable'". I have no "personal beef" and if you wanted an "accurate list" you would use the references given to you instead of using only ONE source. Multiple sources are generally expected under GNG and RS for not only an article, but any sentence. When faced with new sources, you must change the article, not ignore them. Sorry, this is Wikipedia. We include...>EVERYTHING!

As for your harping on "personal attacks" where there aren't any, I'm beginning to feel personally attacked.

As for PricewaterhouseCoopers, Sinclair's Treasurer and Vice President Justin L. Bray, he used to work for them and in fact, still holds a senior management position with PwC. PwC isn't the most ethical company on the planet either (just this side of Deutsche Bank). So, they would definitely overlook Sinclair's shell companies. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:05 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer:, please strike this comment. As far as I can see, having looked at this, the SEC 10-K filed by Sinclair *does* capture stations where Sinclair operates (via an LMA) a station that is owned by a shell corporation (or a legitimate third party); those are the ones marked with "(d)" in the filing. I don't have a very high opinion of the truthfulness of executives, myself, but you've just alleged that a named, living person has engaged in a *particular* criminal action without adequate sourcing. This is a clear WP:BLP violation. There's now plenty of discussion on the article talk page that helps reconcile the apparent discrepancies in different sources about WDSI without invoking this sort of conspiracy theory. Please back it up before bad things happen. Choess (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Choess: Thank you for asking nicely. Honestly, in this mess of a discussion, I appreciate it and it's refreshing. :) I looked back on and yeah, you have a point. Never thought of the BLP aspect, so a definite point can be made there for a BLP violation (even though that person doesn't have an article), I'll admit to that. I'll take the ding for that one. So struck. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:28 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

• ADMINS: Would an admin or three mind putting their 2 cents in and bring this to a final conclusion? It would be appreciated. I'm getting a headache from banging my head against the wall and I'm running out of sticks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:40 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

I am not an admin. I am not even a particularly knowledgeable or experienced Wikipedian. I do know, however, that you two richly deserve one another. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Dear God no. I'm just trying to beat sense into an already dead horse. I'd personally rather go stand in traffic in the middle of my local interstate, but I have a strong dislike for people who just don't get it. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:30 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

NeutralHomer, I am terrified to even ask this, but here we go. I understand Rusf10's logic here (not that I necessarily agree), but I am having trouble following your argument. Certainly shell companies exist, but what sources are you relying on with regard to this particular edit? Apologies if I am being dense, but let me know at your convenience. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Why be terrified? These are the examples of Sinclair's history of "shell companies" including New Age Media. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:03 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, perhaps you should try WP:DRN? Apart from the personal vitriol between you (which could lead to both of you being topic-banned from the area) I don't see what ANI can do here. For the purpose of resolution, I will comment on the content dispute: while I'm not sure WDSI-TV even has a website, the co-owned WFLI-TV's website http://chattanoogacw.com/ has "© 2021 Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@力: The website would be part of the Master Service Agreement referenced here. As for further content dispute resolution, does the previous source and this one cover the New Age Media sources (like WDSI-TV and WFLI-TV) and these examples of Sinclair's history of "shell companies" further source the edits removed by Rusf10 on List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:35 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, perhaps you should try WP:DRN? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Actually, DRN won't take it. Both on the technicality that this thread is open, and because it appears neither of you have commented on any article talk page on this topic. Please post the sea-of-links on a talk page; if you can't prove your point in 2 links it's too complicated for ANI. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@力:New Age Media owns both WDSI and WFLI and Sinclair operates WFLI for them, that is not in dispute. Sinclair only purchased certain assets (the Fox affiliation, the studios, etc.) of WDSI, not the station itself. Then they moved the Fox affiliation to WTVC (a station they own). They never operated or owned WDSI. NeutralHomer is now pushing a conspiracy theory where Sinclair is able to falsify their 10-K filings with the SEC by exerting control over PriceWaterhouseCooper for the purpose of hiding their ownership in WDSI.
Understand that I wouldn't bring a content dispute to ANI. That's not why this is here. This is here because NeutralHomer asserts that not only am I wrong, but I intentionally vandalized a page. He first asserted this on my talk page and then filed a false report at WP:AIV (links above). We are here because of his unacceptable behavior. I either want an apology from him for accusing me of vandalism or if he refuses, I want a block. The choice is his. --Rusf10 (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rusf10: Aha, we do have something suitable for ANI. Content disputes are not vandalism, and Neutralhomer must refrain from claiming that they are in the future. (An apology might be nice, but I wouldn't expect one while you are arguing.) I must continue to insist that the content dispute be discussed on an article talk page, I will not respond to that part of your comment here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@力: Yeah, not apologizing. I have no problem taking it to talk (expected and predicted above, also called the "content dispute"), we are going to need a mediator as nothing will get done. I make points, he ignores them and jumps up and down about how I've personally attacked him and all about this SEC filing. This precious SEC filing. We can take it to talk, no problem, but an admin mediator is going to need to be required or this will never be resolved. This was not a content dispuite, especially when the two sources were given within the warning I issued. But it devolved into one when Rusf10 brought it to ANI, spun this into something about me, ignored every source I brought up as if the SEC filing was the end all, be all. What it was and what it is were two totally different things. Talk page, fine. But I request a mediator, I request Rusf10 calm his accusations of "personal attacks" and demands of blocks down, I request the effected pages be temporarily locked during the discussion, else we have nothing to discuss. I have been quite polite, Rusf10 has been the aggressor in this. He brought this to ANI, I issued a warning and it was left at that. He chose to continue the behavior when he reverted. Talk page, mediator, fine. He chills out. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:37 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

I've started Talk:List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group#Dispute regarding WDSI. Please take your content discussions there. Admins might be the same people that mediate content disputes, but that's not part of the "admin" job for ANI purposes. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@力:I understand, but you've seen how this has gone. If you think this has been a devolved nightmare, I'm fairly certain that will be just as worse. :( But, here we go. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:43 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

Continued false allegations

Neutralhomer continues to make false allegations about me. Let's set the facts straight.

• I request Rusf10 calm his accusations of "personal attacks" and demands of blocks down The first person to request a block was Neutralhomer [196] Requesting block
• Rusf10 has been the aggressor in this The first interaction was [197] where I was accused of vandalism. I think that qualifies as an act of aggression.
• I have been quite polite [198]Do NOT attempt another completely moronic amount of vandalism like this again. Repeat this action and I report your account for vandalism and assure it is blocked. I shouldn't have to find the sources for this FOR you. You should find this YOURSELF. DON'T let it happen again. Again, same post to my talk page , sounds real polite.
  

This is why we are here, not the content dispute.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's been a little over a year since you were last blocked for this kind of behavior, @Neutralhomer:. I'd kind of assumed you'd re-learned your lesson and put it all behind you. You are really in the wrong here (behavior-wise, I have no opinion on the content). I'm not sure you understand how close you (NH) are to being blocked here. This is not just a content dispute. I know you don't like me, but I've never given you bad advice. I really advise you to stop with the battleground behavior. Doubling down on it is the wrong move. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Actually, what I don't like is admins not responding two the actual issues. "I have no opinion on the content" is what I have gotten from 力 and now you. Now, this is what happened last time and that vandal was allowed to run around roughshot for a couple weeks before he was finally shut down. Unless we are talking about 2020 and I don't think anyone wants to bring up the Asexual Erasure discussion that lit ANI/AN and many other pages aflame, leading to me and several other editors getting blocked and topic banned, while the people doing the erasing got nothing. So, have an opinion, either one of you. Cause not having an opinion isn't helpful. Pouncing on me and yelling the ever convenient "content dispute" isn't helpful. There are plenty of topics here, plenty of content, plenty of points. I urge you to have an opinion on those and not like my opinion on you cloud that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

I do have an opinion, AND I WILL EXPRESS IT AT THE TALK PAGE. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@力: Actually, that was a reply to Floquenbeam, not you. Perhaps it would be best served if Floquenbeam, unassociated with the discussion, or someone who isn't so, um, hot tempered (?) takes over the moderating. I believe that would be best, because that, my friend, was unnecessary. <_<? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:11 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

• (1) Power~enwiki is not an admin, nor am I. (Floquenbeam is.) (2) This board is for dealing with behavioral problems. It does not settle content disputes, which must be settled on article talk pages or at WP:Dispute resolution. (3) When an admin tells you that you're close to being blocked for your behavior, it's probably best not to lash out at them. Just sayin'. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• An admin will need to respond to the thread at User_talk:Neutralhomer User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to Block Neutralhomer

Neutralhomer continues to personally attack me on an article talk page [199] and repeatedly restore the personal attack [200] and [201] after I removed the personal attacks citing WP:TPO. Other users have become involved in the content dispute discussion and it has been productive. Everyone else has been respectful except Neutralhomer. He has attacked my character, misrepresented previous ANI discussions that I have been involved in (saying I was put under sanctions even when it was the other party involved that actually was or the sanction was rescinded), and now called me incompetent. This is unacceptable WP:HARASSMENT. Based on the fact that his last block which was also for harassment occurred only about a year ago and was for 72 hours, I am proposing a one week block--Rusf10 (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. This will give myself and other users more than enough time to settle this content dispute peacefully. As I was about to post this proposal Neutralhomer unilaterally tried to close this thread [202]. He is out of control!--Rusf10 (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Response: User has previously reverted my edits for TPO violations, is engaged in an edit war over mysterious "personal attacks", because I dare mention his supposedly long expired "sanctions" (he did bring up my block log first...fair play). Now, because the user is basically being ignored in the discussion over at the WDSI-TV talk page and this ANI thread had been closed (or not), he is now engaging in his own harrassment.

Since Rusf10 wishes to bring up that block, but Cullen328 was heavily involved in a [Talk:Pauley_Perrette#Coming_out_on_Twitter massive discussion] regarding Pauley Perrette (actress, formerly on NCIS) and whether she came out as Asexual via her Twitter account. I was blocked by Cullen328 and topic-banned from the Pauley Perrette article. ArbCom, somehow, got involved and in a stunning display of Asexual Erasure and blocking, were allowed to place sanctions and topic bans on anyone who basically argued against what they were doing. I was subject to harrassment, both here and on Twitter, and anon's from the community basically demanded to answer their questions about her sexuality. A disgusting display all around. The entire Asexuality Community came together (which I wasn't apart of, but discussed the innerworkings of Wikipedia to that day and have formed friendships with) and fought against Wikipedia.

So, yes, I was blocked for "harrassment". Who I was "harrassing" remains unclear. I am proud of that block because I was on the right side of that block, I did my part, and we fought for what was right that day. We showed that Wikipedia isn't all Sunshines, Rainbows, Happiness, and Inclusion like they might want people to think. It's a LOT of erasure too. We might have lost that battle, but we fought, and they war against erasure sure as hell ain't over (on any platform) and I'll be there (I don't like bullies).

So, yeah, let's talk about my 2020 block. I'm more than happy to. I'm quite open about it. In fact, I share it with everyone. What I don't do is say it's a "personal attack" and "no one's business" and "they should be blocked" for bringing it up. Bring it up....I clearly don't have anything to hide. Does Rusf10? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:19 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

Oh and Speedy Close and SALT this entire discussion (top to bottom) and BURN IT from space. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:20 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

I was not involved in that 2020 matter when I blocked you, Neutralhomer, despite your repeated claims to the contrary. I acted strictly as an administrator enforcing BLP policy rather than as an editor advocating for content. You wrote at the time But since you did give me permission and since you have now violated another rule (WP:NOPUNISH, on top of INVOLVED) by continuing this block as it has now gone into the punitive state (I am topic banned from the page and the block is for "battlefield behavior at Talk:Pauley Perrette"), I will be more than happy to add this to the complaint I will file against you when the block concludes (remember, you did give me permission). I note for the record that you never filed a complaint against me as you said you would at the time. If you were to do so, I would defend myself vigorously. Yes, I gave you permission (not that you needed it) to file a complaint against me because I was fully confident that I had acted correctly and that your complaint would fail. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

To summarize the matter in a few words (rare at this noticeboard), your behavior regarding Pauley Perrette was way out of line, and your block and topic ban were entirely appropriate and proper. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh please Cullen, we can debate all day whether or not you were involved or not (you were, you know it, you shouldn't have blocked me, you know that too), but it doesn't matter. You all won. You got to erase everything from all those articles. Ned got to have his fun, everyone else got to have their fun.|

Yeah, I could have filed a complaint against you. Would it have done any good? No. Would it have gone anywhere? No. Would I have gotten immediate flack from a couple 3 dozen admin? Yes! But I had bigger fish to fry...microscopic fish.

Look at the timestamps. One year ago just about. What happened a couple weeks after that? Yeah, the world fell apart. I was getting over Bronchitis (and a wicked case of the Flu...we think) and trying to do my job and keep kids and teachers safe (I'm a custodian for a public school). I didn't have time to play pretend world with you and everyone else. I had a job to do and to do something extremely important. Keep everyone safe. That complaint was the last thing on my mind. At that time, we had rising Flu A and Flu B cases and I was trying to keep that entire school clean. We were doing a good job. You didn't factor in. Wikipedia didn't factor in. Personally, I didn't think about any of this for a couple weeks. My edits basically fell off for a month. What do you think I was doing? So, I didn't really care.

But you were involved and that was a year ago. This all has nothing to do with what is going on right now. Rusf10 is trying to deflect from his current behavior. So, focus on me...fine...or focus on the real issue....him. This time, have an opinion, you didn't before either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:09 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

TL;DR? Malarkey! You were. Rusf10 is deflecting. Let's focus on the actual issue. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:09 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

• Neutralhomer does not get to continue to lie about me and attack me! He is the worst type of editor, he created this problem by attacking me and now he wants to be the victim. It doesn't work that way! #1 mysterious "personal attacks" no they're not mysterious, its all right here What we have here is a user, who is borderline CIR, and who has, been, repeatedly, sanctioned or topic/interaction banned (though he will call it a "personal attack" for me to even mention it and ask I be blocked, yet again pushing the rules. #2he did bring up my block log first...fair playNot true at all, its right here on this page. I already quoted it once, let's do it again [203] That's not "bad faith", that's a paddling to a user who has been previously sanctioned and then handed something to continue editing....only to have it thrown back in my face. That's bullshit. Bringing up years old sanctions that were quickly rescinded to attack my character and try to get his way in a content dispute.#3Now, because the user is basically being ignored in the discussion over at the WDSI-TV talk page No, I've been participating there and the others have mostly agreed with me that Sinclair does not own or operate the station with User:Sammi Brie doing an exceptional job with research and I thank her. #4and this ANI thread had been closed (or not), he is now engaging in his own harrassment. He closed the thread himself, he can't do that! (see WP:NACINV) Finally if Neutralhomer wants to re-litigate his dispute with user:Cullen328, he can do it elsewhere. Whether that past block was right or wrong, Neutralhomer still deserves a new block based solely on his unacceptable behavior here.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You brought the block up. You are re-litigating it by bringing it up. If you didn't want it brought up, you shouldn't have brought it up. Dude, project much?!

Actually, no one has agreed with you and Sammi has agreed with neither of us. We were both wrong. New Age Media owns it (you were right) and Sinclair has some programming on the station and has some operating control (probably master control), I was right. No one was 100% correct. We were both wrong. I willing and perfectly able to admit that I am wrong. Yeah, I was wrong. But so were you.

You took all of this way too far. You had the sources in front of you, you were given them within the warning, you were given them in the ANI thread, and yet you turned this into a 2 day WP:ICANTHEARYOU-athon. Yes, it has become borderline CIR when someone is constantly telling you something over and over and over and over and over again ad naseum and you don't seem to get it in a spectacular display I'm not listening and I'm right, you're wrong!

Now, the two main points (the WDSI-TV article and the List of Sinclair stations) have been taken care of by the amazing Sammi Brie....who I owe a big thanks. I think that should end this entire thing and with that we shouldn't have to EVER speak to each other again. Now, I'm going to go over to this other side of the internet. If you want to continue this, that's up to you.

The ball is officially in your court. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:26 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

Just an uninvolved observer here to say- this is one of the most ridiculous, and yet entertaining threads I've seen in a day or two. You both look silly. My recomendation- walk away for 24-48 hours, then go to the article talk page and have an actual good faith discussion instead of this childish hissy fit. But what do I know.... Nightenbelle (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support: Yeah this does seem like a case of WP:Harassment. This does not seem like a constructive message Waqob (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: After reading the long thread, Neutralhomer seems to have a point. TBH, there's nothing personal when he warned Rusf10 despite going out of line with his warnings. Rusf10's edits may be in good faith, but he refuses to admit that he's wrong even if Neutralhomer provided the sources are there. Instead, he keeps on throwing hissyfits, making this situation worse. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 18:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This is misrepresentation of what happened.If my edits were in good faith (as you say), then accusing me of vandalism is completely wrong (in other words, no warning should have been issued at all). He just reverted my edit and immediately accused me of vandalism, no discussion. I already laid out the content dispute above. Further research which was not done by NeutralHomer revealed a technicality where Sinclair provides master control operations, but does not own or program the station. His sources (which were only provided later) did not even show this. So if you're saying I was wrong on a technically, fine, but NeutralHomer was not even aware of that at the time. His argument was the station was being controlled by Sinclair though a shell company, which turned out not to be true.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Superastig Appreciated, but unfortunately, I am not allowed to comment on this further.

Floquenbeam It's been many days since your various "epilogue[s]" and I'm still getting hassled regarding this by Rusf10 (I got pinged). I haven't [[Special:Contributions/Neutralhomer|had any contact with him or issued any warnings (even when they were necessary)], but he sure wants to keep this going.....I'm not allowed to comment on anything per you and Drmies above. I'm not. I would ask you to kindly request Rusf10 to do the same and close this thread and any others. Thank you kindly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:26 on April 5, 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, you pinged me. I don't know why and I can't say I'm really interested. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, we can just close this thing out now, I don't see this going anywhere. I only responded today because someone called me out and I need to correct the facts. I've already explained the entire situation at length. I have no idea who pinged NeutralHomer, it wasn't me, so not sure how I'm being accused of hassling him. And trying to get Drmies (an admin that has been very hostile towards me in the past) involved is not going to help. Mies, don't think I didn't notice the shot you took at me by inserting a unnecessary second closing into the other thread and implying that I did something wrong. Unfortunately, that kind of behavior from you has become expected.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It has been asserted that I pinged NeutralHomer without any diff. I am confused as to why he would say such a thing. Maybe he's confused?--Rusf10 (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support an interaction ban, not a block. It looks like Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) is correct in their reading of the sources, and it looks like Rusf10 (talk · contribs) was operating in good faith. This doesn't really matter, though, because both of their behavior has escalated to an embarrassing point. They should step back and realize that at the end of the day, this is a website and not a life-or-death. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Close with No Action I thought this was already closed with a warning to Neutralhomer several days ago. As Neutralhomer has certainly already been warned at this point, the thread can just be closed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• No Vote - but I think the longer this drones on, the closer it gets to tempting passing admins. to respond. NH can do some good work on the article side of the pie chart (Stephens City, Virginia, WINC (AM)), so if they could be lured back to that area, and away from "teh dramaz" - I suspect this little episode could be closed. (*hint, hint*) — Ched (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Barrow1965

• Barrow1965 (talk · contribs)

I strongly suspect that this user previously edited as 81.101.15.25, which has been blocked more than once for disruptive editing, in addition to 2a00:23c6:5496:8800:e511:94b3:1350:8afa and, most recently, 2.96.102.189. Based on the common areas of interest (mainly Thunderbirds and other Gerry Anderson TV/film productions), similar use of edit summaries and all-round similar editing styles, I am convinced that Barrow1965 and these IPs are all the same person.

Barrow1965 is continuing the disruption for which they were blocked as an IP, appearing at various Anderson articles and changing in-universe dates to reflect what they consider to be the "correct" time setting. This typically involves swapping secondary sources for their own interpretation based on primary sources (example), accompanied by unhelpful or misleading edit summaries as well as edit‑warring to restore their POV when the changes are reverted ([204] and [205]; [206] and [207]).

Rather than follow the WP:BRD cycle and continue the talk page discussion here, they have gone back to making these disruptive mass changes without consensus, à la WP:IDHT. Given their prior disruption as an IP, I believe that Barrow1965 should be blocked indefinitely. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 14:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• This user continues to edit-war in their POV on multiple pages and has now extended their disruptive WP:OR tendency to article categories. Please could someone uninvolved issue a block? SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• It is very likely that the IPs and Barrow1965 are the same based on behavior, which is different in some way I admit, but the overlap is pretty obvious. I've blocked 72 hours for now, hoping that will get his attention. I don't feel like I can indef without trying at least one or two steps in between first, although that is where it is heading if he doesn't take notice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Controversial "genus" moves by Estopedist1

Recently, Estopedist1 has moved lots of "genus" articles citing their own user subpage as the reason. However, as the WP:RM/TR permalink to revision 1015788879 and Talk:Bellerophon (genus)#Requested move 1 April 2021 (also from a contested WP:RM/TR request) show, those moves are controversial and should be reverted. We should then ask that user to start an RfC on whether "(genus)" and other disambiguators are discouraged in article titles. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Peter coxhead and Plantdrew: could you help here and say that these moves are not controversial --Estopedist1 (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• It does seem that User:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation#Related discussions already pointed you to several years of prior WikiProject discussion of this. Uncle G (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) As a DABfixer with scientific training who is not a biologist but who frequently comes across genus disambiguation problems (7 today by my count; an unusually high number), I understand where Estopedist1 is coming from. However: (1) a WP:RMTR with the rationale "disambiguator qualifier "(genus)" is generally not allowed. See explanation here: User:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation" is hopelessly inadequate, and (2) this is a content dispute not an ANI matter. Botanists and zoologists have different rules for naming genera and species, and there may be no one-size-fits-all WP:CONSENSUS. Should a WP:RFC be opened, I would welcome a {{ping}} for the opportunity to comment. Narky Blert (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment, responding to ping). Is this really something that needs to be addressed via ANI? I had advised Estopedist1 that I thought it would be worthwhile to make the disambiguation terms used for animal genera more WP:CONSISTENT. I wasn't expecting him to move quite so quickly in doing so. I haven't to respond to some of his pings in recent days seeking further feedback. The rationale ""(genus)" is generally not allowed" overstates the outcome of previous discussions on disambiguating with (genus) that had input from more than ~3 editors. However, Wikipedia has absolutely been increasingly move away from (genus) disambiguators. The single biggest source of ambiguity with the name of a plant/animal genus is a animal/plant genus with the same name. Plant and animal genus names are constructed in similar ways; sometimes they are named after people, so are a lot of genera of the form "SURNAME+ia"; genera are often named by creating compound Greek/Latin words that didn't necessarily exist as words in classical Greek/Latin. As Wikipedia adds more articles on genera over time, more cases of ambiguity between genera come up; (genus) simply isn't sustainable as consistent way to disambiguate articles on genera. Suggest Estopediast1 open an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life to get consensus on the suggestion compiled on his subpage (I don't think there's any question at present that a majority of subject editors will not want to encourage (genus) going forward, but there hasn't been any discussion to establish what disambiguators should be used instead (particularly for some insects and various "worms")). Plantdrew (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Instead I'd recommend listing in batches (around 5–10 related articles) on WP:RM and seeing if there is opposition. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• There's nothing controversial about moving away from "(genus)" as a disambiguator for a genus article; Plantdrew has explained fully above why this term doesn't work (in short because the nomenclature codes allow the use of the same genus name for a plant and an animal). There is an issue about what to use instead for different groups of animals (plant genera use "(plant)"), but this is not an ANI matter. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • After reading some of the WikiProject discussions hyperlinked on that explanation page it does seem that yours is an accurate description of the state of affairs and that you've been roughly agreeing with one another about moving away for about 8 years now. It would be better to say "is problematic for the reasons given in the past 8 years of WikiProject discussions hyperlinked at User:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation#Related discussions" rather than "is not allowed". Better still, one could make that page actually explain things, rather than making people unfamiliar with what one is doing, at whom one has waved this as a rationale, wade through broken lists and apparent gibberish to the actual explanations right at the bottom. Uncle G (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Is there a list of articles proposed to be moved where comments can be added? Peter James (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• I noticed the user is doing a mass redirect for Acantocephala genera that I have been working on bringing up to Featured Article. Since this field is so poorly represented (and little information exists at all for most species) it makes sense to group at a higher level than normal. I can give you an example. Should a reader see this stub? [208] with each link redirecting to the link you broke? Or should they see this Moniliformidae. Which is more useful for the reader? I feel that it is important not to apply policies without thinking critically about them. If in the future more information is gained, then for sure separate out specific genera. But I don't see the use of making a bunch of stub articles as the user has been doing. At the very least it's worth discussing before making more changes. Mattximus (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Misquoting Office Action page on Meta

I do not know what is wrong with this user. (EDIT: Their name is Guy Macon. This person keeps changing my title [209][210] and I'm not here for a fight.) First they accuse me of being an LTA with no evidence, then they double down on their claims and then spews some more nonsense. All I have done was improve something per WP:BOLD and I have multiple users including them coming after me and I have done nothing wrong. I even asked some other person who accused me of block evasion for evidence and I have received no response. Could someone please do something? 2603:301D:22B2:4000:6077:DC40:801A:D27D (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Guy Macon. A IP editor shouldn't be editing Wikipedia:Office actions, and adding a {{blockquote}} for something that isn't actually a quote is problematic. You certainly sound like a WP:LTA, why else would you be complaining about rollback abuse when your problematic changes were rightly reverted? Also, Special:Contributions/2603:301D:22B2:4000:280A:11C3:33ED:D3E9/64 shows a history of problematic actions, maybe you're not "a sock" and are just a problematic an IP editor. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you not see the quotation marks on the second and third paragraphs? It was most certainly quoted. If that's all you got to call my edits "problematic", you are very mistaken. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:6077:DC40:801A:D27D (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why I'm bothering to respond to you, but sure. Part of it is a quote, but "Office actions are official changes ..." does not appear in the linked page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

"Part of it is a quote" is a lie. It's quite clear you're biased for this person to support them calling me a long-term abuser. Just wow. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:6077:DC40:801A:D27D (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Now you're calling me a liar and biased. Are you saying that none of the material is a quote? Or are you saying the material I note is not in the cited source is in fact a quote? Or are you just trolling? I'm not going to reply further; if you make further personal attacks I must respond to I will simply delete your comment. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. More and more accusations against an IP editor in good faith. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:6077:DC40:801A:D27D (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: "It's quite clear you're biased for this person", I would like to take a moment to thank the many editors who have worked so hard to support my persecution of this poor, innocent IP editor. I couldn't have done it without you. You can all expect a little something extra in your Wikipedia paycheck this week. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(←) The entire text is copied from the office actions page, but it's from two separate sections and should technically not be presented as a single quote. Also, yes, technically you inserted a small bit of new text that isn't present in the quote, as part of the quote. This may seem nitpicky, but no more nitpicky than you changing it for no reason in the first place. I'm not making any assumptions about you; I support the right of IPs to edit here, but an IP user has a snowball's chance in hell of being able to make arbitrary changes to policy pages, so this is really on you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You say that as if I should of expected this. I didn't. I was just trying to improve something I felt needed improving without performing anything major, but it seems I'm made to look like the bad guy. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:6077:DC40:801A:D27D (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Nonesense. I just compared [211] with [212] The alleged quote does not match the page it was supposedly quoted from.

"The office actions policy is a set of guidelines and procedures regarding official changes to or removals of content on the Wikimedia projects, or actions against specific individuals..."

"Office actions are official changes to or removals of content on the Wikimedia projects, or actions against specific individuals..."

If you are going to quote the W?F, the quote has to be 100% accurate, not a paraphrase. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

By "the W?F" do you mean the WMF or do you mean the WTF? – or are they one and the same? EEng 11:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I took it as being some ambiguity about whether it's still the "Wikimedia Foundation" or if it had gone ahead (as threatened) and changed its name to the "Wikipedia Foundation", but I like yours ("WTF") better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Acousmana uncivil, rude, and not WP:AGF

Hi there. The user in question has used uncivil language when talking with others. They have also been accused of personal attacks and I believe they have been rude to others. Here is evidence:

On the user's talk page:

• Under User talk:Acousmana#Techno, gentlecollapse6 in good faith leaves a warning message to which they reply with It's really lazy, and kinda juvenile actually when referring to gentlecollapse's actions.

• Actual quote - "stop leaving silly warning messages on user pages in lieu of consulting citations you have been provided with. It's really lazy, and kinda juvenile actually".

• Under User talk:Acousmana#May 2020, they reply with the somewhat rude comment You do know the English speaking world is not just America, right? to the good faith MrX.
• Under User talk:Acousmana#January 2021, they reply with the uncivil comment using the article talk page to respond to legitimate discussion is childish, does this type of activity arouse you or something? to the good faith Walrus Ji.

• Actual quote -"bombarding folk with notices like this rather than using the article talk page to respond to legitimate discussion is childish, does this type of activity arouse you or something?" Acousmana (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Under User talk:Acousmana#Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory they reply with the sarcastic and uncivil comment of welcome to the circle jerk: you agree, go you. which I believe refers to the sexual act of circle jerk (reading the article it appears to have metaphorical connotations but I was still unsure as to the exact meaning so I thought best to point this out).
• Under User talk:Acousmana#Personal attacks, they are accused of WP:NPA by Springee ([213])
• Under User talk:Acousmana#March 2021, most recently, they reply to VQuakr with are you aroused now after that display of authority?, which I find to be quite rude.

Elsewhere:

• [214] here, they use the terms plain stupid and Dumb. Uncivil language that doesn't help a discussion.
• At Talk:PragerU, the user was questioned by a number of users for their response to a good faith statement from Hipal. The user said don't be so dramatic, a comment which they later put a line through.

• Misrepresentation, the entire contribution to the discussion was struck to withdraw a content proposal, it was also in response to an accusation that "hand-waving and goal-post-moving going on here to push content" which is clearly not AGF. Acousmana (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Later at this talk page, under Talk:PragerU#Uneccisary Credits, they made the comments laughable, complaining it's a "hit-piece," gee, let me see, a nutty right-wing organization funded by fracking billionaires and old rich white folk who want to pay less tax while trying to indoctrinate gen-z's with their Judaeo-Christian zealotry - while attacking climate science, minority groups, women's rights, academia, etc. - and run by some dude who complains because "the left have made it impossible to say the n-word any longer." ROFL at the level the apologists are prepared to sink here. and so some old white dude is railing against the injustice of not being able to use a word... the injustice of it eh? the injustice of having to do something about racism, global warming, police brutality, women's rights, LGBT rights, [insert unjust cause here], that's some BS right there. And editors are happy to roll up here and defend this stuff. Speaks volumes.. While not uncivil or rude towards a particular editor, these comments aren't appropriate for a talk page and don't help the discussion in the slightest. EytanMelech then replies with Thank you for injecting these unrelated arguments into a conversation that didn't even need them.

• again, misrepresentation, an editor characterized a WP:RSP source as a "hit-piece," this reply summarizes substantive issues highlighted by source. Acousmana (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• More a note to self, but also feel free to discuss (I know the more appropriate place is RFD), the redirects of Post-modern conservatism and Postmodern conservatism seem inappropriate. striked as not place to discuss. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Inappropriate? see The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism Neoliberalism, Post-Modern Culture, and Reactionary Politics, Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism, 2020. Acousmana (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I hope this is sufficient evidence for you to see a pattern of behaviour. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse a warning here: With the caveat that some of the content here is fairly stale, there is a pattern here that needs addressing. Acousmana, at a minimum these recurrent denigrating allusions to your rhetorical opposition feeling aroused need to stop absolutely immediately, as this sort of thing is easily taken to fall under the umbrella of harassment--and just plain weird and uncomfortable, to be frank. There are other additional notes of less than collaborative or respectful tone in the diffs as well. You seem to engage of largely contentious areas here, and if you are going to do so, I think you are going to run into problems if you can't moderate the heat-to-light ratio of some of your input. I wouldn't support a sanction at this juncture, but I think you're likely to end up back here if you can't augment your adoption of the considerations of WP:CIV a bit. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Something should be done. A warning is probably sufficient but I wouldn't object to a tban. That said, I am involved in a number of topics where Acousmana has become active and we typically do not agree on content questions. Willbb234 noted an attack against me at one of those. "the extent of your willingness to delude yourself knows no bounds," Perhaps such a comment was said in frustration but on their talk page they denied it was a personal attack [[215]]. Perhaps Acousmana's view was changed when another editor called it a clear NPA violation. Such incivility makes constructive edits on challenging topics that much more difficult. Springee (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• • OK, fair enough, an editor has a problem with my tone, so I'll dial it down. But I find it odd that this editor has clearly gone out of their way to string together out of context material, and actually misquote and misrepresent in the process, this is in itself not AGF. The motivation here is to my mind questionable. But, if the community sees it fit to place a ban, so be it. Acousmana (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I never misquoted you. As for misrepresentation, it would be inappropriate to copy and paste a whole comment or discussion onto ANI and the links to the discussions will suffice. This isn't misrepresentation. As for why I reported you here: I don't like seeing editors being uncivil and I will investigate even when it isn't directed at me and so I decided to gather some evidence. I don't see why this should be a problem. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • You say an editor has a problem with my tone, so I'll dial it down. No, I have a real issue with the language you are using not just a problem with your tone. I also wouldn't like you to "dial it down"; I'd like you to stop altogether with being rude and uncivil. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I apologise if were offended by my language, I can you assure that going forward you, or the community, will not be troubled by this. But, can I ask, and this is a genuine query, do you regularly report editors here for language usage you find disturbing?
• I also have to ask, what is it you find particularly problematic about this re-direct when it is sourced to academic literature? Acousmana (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) "I apologise if [you] were offended" is the classic non-apology apology. Narky Blert (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• not sure how casting aspersions helps any here, AGF. Acousmana (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'll strike my comment regarding the redirect as this isn't the place to discuss this. The reason I had concern was because a search for "postmodern conservatism" shows up nothing about the right-wing or right-wing populism. Also, simply put, conservatism isn't the right-wing. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• The community is fortunate enough to have users and administrators who are quick and effective at dealing with language that is disturbing and the policies have little tolerance for this. This means that I don't regularly report users for this behaviour although I do recall having done so in the past. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Are you willing to accept my assurances on this matter? Acousmana (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Acousmana has said they are going to avoid the editor focused comments in the future. I think this should be acceptable. Could we get an admin to close this as editor acknowledged. Springee (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate that there are editors here willing to offer a second chance, left scratching my head as to why the listing editor - who I've never, to my knowledge, previously engaged with - didn't simply raise their concerns on my talk page first. And, why they have refused to acknowledge an apology? Left with the impression that this was someone with an ideological bone to pick. But that's for others to assess. Acousmana (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Issues about your conduct were already raised on your talk page. These comments were not acted upon as you continued to act inappropriately as evidenced above. If you believe I started this thread because of some ideological differences, then you will need to present some more evidence other than a page I recently created were I list some hoaxes and lies from mainstream media. I also don't see how that changes anything.

As for this supposed apology, it felt empty as another editor pointed out. It wasn't "sorry for the comments" or "sorry, I'll be better in the future", but rather "I'll continue to do it in the future and you can piss off if you feel offended".

As for "ideological" conflicts, it might backfire: [216][217] considering your past comments.

Also what the fuck is this? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Having already provided a sincere assurance, I would ask that you observe WP:AGF. Is there any particular reason you speedily deleted your user page before the conclusion of this ANI? Acousmana (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why do you need to know why I speedily deleted my userpage. I thought this discussion was on your actions, not mine. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Willbb234, could you delete User:Willbb234/Mainstream media lies? It borders on WP:POLEMIC, especially the comments on race. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree. That being said, I'll delete it as, on second thought, perhaps it isn't the best place to compile such a list. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked IP is back as Great Khaan

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

---

• Great Khaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.165.152.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.165.153.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.165.155.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new IP used in the meantime
• Talk:Duchy of St Sava (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Last time I made a report I was reprimanded for writing it too long, so I will try to put together report as short as possible. Few days ago I reported IP for extreme language and tone on the article Talk page, which resulted in blocking the IP. However, editor behind the IP immediately returned with the username Great Khaan, and resumed with more of the same - walls of ill-formatted text, full of statements like these, with lots of it in all caps:

First post today:

• What you are doing is pointless and will not pass. This is a Wikipedia editing, not a kindergarten.
• and you continue again. you INSULT US ALL WITH YOUR IGNORANCE)
• The only place on the planet where that term does not exist (more precisely - the term has been ignored) is extreme-right historiography in Croatia.
• And isn't it inappropriate for you to behave like a child whose toy has been taken away?
• You mention the Bosnian Wikipedia non-stop, and when someone else mentions that YOU ARE ACCUSED OF VANDALISM THERE (also you are trying to implement it here, on the same article), then it is inappropriate. AGAIN DOUBLE STANDARDS AND CONTRADCTIONS. (Needles to say I didn't mention Bosnian wikipedia)
• Since you started talking about religious affiliation (again without the necessary knowledge) I will list several Orthodox churches and monasteries that Kosače built (Completely misconstrued, off topic, nationalistic)

Second post today:

• I warn you once again - this is not a courtroom. There is no place for lawyer manipulations here.
• (I)n the articles you edited on Wikipedia, you referred to Flavius ​​Biondo (on the article Red Croatia). Despite the fact that he presented the information he copied from Dandolo (and Dandolo copied it from the Chronicle of the priest Dukljanin), you took it as relevant information. However, when the same Flavio Biondo mentions DUCATUS SANCTI SABAE, you ignore it, however, I have never put a comma at that article, nor referred to it in any way - things like these are norm every time editor attributes something to me!
• once again confirms that you do not know what you are talking about.

This is just a fraction from today.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – The following boxed content was deleted in this revision and has been restored per WP:TPO guidelines. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Duchy of St Sava (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Santasa speaks untruths and half-truths. He took a sharp and intolerant attitude towards anyone who did not want to obey his biased editing. He has been accused of VANDALISM on the Bosnian Wikipedia and is now trying to divert attention from it. Since he made a series of claims based on personal views (which can be seen in the TP discussion "The Duchy of St. Sava"), he tried in this way, by manipulation, to achieve some result. Whoever sees this should first look at the talk pages and see what it is about. Now he is trying to make a trial here and divert attention from his activities and biases. I proved on TP Duchy of Saint Sava that he does not know the topic he wants to write about well enough. And he perceives every correction as enmity despite the fact that they are supported by historical sources of the first and second order, as well as scientific papers. He is not interested in the truth AND approaches editing Wikipedia too personally.

As for the article "Red Croatia", the editors who edit the article Duchy of Saint Sava also edit Red Croatia. I saw the same names on both articles. I explained the whole problem around that article on TP Duchy of Saint Sava pointing out the inadmissible practice of DOUBLE STANDARDS. My desire is to improve Wikipedia as much as possible. With double standards, that is very difficult. BTW What I said can be seen in the article"s editing history. Few of them argue from the same positions on the article Duchy of Saint Sava. I can't always know who I'm talking to. It's like talking to the same person.

What I have noticed is that the same editors always appear on problematic articles. in this regard this stand my remarks on DOUBLE STANDARDS. All this needs to be examined.

If necessary, next time I will quote his inappropriate behavior more thoroughly. It will take more time to prepare it all. It would also be good to observe the TP discussion. Santana will not accept the arguments. The discussion always returns to the starting point trying to make it meaningless which can easily be seen from the very course of the TP discussion. No need to retell it here. Whoever is interested can look there. They are not interested in arguments at all. Even the books they refer to "speak" against their claims. Also, Santasa99 resents me when I quote quotes from Google books (although he does the same) and then he is bothered by photos of paper books.

P.S. One example of not telling the truth. Santasa says: "Needles to say I didn't mention Bosnian wikipedia"

I am quoting his accusation addressed to me (which is incorrect as can be verified by comparing IP addresses). Santasa wrote (14:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)):

"You are probably AnToni, which, if true, means that you are an admin of one of the WMF's project, namely Wikipedia in Bosnian language. That would put you in a position where you should know better how to keep decorum and personal conduct at tolerable minimum."

"since your first sudden appearance in English lang. wikipedia few days ago (after dispute at Bosnian language wikipedia)" (15:09, 29 March 2021 )

On the other hand, I would like to draw your attention to his inappropriate tone and belittling of respected scientists. - Mithad Kozličić, Mateo Bratanić, Sanda Uglešić - they analyzing old cartography in "THE DEMARCATION BETWEEN CROATIA AND BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA IN THE UNA REGION FROM THE 17th TO THE 20th CENTURY ACCORDING TO ORIGINAL CARTOGRAPHIC MATERIAL"

He quotes books (cheripicking) that he has not read and when those books confirm my claims then he gets angry. And then it starts discrediting writers and scientists. When he receives a warning about his contradictory behavior he pretends that nothing happened.

This is only a small part.

Great Khaan (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note: I have placed a Discretionary Sanctions Alert for the Balkans and Eastern Europe on the talk page of Great Khan. Santasa99 received one in July 2020. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I really hope that someone is going to put an end to this (latest) kind of abuse of Talk page, aspersions and targeted wp:harassment, (U)ntil I started corresponding with you, I had no idea that people with prejudices could degrade the quality of articles on Wikipedia, so much. I am glad to contribute to solving this problem., commenting on my report with Is that your tactic? Choking discussion with procedural issues, attempting to intimidate by reporting to the administrator?, by a sock 109.165.155.47 (talk · contribs)-Great Khaan (talk · contribs), who has not put a one letter or comma into article space except four initial reverts without explanations as IP. After article got protected on my request same IP continued on TP, but as soon as IP range got blocked on my request (ANI linked above), they appeared as Great Khaan. No editor shouldn’t be put through the ordeal, and I haven't even respond let alone provoked them in any way - I asked once for more consideration with enormous ill-formatted posts, however, of 66 edits on TP as Great Khaan and 19 as IP in last fourteen days almost all came behind my reply-posts to other editors, completely choking my discussions with walls of text containing diatribes that are one step from insults. Actually, some are personal insults (you INSULT US ALL WITH YOUR IGNORANCE)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Santasa99 stifles the debate. He is unable to accept evidence to refute his claims. I am asking for the supervision of that article (more precisely, article and TP discussion) to assess the situation.

He cannot answer me with arguments and tries to make this TP discussion a problematic "case". What he is doing there is an insult to the logic. There is no source, scientific study (not even the ones he quoted and probably didn't even read) that will convince him that he is wrong.

I said in my previous post that he brought out a series of untruths and half-truths. He blames me for no reason for everything (btw he is,also, accused of vandalizing this article in other languages). Administrators must ask themselves why he is behaving this way. This is not about editing Wikipedia. This is obviously not about science, but about personal prejudices that he publishes on Wikipedia. He selectively quotes literature (cherry-picking) and when I prove to him by argument that he is mistaken, he gets angry. I suppose, he expects you to solve a problem he made himself.

He provokes with his ignoring all the facts that speak against his claim. He belittles all dissenters. He is bothered by quoting Google books, he is bothered by photos of ordinary books. This situation must be clarified. I post relevant historical sources and literature. He provoked a slightly sharper discussion by belittling highly esteemed names in the world of science. The reason - their scientific work does not agree with his view of the world.

And now he’s complaining trying to blame me for everything. If you pay attention, he has had conflicts with others before. He presents some conspiracy theories: tells me I'm an editor from another Wikipedia. He mentions various names of these editors, etc. If it’s not an insult and a malicious accusation I don’t know what is?

It is very important to make an assessment of the conversation on the talk page as well as the arguments. In this way (With these complaints to administrators) he is trying to prevent me from giving my contribution because I have started to expose double standards.

He despises all the highly regarded scientists I quote. Only for one reason because they do not support his delusions.This guy talks about things and events that he doesn't know enough about. on the other hand, He is probably trying to play the card - that he is very experienced on Wikipedia and will try to stop me from contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia with procedural issues. Since there are no arguments, he has no choice but to try this. I find it very bad to constantly complain about everything.

I think the misuse of these reports should be prevented.

Great Khaan (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to clear the air, I am not the only editor there who object their persistent abuse of the process and complete disregard for policies. These persistent misconstrue of words or actions is norm in their discussion.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Whoever looks at the debate there will understand what is happening. I'm posting arguments you're insulting scientists. As for the others you mention, the 2-3 editors from the controversial Croatian Wikipedia are participating there. I have pointed out double standards and a selective approach to editing articles. I have posted an abundance of unbiased sources and scientific studies from around the world, I have even quoted the scientific papers you have cited. And after that you started complaint. It is obvious what is happening here. It's your way of trying to censor the truth. I will continue to publish historical sources from all over Europe as well as scientific papers from all over the world.

https://balkaninsight.com/2018/03/26/how-croatian-wikipedia-made-a-concentration-camp-disappear-03-23-2018/

Great Khaan (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

At this point Great Khaan trying to solicit support for this ANI on the article Talk page [218]--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruption on Wikidata by Santasa 99 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Duchy_of_St_Sava#Disruption_on_Wikidata Great Khaan (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• This on my talk page appears to be WP:CANVASSING by Great Khaan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken It's not. Didn't I get a message from you to discuss with you on your page? I don't get it. Great Khaan (talk) 03:42 01 April 2021 (UTC)

That was part of the DS Alert. I did not write it, it's part of the text of the alert. And, for that matter, you didn't discuss the alert or what Discretionary Sanctions means for you, you just pointed me to the dispute with Santasa99, which is not relevant to why you received the alert. I gave you the alert simply because you have edited in the DS subject area of the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken It would be good to warn the user Santasa99 not to abuse the possibility of appeal. In case there are no arguments, he complains (as far as I have noticed, this is a common case here). In this way he tries to enforce censorship. Doesn't anyone see that? I did not know that there was a possibility of appeal, nor was I interested in that possibility. It's hilarious. But Such people must be answered with the same measure. Only such language do they understand.

P.S. I deal with facts, not complaints. ::Great Khaan (talk) 03:42 01 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, here are some facts:

• (1) Anyone can place a DS Alert on an editor's talk page, not just an admin.
• (2) I am not an admin, never have been, never will be.
• (3) I am not interested in becoming involved in your dispute with Santasa99, so I will not be warning them about anything, even if such a warning was justified, which I'm not sure it is.
• (4) However, that being said, I see no "abuse" of the "possibility of appeal" by Santas99.
• (5) On the other hand, your edits on this page have been very aggressive, which is odd for a brand-new editor with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.
• (6) That leads me to think that it's possible that Santasa99's complaint about you being a previously blocked IP might have validity.
• (7) I see no "censorship"; please read WP:FREESPEECH, which basically says that you have no right of free speech on Wikipedia, which is a private website.
• (8) Your expressed philosophy "Such people must be answered with the same measure. Only such language do they understand" looks to be to be in violation of our WP:Civility policy, and if not, is certainly contradictory to the Wikipedia philosophy.
• (9) I am asking you not to ping me again. I am aware of this discussion and will come to it when I wish to, not at your beck and call.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken As for ping - like I said, I'm new here. I need time to understand all the wiki terminology.

I would like you to read this carefully but not to misunderstand. I don't know if I'm asking a lot? Aggr. are biased claims and accusations (5 and 6 + Canv.). You have an a priori hostile attitude towards me even though I am new here. You need to look at Santana99 aggressiveness on the TP . A whole new level of aggression.

I post the facts and when he saw that he was wrong, he started with "wiki-data disruption" →→(it was not me who noticed it but other editors)and he is trying to divert attention from his illegal activities with unfounded complaints←← (i.e. tries to make a "case" here). I have already proved that he is lying (this is the right word) when he said that he never mentioned the Bosnian Wikipedia (there are quotes above) which he tried to vandalize. And no, no one ever blocked me. I don't know what you're talking about. And as far as I can see, Santana99 blocks opponents when he has no other arguments. He acts from covert extremist positions (this is the right word). And he deals with some conspiracy theories while at the same time accusing others of it. I see that he has already had conflicts with other editors and that he even accused me (at the above-mentioned TP ) of being two or three of those editors. Hilarious. It's all easy to check. Conspiracy theories are always easier than thinking with your own head. And if aggression is →→insisting on scientifically based facts←← - wouldn't it be better for all of us to be more aggressive because those who place various conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and wider false news (like Santana99 and co.) do so very aggressively? We get tired of unimportant things and procedures while the world disappears in a sea of false news and claims. Pseudo-science, charlatans and extremists (left and right) are taking over the world.

→→Important NOTE←←

If I am ag., as you say, because I am →→fighting for scientifically based facts←← and I do not allow myself to be intimidated by any threats then I do not know where this world is going. Are sycophants a desirable type of person? I have never been and never will be like that. I am not able to pretend and act like Santasa99.

The CONCLUSION would be (and you correct me if I'm wrong): is it enough for someone to understand the procedure well (and abuse it) and to be right regardless of the fact that his claims have nothing to do with the truth? Aside from the fact that he is very, very aggressive (Santasa99 and co.).

As for you personally, if it's easier for you to block me by uncritically accepting Santana99 claims - feel free to do so. I will not be at a loss. I will save myself a lot of time that I have dedicated to editing Wikipedia.

→→Important NOTE←←

As for my "way of writing", I speak several languages ​​(and I use few classical ones). English is just one of them. And not the first language. Language determines the way we think and act. In my native language, things are called by their real names. I probably pass (subconsciously) those habits on to the foreign languages ​​I use. Besides, this is not malicious. I think it can be healing for everyone to understand that the world will be a much better place if people stop being hypocrites and sycophants.

If I'm not "suitable" for you (EW), then aggressive manipulators like Santana99 (and his co.) are the right guys for EW. In that case, this is not the place for me. So I have no problem with that. Wikipedia has a problem. Santasa99 has been editing Wikipedia from covert extremist positions for several years (with the support of editors who switched from the very NOTORIOUS Croatian Wikipedia to EW and none of you /administrators/ have noticed.

THEN, HE IS A CHAMPION. He can laugh in our faces. I can only tell him - well done master. Great Khaan (talk) 14:02 01 April 2021 (UTC)

Users latest ping, following my attempt to communicate with other editors (I refused to communicate with them from the beginning) is to inform me that: You will not pass falsification and aggression (practice from the Croatian Wikipedia). Just one look at the →→historical sources and literature that I publish is enough for any impartial observer to see that you are wrong←←. You are acting from an extreme right-wing position., and that they are going to continue "to publish the source" on TP, which is at this point almost unusable, as being completely overwhelmed by long posts with diatribes, such as here on ANI above, and even longer lists of irrelevant links of scraped key-words and key-phrases from the Internet and Google Books, which they believe are exactly what RS are all about.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Sycophant?! A frikin hypocrite and sycophant?!? I just read all the way through, and is there any slur that you somehow accidentally forgot and left-out when referring to me in the last 2+ weeks?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Just read through this thread. Didn’t know anything about the users/issues beforehand. Very puzzled by how Great khaan hasn’t been blocked already. I must be missing something. DeCausa (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't play victim Santasa 99. For 3 weeks, you have been insulting all the world's scientists and historians who are not to your liking. BTW I will refrain from all comments until the situation around Santasa99 "Wiki distruption" is resolved. Only then can we talk.

P.S. A sycophant is a general description of some people. When I wrote that, I had in mind the general picture. I didn't mention you. If you recognized yourself in those words - it's not my problem but yours. Great Khaan (talk) 22:17 03 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef block of Great Khaan for block evasion and for personal attacks and bludgeoning here and at Talk:Duchy of St Sava. Woodroar (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef per Woodroar. DeCausa (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• NOT Support any block of Great Khaan. It seems that the Santasa99 was the first to start insulting everyone who does not think like him. It seems that the Santasa99 himself started the conflict and "stretches" the debate indefinitely despite the arguments. On this occasion, I have to ask myself why is he doing this? Clementine2015.2015 (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• I have indef'ed Great Khaan, and the user above boldly, as this is rather obvious sockpuppetry going on. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Good call! Although Clementine2015.2015 posting here 6 minutes after creation wasn’t subtle! DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I have  Confirmed Great Khaan (talk · contribs) to Clementine2015.2015 (talk · contribs) and MireyaThePrincess (talk · contribs) per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Great Khaan. No comment on any IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse block - You coulda knocked me over with a feather. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: As far as I am concerned this case can be closed now. I find its epilogue satisfactory as it solves the problem at TP, caused by the reported user, although it came as a consequence of their socking, not examination of their rather extreme conduct in TP discussions. Thanks to all and stay safe.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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

User:BorisTheBulgar

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

---

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

User has several times attempted to remove well-sourced information on Afghan–Sikh Wars [219] [220] [221] [222], when trying to discuss with him, he resorts to personal attacks/aspersions and forum-like behaviour, as seen here:

The sources information is not relevant to the battle, when reviewing this page. I see that you tend to remove a large amount of information without actually adding anything to this article. Do you have a reason of why you only remove information from this article instead of adding any?

Please stop cyber bullying me. HistoryofIran -BorisTheBulgar

Again HistoryofIran adds nothing to the article just adds information relevant to himself. Explain your actions. Since you do not add information at your own behest on this article. I do not appreciate censoring of information.

Oh, more aspersions here, just in another place;

I put a lot of effort into it and he only keeps information relevent to himself, and does not make any contribution towards the article.

Have some compassion please. Very hurtful comments. HistoryofIran -BorisTheBulgar

When told he will reported for his actions if he continues, he said this; Feel free to report me. I will make another account and still edit regardless.

You think you are better than me because of the amount of rewards you have. You have said so before. HistoryofIran -BorisTheBulgar

--HistoryofIran (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

talk There is nothing personal. I spoke facts and in a normal manner. Please add the article if you feel like making changing. These are not personal attacks. I am sincerely sorry for my words or if I hurt your feelings with my words. Kind regards - BorisTheBulgar

Could you please add to the article if you are so concerned about it. I have spent hours of my time making the article look good with maps and other additions. You have also hurt me feelings. -BorisTheBulgar

I am a less experienced editor on wikipedia. Fylindfotberserk I hope my friend can help me out on this matter. -BorisTheBulgar

• Looking at the compelling evidence, the persistent attempts at changing/adding (unsourced) content, and replying to ANI notices as being part of a "cyber bully" campaign,[223] it can be concluded that user:BorisTheBulgar is here on a single purpose mission and not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

In response to this post. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject matter. In my opinion, it should be discussed extensively in the talk page first, then perhaps WP:RFC and WP:DRN if no WP:CONSENSUS is reached. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocking now; this is a topic area where disruption like this needs to be cut off as quickly as possible, and the linked comment immediately above makes quite a case for blocking. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

"Feel free to report me. I will make another account and still edit regardless." Oh here we go again. Narky Blert (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I get the feeling that BorisTheBulgar was already a sock. The mere threat of making another account seems like the user has been blocked already with a previous account. Based on the article history of Afghan–Sikh Wars, CapChecker123 frequently edited the article as BorisTheBulgar. Jerm (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Please protect the current TFA due to ongoing vandalism

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

---

Siegfried Lederer's escape from Auschwitz thanks in advance. (t · c) buidhe 02:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Already protected by administrator Callanecc.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Please block User:Deus omnipotens sum

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

---

Please block Deus omnipotens sum (talk · contribs) per WP:OM, WP:GRATUITOUS and WP:NPA. He is vulgarry insulting me (in Czech language, though; you can translate it) and adding vulgar Czech word to Voiced glottal fricative. + I would agree to global ban from him, because his behaviour in his entire time on Wikipedia is very abusive, see [224] for example. Moson81 (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Specific diffs appear to be Special:Diff/996387707 and Special:Diff/1016020832, but also Special:Diff/1016080849. So xe has called you a dick and put the word " hovno" into article space and you've told xem that xe hasn't the IQ of a pumpkin. Other recent edits from that account appear to be copyediting, the only thing wrong about which I can find is that the editor wrongly believes that split infinitives are a bad thing in English. Uncle G (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h, since the edit summary was a clear personal attack, and they knew what they were doing. Note however @Moson81: that you failed to inform them of this thread despite the requiremewnts. Please do so.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I will welcome opinions whether Moson81 needs to be blocked as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry for personaly attacking User:Deus omnipotens sum and not letting him know about this thread. This is not my home wiki (those are cswiki and hrwiki), and I have not much ideas about rules you have here. As of the personal attack, I got angry at him insulting me for absolutely no reason – I decently wrote about that vandalism and vulgarisms are not allowed on Wikipedia, when other words with voiced glottal fricative can be listed as they exist and as of WP:GRATUITOUS, and he just went on nothing than calling me vulgar words, so I couldn't maintain my emotions; I'm sorry for that. Please forgive me, this will not repeat in the future. Moson81 (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t see anything untoward in Moson81’s contribs other than Deus has the IQ of a pumpkin which is, as PA’s go, rather quaint. Maybe it sounds worse in Czech. They’ve apologised. Probably just warn Moson not to make derogatory comments about other editor’s IQ. DeCausa (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like we are done here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Not quite @Ymblanter:. Considering that I was not informed of this thread, and then temporarily banned (perhaps rightly so), I didn't have the opportunity to defend myself, and I'd like to take the opportunity to do so now, for the record.

I thought hovno sounded more euphonious than hospoda on that page, so I changed it; hovno isn't even as vulgar as @Moson81: tries to make it sound, anyway. Yes, it can refer to the digestive by-product of man or animal, but it can also mean, quite simply, nothing or the concept of zero. If he thought it was gratuitous per WP:GRATUITOUS, he could have taken the initiative and silently reverted it, or asked me to do so, or informed me that he believed my edit not to be constructive, and that would be it, water under the bridge.

Instead, he imputed mens rea to me that I did not have, calling me out-and-out a vandal. I do not appreciate having my inner motivations "explained" to me, with no evidence (as you said, all my edits are copyediting, pretty much). There's a very important difference as you well know between "you killed that man" and "you MURDERER!" At that point I considered it a matter of honour and my temper did not permit me to refrain from calling him a nasty word. I'm willing to apologise to him and "take back" my comment, if he apologises as well for calling me a vandal without evidence of any kind, not even circumstantial, and serves out a ban for an equal length of time to myself. I think it's only fair. V opačném případě, není prostě kokot, ale kokot koňský. --Deus omnipotens sum (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Pardon me, I don't speak Czech so I have to use Google translate. Does that last part really translate to "Otherwise, it's not just a dick, but a horse dick"? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Yes, it is. He's insulting me again for no reason. Moson81 (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I can only assume that making rude insults in this thread is a request to be blocked from editing here for good. Wish granted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:CANVASS/Uncivil behaviour from USER:Lugnuts

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

---

Diffs as follows:
Canvassing for an AFD only with sympathetic editors: 1 2 3 4 (These are all editors that have previously expanded Lugnuts' Geostubs and/or previously expressed support for Lugnuts)
Uncivil behaviour to User:Dlthewave: 1
Lugnuts only JUST had an ANI discussion which was hatted because of extremely worrying messages that they posted on their talk page right as a strong consensus was formed to sanction them over their mass-creation of geostubs (that they have gone right back to creating). Surely now is the time finally for some actual sanctions as they really don't seem to be getting it. With a less experienced editor I mightn't have brought this but Lugnuts has been around long enough to know not to canvass, be uncivil, or simply ignore other users. At least a block or TBAN from Geo-related articles and/or AFD is called for. FOARP (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment: this is beginning to seem like hounding of Lugnuts, watching their every edit to find something to have them for and shouting for the strongest measures to be taken against them based on scant evidence. This makes me uncomfortable. ◦ Trey Maturin 20:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I found out about the AFD because I look at the daily AFD thread (I have over 500 AFD votes and regularly look there), and then found out about the WP:CANVASS behaviour when Uanfala raised it on the AFD thread - the WP:UNCIVIL behaviour I saw when I went to Lugnut's contributions to check whether Uanfala was telling the truth. No "hounding" was involved in this - this is the first ANI report I have ever raised and I genuinely don't recall ever interacting with Lugnuts prior to the AFD at which sanctions were moved against them. I wish Lugnuts well and sympathise with his problems, but these sympathies do not extend to simply behaving as though the rules do not apply. FOARP (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm a bit concerned that the previous ANI thread appeared to have a consensus to sanction Lugnuts, either by removing the autopatrolled flag or otherwise restrict the number of articles created, but the thread was hatted as "no point remaining open". I don't have any view on what should happen to Lugnuts, but that seems wrong. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

At the time it was the correct decision. Reopening the sanctions which were certain at that point is the correct decision now. FOARP (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• After sanctions were almost certain at the last ANI thread, Lugnuts took a 47-hour break from the site and started editing again. While they haven't been mass-creating articles, they have continued to create one or two-off stubs. The canvassing is just another thing altogether. I'd support implementing sanctions from the old ANI thread at the very least. SportingFlyer T·C 20:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• The problem isn't canvassing (that AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ağcakent, Aziziye), it's mass-creating articles while there's substantial support for not having those articles. I would support a one-article-creation per day limit for Lugnuts, with an exception for creating articles after there is consensus at a discussion specifically about Lugnuts mass-creating them. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• This is just speculation, but perhaps they are doing it to top this list? An editor went to the talk page of that list and opined that the list may encourage disruptive editing (and I agree with them) and Lugnuts responded first rather suspiciously. versacespaceleave a message! 01:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Uncivil and tendentious editing by User:Magnovvig

Hi, I think Magnovvig needs a good reminder (at the very least) of the basics of WP:CIV and WP:NPOV. The following is what I could observe in pages that I am interested in, and I have not reviewed the rest of their contributions.

1. Personal attacks in edit summaries

When I arrived to Archegos Capital Management, the article was tagged with WP:TONE maintenance template and had numerous issues [225]. At this point, the article had mostly been written by Magnovvig. I took it upon myself to fix the problems, mostly by removing the problematic content [226][227][228]. In response, Magnovvig started to attack me, writing stuff like a If the careless editor who deleted the sentence had read the article [229] and Maybe s/he confused this with her professional resume writing service [230].

Answer by Magnovvig:

• Did JBchrch read the article? JBchrch summarized the edit thus: "it is not customary to quote unnamed business executives" But the article does in fact name the source as Charles Delingpole:

“ Charles Delingpole, the chief executive of technology company ComplyAdvantage, believes that family office relationships with Wall Street "need to be revisited and further interrogated". "To have premier tier Wall Street investment banks acting as prime brokers to entities that have exhibited adverse behaviour in the past demonstrates that 'know your customer' policies are either becoming too lax or being improperly enforced," he said. Hwang was charged with illegal trading in 2012. ”

At what point does one assume bad faith? If anything, my edit summary "actually, he (Charles Delingpole) is named but I omitted his name because I thought it irrelevant. If the careless editor who deleted the sentence had read the article he would have seen the name." errs on the side of WP:CIV.

2. Attempt at intimidation through user warnings

Just after these attacks, Magnovigg went to my talk page and served me a {{uw-coi}} warning [231], prompting me to disclose whether I had an external relationship with FINMA, other regulators, Credit Suisse, Nomura, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, as well as private individuals linked to recent events.

Answer by Magnovvig:

• What "attacks"? Is JBchrch careless, or is JBchrch not careless? At this point, I thought it best that s/he identify possible WP:COI, because of the egregious false edit summary to which I advert above. This is in no way an "Attempt at intimidation through user warnings". How else does one verify, if one cannot ask the question? Here JBchrch attempts to distort reality. It is extremely distasteful to need to answer this type of slur.

3. Refusal to engage in constructive dialogue

Following our interactions at Archegos Capital Management, Magnovvig decided that it was a good idea to add to the leads of 27 articles about banks the information they they qualified as "G-SIBs". [232] [233] [234] [235] [236] [237] [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252] [253] [254] [255] [256] [257] [258] I thought that this language was confusing, so I left a message on Magnovvig’s talk page explaining why and suggesting that we use the term "systematically important bank" instead [259]. Not only did Magnovvig not answer me at all (despite a reminder [260]), he continued to add the term "G-SIB" to the rest of the 27 articles without engaging in any form of dialogue.

Answer by Magnovvig:

• If s/he dislikes my edits s/he is free to change them. What does s/he misunderstand about Wikipedia:About?

“ Anyone is allowed to add or edit words, references, images, and other media here. What is contributed is more important than who contributes it. To remain, the content must be free of copyright restrictions and contentious material about living people. It must fit within Wikipedia's policies, including being verifiable against a published reliable source. Editors' opinions and beliefs and unreviewed research will not remain. Contributions cannot damage Wikipedia because the software allows easy reversal of mistakes, and many experienced editors are watching to ensure that edits are improvements. ”

• S/he is sore that I zigged when s/he thought I ought to have zagged. No, JBchrch, you do not have a monopoly on my time. It is clear that you have been in a position of power of your subordinates. Here at wiki everyone is equal. Instead of looking to see what you wrote on my talk page, I went ahead and added facts to wiki. That's all there was to it.

A similar attitude was displayed on the article List of systemically important banks. While reviewing the article, I made a bold edit [261][262], and Magnovvig reverted me, arguing that I needed to build consensus on the talk page. But he then refused to take part in the talk page discussion [263], despite me sending him - once again - a reminder [264].

Answer by Magnovvig:

• Here JBchrch dislikes the fact that I have priorities other than wiki.

4. General pattern of tendentious editing

From what I could see over the last few days (I haven't reviewed all of his contributions), Magnovvig is generally negligent of WP:NPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE and pushes an "anti-finance" POV. A few examples:

• On Archegos Capital Management

• Writing that the "Swiss financial watchdog" named FINMA had been called in to mop up the mess at Credit Suisse [265], which is obviously not what the source says.

Answer by Magnovvig:

• Why did a reputable source mention FINMA if the reporter and editor and publisher didn't think it important?
• JBchrch is free to alter my language but s/he might be a little more careful about wholesale deletions. Has it occurred to JBchrch that I sought to attract help by purposefully using provocative language? I was surprised that I was able to write an entire 2,116 character article without help of any sort whatsoever on a topic to which hundreds of thousands of readers were attracted in the last week.

• On List of systematically important banks

• Writing that the notion of "systematically important financial institutions" was replaced for unknown reasons by the notion of "systematically important banks", without citing any source or, really, doing any research [266].

Answer by Magnovvig:

• Actually, I did read the 2011 and 2012 FSB reports. They failed to identify the reasons for their shift in language. So I did do research and I wrote what I found. Will JBchrch retract this unfounded slur? It is clear from the above that JBchrch seeks to manipulate others with his or her choice to employ emotive language, which is a pity, really.

• On Family office:

• Calling the Family Office Council a lobby group without adding a reliable source… and summarizing the edit as "ce" (!!!) [267].

Answer by Magnovvig:

• What is the Family Office Council if not for a lobby group?

• Adding a report linking Leon Black to Jeffrey Epstein, which is completely irrelevant to the article [268].

Answer by Magnovvig:

• I disagree that it is irrelevant, and "ref name pleon" a Bloomberg reporter agrees with me. Who is JBchrch to disagree with a reputable source like Bloomberg?

• On GFG Alliance

• calling Credit Suisse the Swiss, saying they are on the hook and have been thwarted. Also, using words like evidently etc. [269] In this particular case, the edit is even factually wrong: as the WSJ article cited clearly explains, Greensill Capital did the "double trust" structure and not GFG Alliance.

Answer by Magnovvig:

• The "double trust" structure was no mystery to GFG. In fact, that is why Greensill was the only lender to GFG, or else GFG would have dealt with investment banks prima facie. This is in the reputable sources! Has JBchrch taken the time to read them?
• If s/he disagrees with my usage, s/he is free to change it. But then s/he would need to answer why the Financial Times reported "Credit Suisse thwarted in effort to access Gupta accounts". What part of thwarted does JBchrch not understand?

JBchrch (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Magnovvig (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think the above indicates that Magnovvig is not willing to conform to the most basic Wikipedia policies and to collaborate with other editors.

• She/he claims to have been purposefully using provocative language on the mainspace.
  
• She/he adds information that is not in the sources.
  • On List of systemically important banks: Reasoning = They failed to identify the reasons for their shift in language --> Content = for unknown reasons.
  • On GFG Alliance: Reasoning = The "double trust" structure was no mystery to GFG. In fact, that is why Greensill was the only lender to GFG --> Content = The next day it came to light that GFG had split up... the loans into [a]... double trust structure.
• She/he ignores talk page messages (Instead of looking to see what you wrote on my talk page, I went ahead and added facts to wiki).
• When asked nicely and politely - including with reminders! - to discuss his edits on talk pages, she/he answers you do not have a monopoly on my time. It is clear that you have been in a position of power of your subordinates.
• She/he adds original research to articles (What is the Family Office Council if not for a lobby group?).

Finally, let me make it very clear that I do not have a COI regarding the institutions implicated in Archegos Capital Management.

Please let me know if I need to answer to her/his other comments. JBchrch (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Non admin comment here, but this sounds like POV and/or potential COI problems. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• I think that the behavior demonstrated in point #3 is tendentious editing. Continuing a pattern of edits after other editors have raised reasonable concerns about them without engaging in discussion is not ok. When it comes to reviewing the accusations in point #4, I'm honestly more concerned by Magnovig's responses in this thread than the original edits themselves. Has it occurred to JBchrch that I sought to attract help by purposefully using provocative language? turns what could be dismissed as accidentally using the wrong tone into a violation of WP:POINT. I've reread this section multiple times now and I can't see how It is clear from the above that JBchrch seeks to manipulate others with his or her choice to employ emotive language is anything other than an unfounded personal attack. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

162.83.185.45

162.83.185.45 keeps on resubmitting Universal Kids to Saturday-morning cartoon when It's not widely used as a Successor, So give me the link to the rules of edit warring. It will teach the unregistered user a lesson, and So as me and Trivialist. 13:53, 5 April 2021 LooneyTraceYT (talk)

WP:3RR is that way. Just a heads up, your signature definitely violates WP:CUSTOMSIG/P since it can easily cause confusion with User:Trace. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I definitely agree. Thank you for your care, Padgriffin! Trace (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel like we blocked someone who was here to 'teach someone a lesson' a couple years back. LooneyTraceYT, please declare if you have had past accounts here; we do not 'teach users' a lesson here when their edits are wrong, we guide them towards making proper edits. Nate • (chatter) 18:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

OP's behavior above matches up to MechMaster Katzenstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has used this same type of 'warning language' in the past against IPs; it makes sense why their editing patterns felt familiar to me. Pinging @Boing! said Zebedee: and @Yunshui:, who dealt with MMK's block in the past. If this is MMK, I'm very disappointed you haven't improved your editing behavior in the least. And please fix your signature; now it leads to Trace's page, not yours. Nate • (chatter) 18:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Yunshui has since retired/hung up the mop, so someone else will have to check contribs over) Nate • (chatter) 18:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, Nate and Padgriffin, I see that LooneyTraceYT has modified his signature. Thanks to you all! Trace (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User ignoring warnings about adding unsourced material

User:Chadply doesn't seem to have discovered talk pages, including their own. In the last couple of months User:RenatUK, User:M.boli and User:BilCat have warned them about adding unsourced material. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like classic WP:RADARbehavior. Blocking is usually the only thing that gets the attention of a user doing this, but I'll hold offf a minute in case they reply here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Took another look today. This user has never, ever used a talk page of any kind. Their very first edit is the only time they have ever used an edit summary. They've been getting talk page messages about their editing for years and have simply ignored them. This shows both an apparent refusal to communicate and a refusal to adjust their editing to meet expected standards. Experience has shown that short blocks are usually just waited out by accounts like this, then they just go back to what they were doing, and this user often has months-long gaps between edits anyway. For all those reasons I have gone ahead and issued an indefinite block. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: thanks. I concur with your reasoning. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Maltese football and User:Onel5969

I am deeply concerned that Onel5969 isn't helping out in a good way. He has firstly removed a load of content first and not even bothered to tag the content concerned for notability, this is followed by redirects. On Dingli Swallows F.C. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dingli_Swallows_F.C.&offset=&limit=500&action=history page history) he removed and redirected only to end up edit-warring with Apple20674. this somewhat disruptive edit-warring happened with Ta' Xbiex S.C., St. Venera Lightnings F.C., Birżebbuġa St. Peter's F.C. and Marsaskala F.C..

This was followed by sending the articles to AfD, now I am running through them having a good look for sources and I can find them, I feel I can show that Onel5969 has been wrong in his process and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dingli Swallows F.C., that AfD, I don't feel he hasn't done a good job on WP:BEFORE, but I feel whats worse, is that he has bullied Apple20674 in this editing pattern, hasn't explained clear enough on that users talk page, instead just tagging it with templates, and that needs to be addressed the most. This process of his, it's concerning too me and felt it needed a broader look. Govvy (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969 is entirely correct in removing/redirecting uncited material; at Dingli Swallows F.C., the fault was in trying to restore this stuff without providing sources. The single source finally coughed up does not reference a fraction of the text. Onel5969 then had a choice of leaving unsourced material sitting in mainspace (since the author clearly wasn't going to bother about WP:ONUS), or kicking it up for a formal deletion discussion, and sensibly took the latter route. There's nothing to criticize in that. - As for the other clubs, my presumption would also have been that they don't meet WP:NFOOTY as being in the amateur league, but when unsure, open up discussion at AFD. Personally I avoid the sports club notability minefield whenever possible, but let's please not make it extra perilous for those reviewers who do dare to tangle with it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Having participated in all/most of the AFDs in question (some where I agree with deletion, others where I oppose) my view is as follows: yes, Onel5969 could have been more thorough in conducting WP:BEFORE searches, but that's about as far as it goes, and I am shocked that this is now at ANI with no prior attempt (as far as I can see) to discuss any concerns elsewhere? GiantSnowman 16:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Elmidae and GiantSnowman, I am sorry, and I do realize I was wrong in immediately restoring the content, however, I am at the moment rewriting the articles to be completely sourced, and Onel5969 is immediately readding a deletion request. Dingli Swallows F.C. is completely sourced at the moment as I have removed most of the currently unciteable material (for now, I am re adding more cited material later), however a deletion request has been put on it even though it does pass WP:FOOTYN, which is the user's claim to deletion. Sorry for wasting your time on this, Apple20674 (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This is more about Onel5969 process and felt he bullied and edit-warred with Apple20674, that's not right for an experienced editor in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing a process issue here. On the articles I've checked, it's gone something like:

1. Onel5969 redirects an article that is of questionable notability and is wholly uncited. This is fine under WP:V and WP:BOLD.
2. Apple20674 reverts the redirect, asserting that it's notable and in some cases providing some sourcing. This is also fine under WP:BRD.
3. Onel5969, apparently disagreeing with this, nominates the article at AfD. This is also fine, as that's beginning the "discuss" part of BRD.

Beyond that, there have been a few further reverts due to Apple20674 removing the AfD tag and being reverted - this is a minor process mistake, but not by Onel5969, and has already been acknowledged as a mistake by Apple20674. This is a notability dispute that has already been taken to the correct forum. Sure, I think Onel5969 could have been more personal in dealing with a new editor, but I'm just not sure what admin intervention you're expecting that warrants going straight to ANI with this. ~ mazca ^talk 17:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have found Onel5969 to be rather quick to nominate articles for deletion rather than look for sources, but I don't think that there's any fault in this instance that comes near to needing administrator intervention. I know that this is anecdotal WP:OR, but it's quite telling that someone close to me played in Division 3 of the Maltese League (very much as an amateur) and then, on returning to the UK in his twenties, joined a team in Division 3 of the South-West Hertfordshire League. The level of play was comparable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Onel is a very experienced and responsive editor. I'm sure that he would respond positively to anyone approaching him in a constructive way to discuss issues around notability in particular areas. A report here, in the absence of such an approach, seems disproportionate. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, you want to defend a guy who couldn't be bothered to verify the content, do a bit of research, actually read the article content he was deleting. Understand the policy he was deleting under. These are simply steps any editor can do to help build wikipedia content, wikipedia should be about the promotion of information, not eradication of it. Onel5969 has done everything wrong from my perspective. Govvy (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Community, The user:Nearlyevil665 is inappropriately flagging notable articles for deletion at a high speed. He sends email to the entity demanding for money to fix the articles back. Let’s check this asap.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎154.160.2.168 (talk)

You must notify users that you report here(see the top of this page). I'd suggest that you quickly provide the evidence you have of your accusation, or withdraw it. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The preposterous accusation aside, this anonymous user has no edits other than a 'poorly substantiated keep vote' for one of the dozens of Ghana-related articles I had tagged for deletion. To me, this smells of retaliation for tagging dozens of non-notable Ghanaian musicians and performers (all primarily authored by a single user) for deletion. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Notice: To add, the user Nearlyevil665 joined the community 8 months ago. Thanks 154.160.2.89 (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'd be interested to see what evidence, if any, the IP editor is able to provide to support this accusation. Having said that, I do see a lot of AfD nominations and G11 CSD tags in Nearlyevil665's recent contribution history, almost all relating to Ghanaian entertainment industry, for example: Djsky, Ajeezay, Stay Jay, Sista Afia, Afia Amankwaah Tamakloe, Mizter Okyere, Nu Afrika Records, Dead Peepol and Benedicta Gafah. None of these are new articles, so this has not come about through regular new page patrolling - without making any accusations of wrong-doing, I'd be interested to hear how Nearlyevil665 came across these articles, and what inspired what appears to be a sudden very intense interest in nominating articles in this subject area for deletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'll add that I've just reviewed the history of the articles I've linked to; I see that most, but not all of them, were either originally written by, or have been editing by, Geezygee. I will notify them of this discussion; also pinging Deb, who I see has been in touch with both of these users recently, perhaps she can shed some light on what's going on here. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I clarified on that point earlier here. I will copy it here: "For what it's worth, I did nominate a couple of Ghana-related articles for G11 deletion, but I'm not sure how that could be interpreted as malicious intent. Upon stumbling on a non-notable Ghana-related entry I filtered the author's contributions to page creations and found that an absolute majority were a complete mess. Namely there was a pattern of creating pages for non-notable Ghanaian musicians and performers. To be clear, I'm not suggesting the author of those pages is anyhow involved with this slanderous accusation against me. I'm just saying you can confirm the pattern of deletion tags as they were restricted to one particular user's page contributions. See Special:Contributions/Geezygee for more. Or to rephrase: If I stumble upon on what seems like a promotional article I check the author's contributions for any other articles that are not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. This approach works well to swiftly identify other non-notable subjects. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of nominations, but this seems not unreasonable given Geezygee's level of activity in this area. I have turned some of them down and actioned others. Possibly we don't need to look too far for the anon. Deb (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, I checked Geezygee's image upload history and voila. Many a image for various musicians and performers and companies uploaded as 'own work'. And I couldn't find some of these pictures in the public domain. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Is it worth consulting Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies#Fast Fingers Hype Team (FFHypeTEAM) at this point? Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo and the Hausa people

Ppdallo has been constantly trying to insert a source that requires registration to validate from ethnologue[270] into the Hausa people article to support the claim that the Hausa language is the second most popular afroasiatic language spoken.

I, and another editor (Esiymbro) have reverted him on this, but to no avail. Up front - and as is plainly visible from the history - I've reverted him most, but I maintain that based on the unreliability of the source, and the failure to address concerns raised on the talk page it falls into disruptive editing.

Article history is here.

Points to note - Ppdallo requested page protection of the article here, citing "Persistent vandalism – Edit war by other editors." - whilst neglecting to mention that by this point he had reverted six times on the article in question. Although I've just noticed that I was also at 4RR, so bad mark there for myself - I thought I'd stopped cleanly at 3RR, and said as much here.

I've tried to make the point that ethnologue requires registration, and when checked with wayback machine the available data didn't support the claim of second place - only the number of people who spoke it with no comment as to rankings.

Ppdallo has made mild accusations of bad faith, which I'm not concerned with in content, only in attitude - "Then you obviously are up to some mischief" - which he's brought up a few times on the talk page.

There is also the issue of communication - I was so puzzled by his behaviour I even went to the helpdesk to see if his lack of user page may be stopping him from receiving pings -Pinging a user page redlink? as he ignored invitations to join in discussion, then said he would join in - but didn't - and finally created his own talk page section inviting discussion - directly underneath the one I had created that pinged him in the first place: Hausa Language as Afroasiatic.

During all this, all I've really asked is that Ppdallo finds a reliable, verifiable source to support the language ranking claim (exactly as he did here] for the religious claim,) and finally he did so with this edit which was exactly as requested, albeit as an external link. I cleaned it up into a Cite, and then he promptly re-added the ethnologue reference again.

Looking back, I'm prepared to be trouted and humbled for my behaviour - it seems evident I should have stopped reverting sooner, but can somebody please have a word with Ppdallo about what is a reliable source, that can be verified without spending $480 a year - especially when he's finally provided one that serves exactly the required purpose?

I'm done with it now, I see no way of removing the reference without yet more reversions, and I'm not stoking the fire anymore there, it's just tit-for-tat which helps nobody in the end.

Final comment - Ppdallo has asked that I don't contact him, but as per policy I'll leave him a talk page message informing him of this discussion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Taking a look at some of the discussion regarding Ethnologue at the WP:RSN, it seems like it is considered a reliable source; WP:PAYWALL is a thing that can be overcome with Resource Request.

That being said, the edit summary does appear to be casting aspersions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens. Have you read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources? In part it says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." So the cost of access to Ethnologue is just a red herring. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

References

CambridgeBayWeather, yes, I'm aware of that, but there is also the fact that ethnologue even when accessed doesn't support the claim that Hausa is the second most used language. All it does it state that x number of people speak it. Whether ethnologue is reliable or not doesn't matter if the claim isn't supported. As Ppdallo has finally supplied a source that completely supports his claim the inclusion of ethnologue is moot and unnecessary.

Also, it's not just about the source - it's about Ppdallo's behaviour and battleground mentality. Claims that I'm up to mischief, misleading edit summaries (when requesting PP - "Persistent vandalism – Edit war by other editors." & "see talk page for rationale" with no discussion until 24 hours later), disregard for BRD, and templating editors for unconstructive edits. They seems to have decided on a bulldozer method of editing with little attempt at real discussion or rationale. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If you knew then why did you go on about it? The main point of your complaint seemed to be about the cost of Ethnologue. If you can't see Ethnologue then how do you know the source in't valid? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Because I found a wayback machine link that showed contents. Also the headings can be seen from the article without paying - there is no ranking view there. Ethnologue does not support the claim made. Also Ppdallo's editing pattern. All are issues of equal measure. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens I did not claim that the "the Hausa language is the second most popular afroasiatic language spoken". Please read again the very text that you have reverted me several times on. that was the claim and is well sourced.Ppdallo (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't actually make sense, but yeah - you did:

1. "and the second largest language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages"[271]
2. "the second most widely spoken language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages.[[272]]"[273]
3. "the second most widely spoken language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages.[[274]]"[275]
4. "the second most widely spoken language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages.[276]"[277]
5. "the second most widely spoken language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages.[278]"[279]
6. "the second most widely spoken language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages.[280]"[281]

Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

from yours above, i clearly did not claim that "the Hausa language is the second most popular afroasiatic language spoken".The word "popular" is absent there.Ppdallo (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If you think that the difference between "most popular" and "most widely spoken" is a critical point and grounds to dismiss the entire issue, then I'm really, really done here. Do what you will - I'm off to improve the project elsewhere, and have removed Hausa & Afroasiatic from my watchlist. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblock checks

Hi - could someone clever take a look at a couple of rangeblocks I just made in response to a report at AIV concerning recent vandalism to Larry Page. On inspecting some of the more recent IP contributions to the page, I found multiple IPs in the ranges 117.198.30.143/20 and 117.198.16.0/20 adding repetitive content to multiple different articles. Google translate seemed to struggle with it, but enough words jumped out at me to convince me that it was obvious vandalism, and since there didn't seem to be much collateral I've blocked both for three months. IP ranges aren't by strongest suite though - would anybody feel like checking to see if I've missed anything, or if a narrower range would work just as well? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 14:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, In Hindi language, he is adding bad words to the articles of living people. 117.197.236.30 (talk · contribs) 59.92.74.64 (talk · contribs) 61.0.136.2 (talk · contribs) 59.92.73.140 (talk · contribs) 117.217.48.88 (talk · contribs) 157.41.109.82 (talk · contribs) 117.217.49.7 (talk · contribs) 59.92.74.234 (talk · contribs) If you see all these IP contributions, you will get to see the same words. If you want, I can list other IPs. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

So all these pages have to be semi protected. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced edit of anonymous user

Hello, please block this user 2600:8806:4006:A800:2CF2:8C13:324:F6E8 (talk · contribs) as he/she edits on Baikal International Airport and Phnom Penh International Airport without adding a single reliable sources. I also tried to talk with him with warning, but he/she continuously edit without source. Hope y'all block this anonymous user to avoid WP:EW. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corner2002 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

On List of equipment of the Hellenic Army an user called El Greco 45 reverting constantly article. While only army equipment is featured on the page, this user constantly re ADD navy equipment, and I reverted it three times but he/she keep re adding incorrect information, and wrote this as a comment; If you don't know don't delete ???.. I tried to explain it, but he/she continues without caring disruptive editing.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Pssst - you can just say 'they' instead of 'he/she' every time. Is there a corresponding Hellenic Navy article that information could be shoved into, or did the Hellenic Army constitute naval forces as well? --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Editor Alansohn

Came to my talk page today[282] to complain about my recent edits to Montclair State University where I removed multiple entries to the Notable alumni section because they were either not linked to WP articles and in the same post to my talk page, Alansohn also complained about a recent edit I made to Alpine, New Jersey where I removed a person from the NP section who had been citation needed tag on it for over 9 years.

Alansohn is both being a hypocrite and harassing me.

First, Montclair State College he has edited[283] to in the past with the edit summary 'remove individual from list of notables, who needs both a Wikipedia article **AND** independent reliable and verifiable sources establishing connection here, as specified by WP:NLIST' So he says a entry needs to have both and then criticizes me for taking out entries that fit his own criteria for removal.

Note- He has used that same edit summary many times at New Jersey articles. At Piscataway, New Jersey for example[284]

Second, the citation added tag was added[285] by Alansohn and allowed to remain for over 9 years on that page and with making approximately 85 edits[286] to the page since its addition. He has a clear history of requiring an entry have a reference and then complains when an editor removes just such an entry.

That's clearly hypocritical.

I want to point out two other things.

Alansohn was recently made to apologize to me after his making this ANI complaint[287] against me. Some of his complaining today about my editing closely parallels what he wrote then.

Recently in an edit[288] to 1966 World Series he restored descriptions to the article because I had removed them[289] due to them being unreferenced. He restored it with references that DIDN'T support what was being written. This is the kind of bogus edits that are seen far too much around here. A referenced sentence with a fact or statement in it that the reference doesn't corroborate.

Alansohn is harassing me. So I came here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• We could deal with the very uncollegial exchange here, but I think that's treating the symptom rather than the problem. In fact, when I compare your talk page with Alansohn's, what I see is that your talk page is an incredibly hostile place from the passive-aggressive notices at the top right the way down to the bottom. I think that you're both highly active editors with long sanctions logs for edit warring and battlegrounding and this is going to smoulder on forever without a two-way iban.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Two-way iban between Alansohn and WilliamJE.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Both seem deficient in the willingness-to-drop-the-stick department. I suggest this is time-limited though. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • • WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Support - As the above links show, these are both editors with very long block logs going back approximately a decade. They appear to be two editors who do not like each other. An interaction ban would be the least disruptive way of minimizing the disruption from these two editors. I respectfully disagree with Guy, in that it should not be limited as to time. Alternatives, such as one-month blocks, or topic bans, would be harsher, and so unnecessary. These editors should both be cautioned by this interaction ban that any further disruption may require an ArbCom case. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support a two-way i-ban, either indefinite (as first preference) or a 6-month duration. I think that in addition and independent of that, the thread at WilliamJE's user talk page that led to this ANI discussion as well as the opening ANI post itself are actionable in terms of violations of WP:CIVIL. Nsk92 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Evansville rangeblock requested

• 2603:6010:7706:1A00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Somebody in Evansville, Illinois, has been asserting false certification and sales figures at hip hop music articles. For instance, this edit asserted 2× Platinum sales despite the fact that RIAA says Gold. There's a ton more like that. Can we get a rangeblock?

The edit history is very, very much like Special:Contributions/74.129.99.106 from the same place, blocked for the same thing. That IP was blocked for 14 months a year ago. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that'll do it. I wonder what will happen when the IP4 block expires. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Undue promotion of self-created articles about women composers by T. E. Meeks

T. E. Meeks (talk · contribs) is acting virtually as a single-purpose account, creating and adding wikilinks to missing articles in reverse alphabetical order from a listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/International encyclopedia of women composers. This itself might be admirable but the problem is that they are unduly promoting these composers by adding links to their new articles from extremely notable subjects where the composers are far less notable (as measured by such things as interwiki links and general fame) than existing entries in lists (e.g. of notable people in major cities with extremely long recorded histories, people who set their poetry to music). This behaviour has continued even after my warning in January (see my messages on their talk page). Recent examples include this edit to Munich, this one to Odessa, and this edit to Pablo Neruda. Of their earlier edits, these ones to Columbia University that I reverted are probably the most blatant; Satella Waterstone and An-Ming Wang are by no means in the same league as Rodgers and Hammerstein. I would like neutral editors to advise this user on proportionate linking of articles and perhaps, if they continue their problematic edits after this noticeboard thread, administrative actions might need to be enacted. (Gerda Arendt has been ably advising this user, but I think this situation needs fresh pairs of eyes). I know I said that I would refrain from posting on their talk page or checking their edits, but they recently reappeared on my watchlist with the same behaviour as last time. I have previously tried posting about this at the WikiProject Classical music talk page with no luck, so here I am. Graham87 19:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't "promotion" in an encylopedic sense - it's not advertising. If you believe that these edits and articles are not well-supported or referenced, then you can either have a go at improving the references yourself, add a more citations needed tag to the article, or bring it up at Articles for Deletion, if you believe the newly-created articles aren't verifiable enough to be improved any further. I don't think it's "unduly promoting these composers" to fill in some verifiable redlinks, especially with the gender imbalance we see on Wikipedia. If the articles are well-supported to stay, then they're well-supported to stay. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't use the word "promotion", as it implies something else that isn't here. As a random example, this edit reverts an addition of An-Ming Wang as "undue promotion". If the revert was because the entry was unsourced, or because articles about universities only contain extremely prominent alumni (that's what lists or categories are for), I would get that. But I think they're editing in good faith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't doubt their good faith ... I meant promotion in the sense of making these people seem much more important (compared to the people around them in the text) than they actually are. The way I see it the more prominent an article subject is, the more selective editors should be in what to mention about it ... especially when it comes to tangentially related people/works. Maybe "misplaced additions" would be a better term? Graham87 21:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin commemt) This sounds like yet another content dispute.

It's a question of balance and good taste. I have a penchant for writing articles about obscure but notable people. One of the trickiest issues is deciding where such articles should be linked from. If they came from some village no-one's heard of - sure, mention them as a notable resident. If they were born in a metropolis - well, who cares? The first type of link might lead a reader towards something interesting; the second, hardly at all.

I recently wrote an article about a pioneering fight director. He worked on a film that I can guarantee everyone here has heard of. Is that interesting about him? yes. Is that fact worth adding to the article about the film? no way, unless a source about the film singled him out (I found none that did). Narky Blert (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I saw this at WP:CM, but forgot to comment, this has been appearing on my watchlist as well. I don't know why users above are obsessing over the word "promotion", who cares, there's still an issue here. Meeks shouldn't be prolifically adding unsourced trivia of the some arrangement by a composer 400 years later ([290], [291]); if the work is notable enough to have its own article, sure maybe, but these are not... Other edits are less concerning, such as the Odessa, but the Columbia University one and the Munich ones I disagree with. These are huge places and we should keep the notability for inclusion high, if Meeks wants to add to List of Columbia University alumni and attendees, fine, but inserting two names in the middle of a sentence with four otherwise exceptionally prominent composers (and thereby making it appear as if one of those refs supports their names) is disingenuous at the very least. Aza24 (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

We somehow avoided an ec there. Another of my recent articles wax about a very obscure composer indeed. Did I add him to List of Baroque composers#Late Baroque era composers (born 1650–99)? yes. Did I add him to List of Baroque composers#Brief timeline? you must be joking, that's for people you might have heard of. Narky Blert (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Narky Blert and Aza24: Thanks, your comments sum up my feelings about T. E. Meeks's edits better than I ever could. I have no problem whatsoever with this edit to Canton, Pennsylvania, for example. Graham87 07:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Nor do I; that is exactly the sort of "notable people" entry I like. They should be notable in context, and adding a fifth person to that list is informative. (I say fifth, because I deleted two of the seven entries per the essay WP:NAMECHECK.) Narky Blert (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Notability and lack of knowledge of User:Onel5969

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

---

On the page of Latgalian ceramicist Jānis Limans, this user Onel5969 marked the article like it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. Since when an American knows and decides what is notable or what is not for the foreign countries and its regions? Ceramics is one of the historical trademarks for the Latgale region and its ceramicists have a special role in the region's culture. If you don't know the topic, explore it first, before you doubt its notability. - Januszjan88 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

No, that’s not how notability on wikipedia works. Notability needs to be demonstrated in the article by referencing “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” Of the 4 citations in the article I was only able to access one and that doesn’t mention Jānis Limans. That doesn’t mean the other 3 don’t - but it’s a discussion you should have directly with Onel5969, but not here. DeCausa (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Januszjan88, your post here, Since when an American knows and decides what is notable or what is not for the foreign countries and its regions?, is an inappropriate violation of WP:NPA and WP:OWN. A basic principle of Wikipedia, WP:5P3, says that Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute. Any editor, regardless of their national origin or any other demographic characteristic has equal right to any other editor to edit any Wikipedia article and question its notability. Nsk92 (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I would have made the exact same tag - enough there that I wouldn't send it to AfD at NPP, but the only accessible source doesn't appear to mention them (using a quick search-and-find on the first part of the name) meaning that the other sources in the article need to demonstrate notability. Onel5969's done nothing remotely sanctionable. SportingFlyer T·C 11:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yep. While the offline sources may do this, we don't know. Perhaps Januszjan88 could provide a short translated quotation of the offline sources to establish that they support the article's contents, and the subject's notability? Elli (talk | contribs) 13:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I would also have added the notability tag as part of NPP. --John B123 (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to see if anyone replied to post I started above and saw this one. I really don't get this post, is it here because of the other one I posted above? Just feels like Januszjan88 is trying to "stir the pot". And on that note, someone should close this! Govvy (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Almgerdeu Block bypass. Open a new account

First, I am sorry for my bad Englsh. I am from Germany and I'm not sure I'm right here. In September 2019 Wikipedia blocked this two accounts Schami 1989 and Ekspertiza. A lot of nonsense was done. In June 2020, he created a new page. His language problems are still the same and much needs to be deleted. The same pages are processed in all accounts, mainly about German football. Is this allowed for a blocked user to create a new account? In Germany this is a (German Sperrumgehung) blocking bypass and not allowed. The other two former accounts are:

• Schami1989 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ekspertiza (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I have already submitted an application as a sock puppet.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Almgerdeu

Gscheidles (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the sockpuppet investigation. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

VendelaA persistently adding excessive Youtube links

• VendelaA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roma Downey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

VendelaA is a single-purpose account solely dedicated to adding a long list of Youtube links to the Roma Downey article. Including editing as an IP, they have tried this many times. First attempt. Second attempt. Third attempt. Fourth attempt. Fifth attempt. Sixth attempt.

I had assumed they had the got the point in September last year after my message on their talk page, but they have just made a seventh attempt. This isn't even a good faith attempt to add external links, it is actually a revert to their 18 September 2020 version of the article. FDW777 (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• They only have ONE edit this year, and four edits total for that account. Just revert them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I found the main account of a blocked user

Mr.Luther34 is blocked for being a sockpuppet. Now check --MoshPit~8D--'s profile. "This user has previously had a user page. for a complete Contributions History Please visit my old user Page User:Mr.Luther34" is written on their profile. ---Zai- (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

And that user is now blocked as a sockpuppet. —C.Fred (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and probable block evasion from Masud984

• Masud984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AbdullahYakub772 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AbdullahYakub772 was previously blocked for disruptive edits to GDP figures (mainly of Bangladesh). Masud984 is now doing the same, including these four reverted edits of Bangladesh's GDP at List of countries by GDP (nominal): [292] [293] [294] [295]. These numbers, of course, disagree with the source. Masud984 also removed the block messages on the talk page of AbdullahYakub772: [296], which, given the near identical behaviour that lead to that user being blocked, seems like as obvious block evasion as you can get. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Indef blocked as quacking sock. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk page block for user:98.100.138.40

98.100.138.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked yesterday and is now vandalizing their talkpage. --FF-11 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Along with what look very much like three knitted foot coverings, one already indeffed. Narky Blert (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from 176.221.121.64

• 176.221.121.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• What's in It for Me (Amy Diamond song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• This Is Me Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This IP has been constantly changing release dates without sources on the two articles listed above as well as several other articles, including removing an entire Release History section from Express (Christina Aguilera song) for no reason. They have been warned multiple times to stop. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 16:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalising thread

User Dughorm has been constantly vandalising the Emblem of the Republic of Albania article despite there being no resolution in the talk page. He keeps changing the title and contents of the article without providing an argument. Kj1595 (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Kj1595 has been vandalizing the page by reverting any and all changes made by me despite them being mostly cosmetic and corrections of terminology. They unilaterally moved the article for the coat of arms of Albania to call it an "emblem" in contradiction with the established Wikipedia practice of referring to heraldic symbols as coats of arms, and despite the naming having been previously decided to be "coat of arms of Albania", and made numerous edits over a short period of time in the past. I have provided all evidence on the talk page, which they dismissed claiming to be a native speaker, pointing me to Google Translate, which outputs results contradictory to their claims, and disregarding the heraldic context of the symbol, insisting that the word "stema" must be translated by emblem despite meaning "coat of arms" and, as is common in the languages of post-Socialist states, being used to refer to any kind of a state emblem. I have been unable to report them as I am only familiar with article and file editing, so I kept reverting their unilateral moderation of my contributions. I have also attempted to manually transfer the contents to "Coat of arms of Albania", but realized my mistake and reverted the changes immediately, as I only intend to restore the page to its original state before the user's numerous changes while maintaining their positive contributions. — Dughorm (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

How can I be vandalising the article when I created all the historical emblems in the article which you have removed? I created the Historical emblems section of the article as well. I urge the admins to look at my last edit and compare it with what Dughorm changed it to and decide who did the vandalism? Kj1595 (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

None of your contributions were removed. I have reformatted the section from the form of a table to the usual page format, and arranged numerous images in a gallery so that they would not disrupt the short pieces of text. Only your unilateral conviction-based changes have been changed to proper terminology. Please stop appealing to your authority of being a native speaker or having made constructive contributions in the past, and do not act as if you are an owner of the article. — Dughorm (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You removed most of the content in the Infobox as well as all the historical logos and replaced them with a gallery of fictional logos. So basically you ruined what was an already good article. You were called out on this in the talk page by another user and you accused that user of being biased and a nationalist. Kj1595 (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The infobox had no content in it except the unofficial "blazon", which an "emblem", as you claim, would not have. Who are you to decide whether or not sourced files are "fictional"? I have replaced one or two of them with higher quality vectorizations already present on Wikimedia Commons, as is the policy for visual symbols. Again, I have deleted none of the content and only improved some wording and translations you didn't even bother to double-check. You have also made changes while there is an ongoing dispute, so I expect you to undo them and go back to the exact version at the time of opening the dispute. There hasn't been any negative feedback from non-Albanians so far, so I have reasons to suspect nationalist brigading. — Dughorm (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute? Are both of the editors Yelling Vandalism in order to "win" a content dispute? It appears that neither of the editors has made an actual case of vandalism. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Can these editors be warned that continuing to yell "Vandalism" is a personal attack? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It's more than content dispute. The user removed all historical emblems in the article thus changing a significant part of the article's identity. That is vandalism. Not only that, he also removed the sources in the article. And continuely keeps changing the title of the article without there being a resolution in the talk page. How is that not vandalism? Kj1595 (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism is a disruptive attempt to deface an article. These edits are good faith efforts to improve the article. You may not like them- and that's fine- but your disliking them does not make them vandalism. And insisting that every change you don't agree with is vandalism is a personal attack and also WP:OWN so- please go to the talk page of the article in question and both of you discuss the proposed changes with an open mind per WP:BRD, and if that doesn't work out- after an extended good faith discussion- you are welcome to come to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and I will volunteer to help mediate this. After you both give a good ole fashion discussion a try first. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Fair enough. Kj1595 (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

User:XiAdonis keeps reverting against consensus

On the article Rising sun flag, there has been a consensus by multiple editors to include in the introduction that the flag is controversial in parts of East Asia. XiAdonis refuses to accept this consensus, continuing to revert the article against the consensus. In particular, the user seems to think that adding another argument to the talk page after the discussion has run its full course is sufficient to set aside the consensus.

The user's talk page shows that this is not the first time the user has been disruptive on articles related to Japan. RisingStar (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Since XiAdonis has chosen to delete it from their talk page, I'm adding the diff of XiAdonis's talk page where User:Binksternet gave XiAdonis a final warning for being disruptive on another Japan-related article. RisingStar (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There was no consensus against me, I presented my arguments which have gone unanswered for months, on the basis of stale discussion and due to no one being to assuage the concerns raised I decided to revert the page back to the stable version. XiAdonis (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There was a consensus, and the article has been edited accordingly in January. That version is the stable version. I've taken care to address the feedback from other editors, but you did not provide any feedback besides giving arguments against the inclusion of the sentence in question, and I have addressed these arguments at length. Consensus does not mean that every single editor has to agree with the consensus. RisingStar (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

And now XiAdonis has the gall to revert again. RisingStar (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• comment Rather than edit war- since 3 to 2 is really not a clear consensus either way- the appropriate thing to do would be to stop editing and open an WP:RFC to get more eyes on this. Rather than continuing this super-slow and unproductive edit war. Just my two cents. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that there are not 2 editors against, as I addressed SLIMHANNYA's concern through my edits, but I will open an RFC. RisingStar (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Herostratus and Nathan Larson (politician)

Herostratus seems to have a bee in their bonnet about Nathan Larson (politician). Months ago, when Larson was arrested for kidnapping a 12 year old girl, I started a discussion on the biographies of living persons noticeboard about whether this should be added to the article. (I did not consider Larson a public figure and believed the arrest should be left out.) Herostratus redacted my question and put the article up for deletion with a wall of text rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Larson (politician). When Herostratus refused to stop redacting my BLPN comments, I ended up starting an ANI discussion. The consensus was that the redactions were contrary to our BLP policy. Since then, Herostratus has tried to have the article renamed despite a similar proposal failing a couple of months ago.

Today Herostratus redacted the word "pedophile" from the artcile's talk page ([297], [298]). His argument seems to be that despite multiple reliable sources used in the article referring to Larson as a "pedophile" based on Larson's own statements, the talk page is a different place and WP:BLP prevents us from using the word pedophile without sourcing. At least I think that's what he is saying. Herostratus needs to be blocked from this article, including the talk page, and be told to stop redacting other people's comments. Mo Billings (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm kind of worried when I read I absolutely and in all seriousness think that Nathan Larson (person who has a Wikipedia article) really is the best title. on a talk page. That said, there's clearly enough sourcing [299] [300] that discussing on the talk page whether he should be described as a pedophile is not a BLP issue. (as it involves an ongoing trial, it's not at all clear that the article should say that, but the meta-discussion on the talk page is certainly fine). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mo Billings: I don't understand how you could think that a guy who has put himself up to the public numerous times as a candidate for various offices could not be a "public figure"? That boat sailed a long time ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Defendant here. I don't have a bee in my bonnet about Nathan Larson, I have a bee in my bonnet about WP:BLP. I've been the breath of hell on BLP stuff for private citizens (Nathan Larson is quite obscure) since the B____ P______ incident in I think 2004 before there was a WP:BLP. It's not a question of banning me from from Nathan Larson article, I've done this elsewhere and intend to continue, so you'll want a much broader topic ban (site ban, whatever) if you want me to stop.

WP:BLP says "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (emphasis in original). I consider "oh the source is on another page somewhere" to be a poor source. We don't ref even anodyne facts in an article to a source in another article, we copy them over. Also note that there's no exemption for "unless a lot of people hate the guy" which in Nathan Larson's case appears to be in play.

Complainant's text above, which is now far removed from the refs (which need to be vetted anyway) and is liable to float around the internet on its own (I know it's not indexed, but anyone can copy and paste it or point to it) is egregious WP:BLP violation. This page is in the class "any Wikipedia page" and the first sentence of WP:BLP is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis in original) and then it talks about the need for proximate inline refs. I'll leave it an exercise for the reader to decide if complainan text looks like a dare-you-to-stop-me thing to make a point.

The complainant seems to be really determined to assert his and other editors' right to say extremely inflammatory things about obscure citizens based on refs that exist somewhere else in the Wikipedia. If the complainant's text above is allowed to stand, that pushes the de facto norms in a certain direction. I don't think its a path we want to go down. I'm pretty sure that the Foundation takes a keen interest in this subject, so we had better police ourselves lest we be policed.

I also think that rather than an ANI thread this'd better be taken up a much higher level, like a CENT RfC to modify WP:BLP.

I'd actually prefer that instead of sanctioning me, complainant himself was advised not do this sort of stuff. And I mean it's not necessary. It's easy enough to use vague language on stuff like this. It's not a question of "We really need to talk about such-and-so, should we put it in the article?" The thread complainant is exercised about (Talk:Nathan Larson (politician)#The short description) does not require the word "pedophile" to be used. I changed to [redacted] and complainant changed it back. Complainant just wants to say it, I guess. Whether that has to with complainant just really not liking the guy or he aims to do this wherever he goes, I don't know, but neither one is a good look I don't think. Anyway it's all in y'alls court and do what you think best. Sorry about this. Herostratus (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus You were told before that your redactions were against policy. You are going to be told again. You are not enforcing Wikipedia's policy on living people - you are enforcing your own views on what we should be doing. Those are not the same thing. I really don't want to be having this discussion and having to defend myself against your accusations that I hate Nathan Larson or that I am trying to push some agenda. You need to stop. Mo Billings (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: At the time, I was not aware that failed political candidates who have never held office are considered to be politicians. I am now. Mo Billings (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• This frankly strikes me as a difference of opinion on an editorial matter. I would suggest WP:DR of some form or a post at WP:BLPN rather than the sort of result expected from ANI.Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a difference of opinion about policy and conduct based on that policy. It is not a content dispute. Herostratus did this redacting act before with the arrest (which made it very difficult to talk about the issue) and he's doing it again with the word pedophile on teh article talk page. Add to that his walls of text on the talk page and his attempts to move the or delete the page. This isn't an easy article - there's no reason to make it more problematic. Mo Billings (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright. So here's a couple solutions that might be in play, I think:

1. A clarification at WP:BLP. I have opened a request for one at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proposal (not a formal RfC) re need for citations outside article space. As per my usual practice, I mostly described the case in favor of plaintiff's position, so hopefully no objection there. It's my guess that plaintiff's position will be widely popular, and problem solved. I'll abide by that -- have to. But if it goes against plaintiff, he'll abide by it. On this basis you consider closing this thread here, I guess.
2. Or, you could topic ban me from editing or talking about stuff related to WP:BLP. Because otherwise I'm going to carry on, absent a clear decision per #1 above. Maybe plaintiff is right -- you decide. I'm not requesting a topic ban. I don't want it (even tho it'd be a relief -- you think I enjoy doing this, and being an unpopular scold to boot? I hate it.) You decide.
3. Or something else, or punt, whatever, your call. Herostratus (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus Your interpretation of WP:BLP is contrary to common application of it. The policy does not need to be changed - your interpretation of it needs to be changed. Mo Billings (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Mo Billings, OK I hear you. That's a content dispute. ANI is behavioral issues. You brought one, and you have a reasonable point (I don't agree, and I think you're maybe kind of making drama on purpose and could take a chill pill instead of standing on your right to push the envelope in a kind of unhealthy direction here, but maybe I'm wrong). Maybe you'll get request (right now, I'm not seeing a lot of activity here, so I dunno). But anyway all this is pushing us over to the BLP talk page where I think the real action is going to be. We should have gone there first, but I didn't think of it either, so this whole thread has served a purpose, and that's fine. Herostratus (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus Please stop saying things like "take a chill pill instead of standing on your right to push the envelope in a kind of unhealthy direction". I'm perfectly chill, I'm not standing on my right to do anything except abide by policy without interference from you, and I am not "pushing the envelope" by objecting to your out-of-policy redactions to otherwise reasonable discussions. I understand that you object to people applying the word pedophile to someone who reliable sources literally call a pedophile in their headlines, but that "unhealthy direction" seems to be your issue, not mine or anyone else's. Please stop ascribing unpleasant motivations to my editing and focus on the actual issue. Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think both Mo Billings and Herostratus are overlooking something. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder, not a criminal charge. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles: "Articles on medical conditions sometimes include lists of notable cases of the disease. For the person to be included in such a list there must be significant coverage of them having the condition, not simply a mention in passing or them self disclosing on social media."

• We can't call him a pedophile in Wikipedia's voice, unless he has been diagnosed as such by a competent authority.
• Pedophilia is not a synonym for child rape: "In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors. Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided, because although some people who commit child sexual abuse are pedophiles, child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, and some pedophiles do not molest children." Dimadick (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Dimadick I don't know why you think it is helpful to drop a bunch of references here about "child rape", which is not what we are discussing. No one has said that Nathan Larson rapes children. As far as calling Larson a pedophile, I think there is a common, non-medical use of the term "pedophile" to mean someone with a sexual interest in children. That usage does not rely on a clinical diagnosis. Headlines such as "Congressional Candidate In Virginia Admits He's A Pedophile". "Nathan Larson is a pedophile and a white supremacist. And he's running for Congress". "Alleged pedophile, white supremacist arrested in kidnapping of 12-yr-old girl", "Virginia congressional candidate Nathan Larson admits he's a pedophile", "Pedophile And Hitler Fan Running For Congress Makes Ballot", and "This Hitler-loving Proud Pedophile Was Too Much of a Troll for Wikipedia, but Not for a Congressional Run" are using this less formal but most common usage. I'd be happy to continue the discussion elsewhere, but none of this has anything to do with Herostratus' redacting of the literal word "pedophile" in talk page discussions. Mo Billings (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I added the definition Wikipedia uses for pedophilia and the sources it uses, not the definition for child rape. "No one has said that Nathan Larson rapes children." His arrest is over sexual exploitation of a 12-year-old. Dimadick (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Why do you want to debate content issues here? Larson was indicted for, among other things, sexual exploitation of a minor. That is not "child rape", to use your phrase. No one has accused Larson of raping children. Mo Billings (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Everyone here seems to have missed the comments in the previous discussion referring to WP:BLPTALK, which reads: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." (emphasis added) Whether or not to describe Larson as a pedophile is clearly a content matter, and the posts should not have been redacted. In my opinion this is a settled argument anyway: Larson describes himself as a pedophile and reliable sources agree. Removing this information from his biography is not enforcing any policy, it's plain censorship. Maybe "self-described pedophile" would be slightly more appropriate, but that's about it. We describe things how reliable sources describe them, not how we would like them to be described, nor do we hide information just because some readers might be offended. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• What Ivanvector said. WP:BLPTALK has specific criteria on what talk page comments should be redacted, and they obviously don't apply here. The accusations against Nathan Larson are well-sourced, and it is appropriate to discuss them on the talk page to determine whether or how they should be included in the article. Herostratus needs to stop redacting and editing other users' comments, as it is a violation of WP:TPO. If they cannot agree to that willingly, they should be forced to stop. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• The redactions are probably OTT but I'm not sure "pedophile" is well sourced. Per WP:HEADLINES the USA Today source doesn't support. Which leaves HuffPost, which is also what The Independent (and USA Today) are admittedly basing from. All the sourcing stems from the following: It’s a mix of both. When people go over the top, there’s a grain of truth to what they say. I don't think this is sufficient for saying he likes being described as a paedophile, or uses that term on himself. Probably fails WP:BLPSTYLE + MOS:LABEL imo. Not to mention the pending court case which only compounds these concerns. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That's completely a content discussion, but if one wanted to know that "pedophile" was well sourced, one would have to look at the actual sources instead of just the headlines which I cherry-picked from the references used in the article. Feel free to start a discussion on the talk page. Be careful not to use the word "pedophile", though, because Herostratus may redact it. That is why I started the discussion here, not content issues. Mo Billings (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

    Let me link my comment back to this discussion: I think it's not a clear-cut case of inclusion (as some comments above say), and Hero's content concerns have some merit. A discussion should happen, and there's no grounds to redact such a discussion from happening. Ideally Hero can acknowledge that (Or, you could topic ban me ... Because otherwise I'm going to carry on, absent a clear decision per #1 above. does not seem like an acknowledgement) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Note: Mo Billings is blocked as a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/World's Lamest Critic. --Blablubbs|talk 23:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Unfair behaviour happening with me.

Hi Admins, I've been subject to unfair and uncivil behaviour with me on wikipedia. I don't know if this is the correct venue to discuss this. Please see Draft_talk:Zeyan_Shafiq, I have been repeatedly called as Paid Editor and accused of sockpuppetry, i do completely know that according to wikipedia's policies i am a paid editor and i have always followed those guidelines. Since my start i've just been reading the wikipedia policies about everything, When i joined wikipedia i thought my only task would be to watch my organisation's page but being an active editor on liquipedia(which is another wiki for esports) i gained interest for this wikipedia as well. I started contributing to the Esports here, and after reading the policies i decided to work on Shafiq's article since as per my research i thought it meets wikipedia's policies and would be a good addition here. I Followed all the due policies, I Raised a Deletion Review request, I Created an improved draft, I made it neutral, Trimmed the promotional content, I Tried my best to resolve all the queries that were addressed in the AfD earlier, The AfD was stormed badly by sockpuppets, and no one addressed the queries raised there properly. But i was today again accused of the same things, i was accused of sockpuppetry even after a Checkuser was done. I'm writing it here to understand how do i respond to such things. If i respond in an Uncivil or bad-faith manner i am sure i will get blocked within no time. But these things certainly affect me, I Feel as if i am doing something wrong. Just tell me one wikipedia's policy that i am violating. And if this isn't stopped how would new editors be encouraged to join wikipedia? I apologise in advance if this is the wrong venue but i couldn't think of any other venue. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 21:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Abhayesports, would it really have been that difficult to actually read the multiple large banners telling you that when you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page? I have done so for you this time, but please learn how to comprehend basic instructions if you desire to contribute here. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 21:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

M Imtiaz, I did not accuse any single person that's why didn't notify anyone. I've been subject to this since the start and my only reason to post it here was to seek any resolution if i encounter this again. I have no grudges with anyone because we are all here to contribute and build. There should be no place for grudges but i'm unable to understand why so many people have grudges with me. I am always ready for a rational discussion for anything that i say but unfortunately i never get that fair chance because i'm a new editor. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 21:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

M Imtiaz, haha, you've done the same what I mentioned just above, accusing me of sock puppetry here lol User_talk:TheAafi I should notify you that the sockfarm has posted yet another thread about you at ANI how did you figure out? Can you care to explain it? Also just for your kind information User TheAafi isn't involved in this at all if I would’ve done something like this and accused you of false allegation I’d have been blocked by now and you shouldn't be making assumptions on your own and you should rather read the thread fully once and maybe you would come to know about the issue that i am addressing here, also what policy on wikipedia authorises you to accuse me of sockpuppetry? Please share the relevant document, Now please don't ask me to follow WP:AGF, i have always followed it and that’s the reason why everyone talks to me rudely lol, give and take respect isn’t the rule here. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 21:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a spillover from a Deletion Review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 2. It appears to me that Abhay's client first hired an undisclosed paid editor, and that an article was speedy-deleted, and so now they have hired Abhay as a disclosed Paid Editor to try to get their article accepted. And Abhay isn't happy that some volunteer editors don't like paid editors. I haven't reviewed the article, but I think that is what the case is. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s not just limited to this, even after a SPI case against me, after a check user against me I’ve been accused of sock puppetry and threats of being blocked, I mean i am no one to stop anyone from filing another case, you can surely proceed and file another SPI but don’t directly accuse me of something that I haven’t done. I don’t want to take the blame for what others have done. Why should i be blamed for it? And I’ve repeated this many times, i am not being paid for this but Let’s assume i am a paid editor, i have already disclosed everything in advance, why don’t i deserve respect? Aren’t paid-editor’s humans? Don’t they deserve respect? Certainly if i do something against the wikipedia’s policies, don’t give me any mercy, block me but if i am following everything, why do i get dis-respected always? Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 00:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Racist and highly abusive IP

The IP that was reported here a few weeks ago (and which an unclosed discussion was unanimously in favour of banning) keeps returning at different IP addresses (in the last week they have popped up as 93.137.2.23 (talk · contribs), 93.140.132.141 (talk · contribs), 93.143.123.165 (talk · contribs) and 93.143.108.84 (talk · contribs) ( each of which I have blocked) and probably a few others I haven't spotted. They have also left messages on my mediawiki talk page, and their latest message on my en.wiki talk page,[301] is particularly abusive (read it phonetically). Can an an effective rangeblock be put in place? Cheers, Number 57 21:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Those four IPs span a /13 range, which is too large to rangeblock. We might be able to target smaller subranges. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie, you beat me to it with your rangeblock; thanks. There's close to a dozen IPs operated by the same person in that range. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

UPE + WP:RADAR

Bobmcp (talk · contribs) - has ignored 4 successive {{uw-paid}} warnings. SK2242 (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Since it seems they have been doing this on-and-off for years without ever communicating in any way, I've indef blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Bob drobbs flooding discussions

On March 5, Bob drobbs (talk · contribs) started a discussion on Talk:List of Middle Eastern superheroes claiming that all superheroes should be included if they are "ethnic Jews" (diff). Afterwards he started three more discussions on the same talk page: this one, this one, and this one, the latter two marked as RfCs. He also started this discussion at Talk:Middle Eastern Americans and took the issue to editor assistance, NPOVN, and DRN (where it was immeadiately rejected by a volunteer[302] who called it "forum shopping"). In total, he made about 60 (sic) edits in promotion of or related to the idea that Jews should be called Middle Eastern, mostly on talk pages. I tried to ignore him, but he threatens and executes small scale edit warring: Help come up with a fair, non-biased standard, that will be applied to people of all religions or I'll keep reverting[303]. After this edit, I put an uw-ew on his talk page. He then added a POV template (diff and again after I removed it, diff). In the hope to stop his flooding of talk pages, I started this FTN discussion. He got very little support there, but still carries on, his latest related action in main space being the addition of the POV-tag to Middle Eastern Americans on April 5, diff. He accused me of "bias" about ten times, and once of not acting in good faith[304]. Currently he stresses the difference between "all" Jews and "ethnic" Jews, but I don't think that's relevant to the question, since all contributions to the discussions apply to both concepts. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The List of Middle Eastern superheroes is almost certainly going to get deleted with overwhelming concensus, with the support of both you and Bob drobbs, which should settle the issue at least for that article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: put forth a Straw man proposition in FTN. Of course not ALL Jews are Middle Eastern; religious converts aren't. Congratulations, he's mostly successfully knocking down his own straw man. But the much more nuanced question whether or not ethnic Jews are Middle Eastern or of Middle Eastern ancestry. I'm not saying definitively either way, but RS support that the idea that they are. 1 2. And contrary to Rsk6400's comment, this is an important distinction. A Jew without any additional qualifiers isn't necessarily of Middle Eastern ancestry (like a random Muslim). But RS indicate that a Sephardic Jew does have Middle Eastern ancestry.

The vast majority of my recent edits have been on talk pages with the intent of trying to get inclusion criteria defined along with adding a couple of POV tags. My only motivation is that clear, non-biased, inclusion criteria needs to be used instead of individual editors applying their subjective bias, some of whom seem to be specifically targeting Jews. If Middle Eastern means "born in the Middle East", perfect. If Middle Eastern means "having ancestors from the Middle East", or being "ethnically from the Middle East" then there needs to be agreement about the definitions of these terms.

Meanwhile, in addition to heavily promoting (flooding?) his views all over wikipedia, and with no agreement on inclusion criteria, rsk6400 has been editing pages heavily in order to exclude Jews. Here's a change he made to a page's lede, with no consensus, where it seems clear his sole intent was to make sure Jews are not included. On the same page, he's made at least 9 different edits in order to remove Jews. So yes, I have questioned his bias.

While these pages remain in such a state, I believe the POV tags are absolutely appropriate, and I ask who's the problem here?

On a constructive note, I once again welcome rsk6400 to join me in defining clear inclusion criteria for "Middle East" pages which will be applied equally to people of all races, religions, and ethnicities. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

After making his comment above, Bob drobbs has re-added the POV tag to Middle Eastern Americans (diff) which had been removed by another user in the mean time, and has created a new sub-section on the talk page called "Vote here" (diff). Regarding the content dispute: A lot of editors rejected his theory on FTN, and I don't think any of them was "targeting Jews". --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: You are the only person who edited a page with the expressed intention of making sure Jews are excluded. You had no consensus to do this:

"Changed "ancestry" to "background" - some people might be tempted to show that Jewish "ancestry" comes from the M.E. of some 2000 years ago"

What you keep referring to as "my theory" is not my theory. If the page's inclusion criteria is "ancestry" and RS say that Sephardic Jews are of Middle Eastern ancestry, you CANNOT exclude them simply because you don't want them included. That's blatant bias, and that's why the POV tag is there.

Yes, I created a new section asking people to share their views on what the inclusion criteria should be. I encourage everyone to constructively participate. And I welcome advice from more experienced editors on how to get more input and achieve rough consensus there.

Rsk6400 seems nearly obsessed with trying to exclude Jews. But he has zero interest in expressing exactly what a Middle Easterner actually is. So, yes, I question his motivations and his bias. How much effort would it take him to just vote on that page? --- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• From reviewing the discussion at FTN and Middle Eastern Americans, it seems like there's a rough consensus against the changes Bob drobbs is proposing, and the addition of POV tags thus does appear to be somewhat tendentious. While I think that it would be fair game for Bob drobbs to continue discussion at Middle Eastern Americans, and potentially even convene an RfC if consensus cannot be reached, the POV tags do not seem warranted given the balance of the discussions at this time. This looks like it's shaping up to be a WP:1AM situation, which I strongly recommend Bob drobbs read. The claims that Rsk6400 has been nearly obsessed with trying to exclude Jews seem like an unfair characterization of their participation in the discussions and essentially amounts to a personal attack; remember to comment on content, not editors. If the aspersions do not stop, sanctions may be necessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I reject the characterization that this is a 1AM situation.There are a number of editors promoting the idea that Ethnic Jews are Middle Eastern and adding them to pages. Here's one example. And, for Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, there are RS which support their claim.

And yet again, the FTN seems nearly irrelevant because it asks the totally absurd straw man if ALL Jews are Middle Eastern. That's obviously not true.

The net result of creating clear inclusion criteria might mean that ethnic Jews are included; It might mean that they're excluded, but a number of Muslims are removed too. I strongly believe that so long as subjective criteria are being used to include some people and exclude some people, and it is being done along ethnic lines, then that POV tag really must remain.. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

In the FTN discussion, you argued for the claim that all ethnic Jews are Middle Eastern (e.g.) There was extensive discussion that followed, where a consensus was formed that this claim is fringe. Claiming that the thread indulged in a strawman of all Jews by including non-ethnic Jews (i.e. converts) is misleading, as it does not engage with the substance of the arguments presented there, which specifically considered your arguments pertaining to the status of ethnic Jews, and rejected them. To this I'll add that I think that your suggestions of formalizing criteria for inclusion are fine in a vacuum, but come off as tendentious when coupled with edit warring over the NPOV template and repeated accusations that other editors are out to exclude people on the basis of their ethnicity. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion proposal comes off as even more tendentious when their proposal is to only categorize people as Middle Eastern Americans if they were born in the Middle East. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: All of the RS in the lead support the idea that the only people who are "Middle Eastern Americans" are foreigners born in the Middle East [e.g.]. I've put up a citation request, and I've asked editors to please share RS which provide some other definition for "Middle Eastern American", but as of yet, no one has. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: I have accused you to editing inclusion criteria solely to to exclude Jews because that's exactly what you said. There was no consensus for this edit and no purpose for edit, beyond you trying to exclude Jews:

"Changed "ancestry" to "background" - some people might be tempted to show that Jewish "ancestry" comes from the M.E. of some 2000 years ago"

Instead of deliberately trying to exclude Jews, you should be asking what does "ancestry" mean?

How much time and effort have you put into this debate? Wouldn't time be better spent by constructively working with me to define actual criteria? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

For those that don't want to click through to Bob drobbs' link, it's a US Census table specifically about the foreign-born population of the US.

@Bob drobbs:, do you have any argument for how that is a good faith attempt at evidence for the specific point you were making?

the only people who are "Middle Eastern Americans" are foreigners born in the Middle East

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: I've made a suggestion of how to resolve the immediate dispute at Middle Eastern Americans, so I'm going to recuse myself from taking any admin actions. That having been said, the repeated attempts to reframe this discussion as being about "correcting double standards around Jews" need to stop, and merit sanctions if they don't. Rsk6400's edits are understandable given the context that Bob drobbs was attempting to label all ethnic Jews as Middle Eastern and their apparent decision to not take a FTN discussion's "no" for an answer. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Encouraged by Rosguill's comments of 19:29 and 20:54, 7 April, I removed the POV tag, but Bob drobbs reverted me. (diff) --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits and hounding

The editor Wretchskull is Wiki-Stalking me through my edit history. He is currently reverting my edits to the article List of most-wanted Nazi war criminals. The sentence I have added is concise and supported by two reliable sources, yet Wretchskull continues to revert my addition. I left a warning on the editors talk page to discontinue hounding me, but he states he is allowed to hound me if he deems it necessary. Would you please block this editors account for thirty-days, to stop the nonsense.

Reverts:

• Revert one: 1
• Revert two: 2
• Revert three: 3

Thank you Blockhouse321 (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I cannot take this stubborn editor seriously anymore.. just read what I wrote on my talk page (this has happened in two different instances, see both: User talk:Wretchskull#Big Bang and User talk:Wretchskull#Stop Wiki-Stalking). Wretchskull (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blockhouse321 An accusation of hounding would normally be supported by diffs showing that someone had followed you to multiple pages; all I see here is three reverts on a single page. You're both edit warring, but you'd need to present more evidence to demonstrate that this is a case of hounding. Wretchskull - I don't know what the background is here, but on the face of it you are repeatedly reverting content which appears to be supported by CBC News, which I imagine is an RS - I can see why someone would find that annoying. It might help if you were to set out your specific concerns over the content/sourcing on the talk page rather than edit warring to remove them. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

attention needed at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/COVID-19#RfC on use of COVID-19 editnotice

This really needs sorting out. Not only is it unclosed, I'm not convinced it makes sense. It says the old template was replaced by a new one, but Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/COVID-19 only mentions - and prescribes - the old one. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Admin threatening to block me for attempting to get an article reassessed

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

---

Hi, @Ferret: threatened to block me for attempting to get the article League of Legends reassessed, which he claimed as "WP:DISRUPTIVE" ostensibly because the article had been a WP:FA recently. Looking at the users talk page it appears that users appear to be unsatisfied with this editor's blocks recently as well. I'd like to be able to request a re-evaluation without risk of my editing privileges being revoked.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, Prisencolin should probably be considered for one or more TBANs (from video games, at least) or CBAN. His attempt to GAR (Not FAR) this FA relates to his long history with the topic area, one that has constantly resulted in fancruft and unnecessary article forks, many contested and deleted at AFD, strange DELREV lawyering, etc. It'd take a while to compile all of it. The short answer is this article languished for a long time under his clear WP:OWNERSHIP, and another editor then took it to GA then FA. His repeated ANI topics of late relating to lists and categories in the ethnic spaces should also be reviewed again. As for the aspirations casted about "users appear to be unsatified" with my blocks on my user talk, he's referring to an IP that was mad they were blocked for disruptive edit requests and vandalism, who has subsequently been reblocked for harassing other editors in that same case. That IP was at ANI already and no one raised concern with my blocks. -- ferret (talk)
  • For the record, I'm not sure why Ferret is accusing me of attempting WP:OWNERSHIP of the League of Legends article, and it certainly an overstatement to say the article was languishing. The reason why I added a lot of the content that was labeled as "bloat" (Talk:League_of_Legends#bloat) in the first place was at the behest of another editor (I believe it was buried in some AFD thread but I can't find it anymore).--Prisencolin (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) For starters, as a talk page watcher, I can assure you that the recent complaints about his blocks are baseless and wrong, so don't attempt to use that as an attempt to smear or conflate issues. Secondly, I'm pretty sure the community has had some serious WP:DROPTHESTICK complaints against your in your efforts in the video game and League of Legends subject areas, so your report certainly only captures one side of things. Sergecross73 msg me 20:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm striking out the allegation of misinformed blocking so disregard this. All I'm asking is that the article be reassessed for criteria 3. "Broad in its coverage" In fact, I'm not even asking to edit the article myself. If my contributions upsets the community so much I'm asking for someone else to fill in information in the areas I think are missing. Anyways the only thing I'm asking for is to be granted a reevaluation request. --Prisencolin (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN at minimum, upgrade to a vanilla ban if Prisencolin doesn't change his behavior fast. Prisencolin, ferret was trying to help you out by politely informing you that GAR is the incorrect process with which to register a complaint with a FA (try the talk page, or FAR at absolute worst, for future reference - your edit was Just Wrong). The fact that rather than accept his revert + advice you instead took this to ANI, which is literally the place where there is a risk of "your editing privileges being revoked", suggests a deep misreading of the situation and a lack of competence. If you want to keep editing Wikipedia, you need to learn who is on your side and who isn't; ferret has if anything been light in his treatment of you, so he's far from your "enemy" on this. (And for the record, I even agree with some of your concerns as far as content... I think that hitting featured may have hit the LoL article's comprehensiveness a bit by leaving out some of the "fancrufty" yet relevant aspects that were harder to reference. So this is in spite of some mild agreement.) Anyway, the VG topic area has tolerated Prisencolin long enough I think, whatever positives he's added has been weighed down by behavioral issues as ferret notes from previous blocks. The community's patience isn't infinite. SnowFire (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think he was trying to "help" me when he literally threatened to ban me in the same statement.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • And yet ferret's advice was accurate? You are indeed about to get banned because you're persisting in this insane scheme to send a recently promoted FA to... GAR or something via talk page edit war. If somebody tells you that you need to turn around or you're about to drive off a cliff, and there actually is a cliff in front of you, that is helpful if tough information. If you drive off the cliff anyway, it's not the person telling you that's fault. It's your fault! SnowFire (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • For the record there is no "edit war" by WP:3RV standards, the tag was placed by me, then reverted by Ferret, and then reverted back by me, then finally reverted to its current state by Ferret.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
        • See below, but upgrading this comment to support a full CBAN. SnowFire (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
          • You are misjudging my intentions if you think I was trying to wikilawyer my way out of this. I've never been subject to a topic ban before so I was asking legitimate question and I have dyslexia so I couldn't read the entire page of information without having a nervous breakdown in light of the accusations against me.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Not sure where this discussion is heading, but if the answer is "Featured Articles can't be objected to if they have achieved community concensus" then I'd like to request that this discussion be closed.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  The correct location would be Featured article reassessment, not good article reassessment. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like it's cruising towards a WP:BOOMERANG. And I think it's less about "community consensus", and more about you just making some bad calls. The situation, the ANI report, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of the history here, but from the only relevant activity that I can see in recent days, it looks bad on both sides. Prisencolin, consensus about featured status can always change, but the article had an FA assessment that ran for one month and took up 80,000 bytes, and then you come along and your challenge consists entirely in the slapping of a template [305], without any explanation or even an edit summary. If you believe that the substantial assessment from two month ago was wrong, you need to make a substantial argument, and at least seek feedback from other people before going for the red button.
  On the other hand, I'm struggling to see the good side of ferret's reaction. Yes, telling Prisencolin off was good, and then doing that with visible annoyance was not unacceptable, but then threatening them with a block? What grounds can a block have? There are no discretionary sanctions in the area, Prisencolin's template addition and then their single revert, though unhelpful, are light years away from what anyone would consider disruptive, and if a block were placed then it would have had to be done by someone who wasn't involved. No matter how annoying the people who edit in your area may be, you can't threaten them like that. – Uanfala (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• He's received many warnings regarding the topic area around League of Legend, from multiple admins. This is not out of the blue, the history is important. It's fair enough though that no, ultimately I should not place the block. Annoyance got the better of me after years of this. If he'd have persisted, I'd have come to ANI myself. I'll certainly take the admonishment to keep my annoyance under better control though. -- ferret (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is in fact, out of the blue. I'm not deserving of a block threat (and now vote) just because I tried to pursue some different avenue of discussion (that is GAR nomination), many months since I last touched the topic.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• To add to this, as far as what grounds could it be for a block: if the nomination was done in bad faith (disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT), that's certainly blockable. This particular nomination was so malformed that it's reasonably possible it was done in bad faith, although it's hard to tell, since as noted Prisencolin really is clueless enough to have potentially done this in good faith... although that raises competence questions then considering how long he's been on Wikipedia, and that he was directly told the proper proedure. Note also that Prisencolin has made weird edits like "This nomination has nothing to do with the upcoming appearance on the front page" out of nowhere... if this nom really was just an attempt to derail the front page appearance for no stated policy reason, that's certainly not collegial behavior. That said, I don't think it's productive to analyze this point too deeply, the general point is that Prisencolin's behavior has been problematic regardless of the reasons behind it. SnowFire (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Hi, Uanfala. I'm the editor who took the article in question through the GA and FA processes. 80,000 bytes is an understatement! If you have a look at the Talk page for the nomination, you'll see that we had to remove things because it was kinda breaking the main FA project page because it was so big. Eddie891 conducted a really, really rigorous review, checking basically every citation on the page. I've never properly interacted with Prinsecollin himself, but I was alerted quite early into editing it that he had a long and problematic history with the subject. I understand why you were questioning ferret's actions but, at the same time, we are only human, and ferret has been dealing with issues from this user for a long time. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Uanfala, I don't see anything wrong with ferret's note. It's a final warning. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN for Prisenconlin, from video games or at least from League of Legends, and even perhaps support community ban – Years of disruption is enough time wasted. If y'all want diffs, here's the tip of the iceberg for disruption since 2014+: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of League of Legends champions (2nd nomination), DRV'ed twice, which the editor then bypassed and ended up at AfD again under another title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Champion (League of Legends). And one barely has to scratch the surface to find the unending issues that keep occuring around this editor, just search the AN/ANI archives or their talk page; a warning by Bishonen even went unheeded (unsurprisingly) and led to a block. This isn't a new issue. That the mere mention of the name Prisencolin elicits instant annoyance amongst or large swath of the community does not reflect brightly on the situation. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉
  • There was nothing wrong with the Champion (League of Legends) article as it wasn't a strict recreation of any content. I recall spending quite a bit of time finding new sources that for an article that consistently entirely of many more paragraphs full of new prose, whereas the last article deleted was just a table with a few paragraphs of prose. I personally disagree with the WP:G7 speedy closure but a deletion outcome was still obvious.
  • I have no idea what happened with the Bshonen warning, this was during a period of my life when I was significantly busier than I was now and I'm guessing I lost interest in the project at that time, anyways I do apologize that particular incident, however late this may be.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN for Prisencolin I honestly want nothing to do with this anymore, but anything to do with FA shouldn't have subpar levels of content and research, which is why I'm requesting GA reassessment.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Community ban for Prisenconlin (first choice) or topic ban from video games (second choice). I just looked over their editing history and the disruption has been a major time sink for veteran editors and discourages newbie editors (many of them children) who really want to do the right thing but need a little help learning how things work. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from video games with the usual offer to appeal in 6 months. This is clearly the way the consensus is leaning and I am fine with that. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN on video game-related articles for Prisenconlin for exhausting the community's patience in this area. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN - for exhausting the video game communities patience for this sort of WP:STICK stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Upgrade recommendation to community ban (originally commented above). Diffs like this and this suggest that Prisencolin intends to wikilawyer the exact restraints his topic ban has. Considering that this entire dispute was over this, why would Prisencolin think for a second the remedy wouldn't cover the exact same matter? Maybe a simple community ban would be easier to parse. SnowFire (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBan from video games broadly construed for at least 3 months. Obstinate behavior is not conducive to collaborative editing. (still thinking on the CBan and watching in hopes that this all sinks in and we can salvage an editor that wants to be here.) — Ched (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from video games broadly construed. I would not oppose a community ban if consensus emerges for that. This seems to be an editor who refuses to "get the message" and abandon disruptive editing no matter how many times the need to do so is explained. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite topic ban from video games broadly construed.The two new diffs provided by SnowFire above indicate that a Tban may not be sufficient but let's start there. Nsk92 (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Just a note that the 2018 block had nothing to do with video games (ANI thread). I haven't reviewed the recent edits in detail. The specific report looks like it was largely due to a misunderstanding, but it would be easier to assume this if Prisencolin actually spelled out their concerns with the article (if there are any concerns other than those comments they made on the talk page in February during the FA review). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• As an uninvolved admin aware of this discussion, it's becoming clear that a topic ban from video games, broadly construed, is in the cards. Seems clear there is no widespread appetite for a site ban, and only a minority think it could be solved by a ban just from LoL. Ched mentions 3 months, a couple mention indef. Assuming a video game topic ban is going to be the result, any thoughts from others on length? I'm usually inclined to go for indef with an appeal in 6 months, but if anyone thinks this isn't fitting in this case, now's the time. (also, obviously, if you think a topic ban from video games is too harsh or too lenient, now's the time too). I'll likely close this at the end of the day, if someone else doesn't do it first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I tend towards indef with an appeal in 6 months, as well. -- ferret (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Same. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I was also planning to close this when the 24-hour period is up, and unless there was a big change in the the way the wind is blowing, was intending to go for 'indef, appealable after six months' - my impression is that has always been the default setting, and I don't see any consensus for anything else. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit: I am extraordinarily confident that I'm not Involved, since my only action was an administrative one last night after seeing this thread, but for avoidance of any complications, from any avenue - even unreasonable ones - maybe it's better that you close it when the time comes, GS. It's incrementally cleaner. My main concern was this languishing, and if you're uninvolved and have your eye on it too, that's fine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, no worries - I'll try to look in later this evening, and will close it if nobody else has already done it. If anyone feels strongly that an indef TBan from video games, broadly construed (and yes, that would include initiating a GAR or FAR process in the topic area), appealable in 6 months, is not the right call - now is the time to speak up. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I can't close this because I spoke to them about this dispute off-wiki, but I would recommend closing this sooner rather than later. They seemed quite upset at how this whole thing played out after their overreaction to the block threat on their talk page. They also said that they preferred that this was closed since the consensus for the indefinite TBan from video games had clearly reached WP:PILEON levels. I don't see how the consensus can be interpreted any other way and I don't have an issue with the "indef, appealable after six months" proposal above. I know they can be productive in the area when keeping a clear head, and would personally prefer something shorter such as 6 months, but since Prisencolin has indicated acceptance of the community sanction, apparently is proactively taking time off Wikipedia[306] and has explained the worst of SnowFire's diffs, there's no reason to keep this discussion open any longer when the outcome is abundantly clear. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing from 5.114.154.5

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

Constantly disruptive edits, adding content with totally irrelevant citations. Attempted to revert user edits twice, other users have also attempted to remove anon's edits. User repeatedly restores low quality edits with next to no explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gewerî (talk • contribs)

• OK, those edits were actually high-quality in terms of sourcing (though I haven't checked whether every one of those books published by Brill and John Benjamins verified all the statements), they were written well, they didn't seem to push any obvious POV. The only problem with the IP is that they seem to not want to explain their edits. This editor, however, got themselves blocked as an IP for three months for "adding anti-Turkish language to article text", and then started this account (it's unfortunate that they ran into a CU who was patrolling AIV). So, for block evasion, false AIV reports, false charges of POV editing, removal of what appears to be reliably sourced material, completely disregarding a DS alert on their talk page, etc., I think an indef block is warranted. If anyone wishes to defend this editor they are welcome to do so, but no admin should consider an unblock request until the editor comes clean. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Passani and ad-hominem attacks

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

---

Can some other admins have a chat with Passani about their pattern of attacking other editors? The issue first started when an article they were heavily involved in the creation of went to AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Voce di New York): they responded to the AfD by suggesting that the nominator must have a COI if they wanted to delete the article.[307] Modulato subsequently launched a WP:ANEW thread about Passani. The harassment of Modulato continued, even leading them to twice remove comments by Passani that they deemed were personal attacks.[308][309] My own attempts to counsel this user led to allegations that I was involved in the sockpuppetry.[310]

I'm done with the situation. I had no interest in the article as an editor, and my involvement was only as an administrator (other than one minor grammar fix on the article). However, I feel attacked enough by Passani that I am now WP:INVOLVED, so I am recusing myself from the dispute. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I have not accused C.Fred of anything, just asked why a comment on your talk page (potentially relevant to the discussion we were having about Modulato's COI) was removed by you without explanation. That is not an accusation. About Modulato, I am now in the position to prove a GIGANTIC WP:COI with VNY, which explains why he is so passionately trying to get La Voce di New York removed. Would love a chance to show an admin what evidence I have (SPI and LTA are the keywords here). Since I am not a super-experienced WP editor, I could use some guidance. Thanks Passani (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block of Passani, whose past writings for La Voce di New York gives them a COI they remain in denial about, and whose continued harassment of Modulato, conspiratorial claims about anyone who disagrees with them and extremely negative tone in general makes them clearly not here to build a collaborative encyclopedia. (Specifically, the website gaining prominence would further their career, which is the difference between someone with a Facebook profile and Facebook, the analogy they keep using.) — Bilorv (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, I can prove that Modulato is a sockpuppet and that he has HUGE undisclosed COI on the article he's trying to kill. Admin please reach out for details or advise on how I can reach out to Admins to provide the evidence I have collected. (Also, the articles I volunteered to VNY as a hobby have nothing to do with my career, as my job is in a completely different field. NO COI for me, sorry) Passani (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

If you can prove sockpuppetry, file your evidence at WP:SPI. If you can't, stop making such accusations. It's also worth noting that being paid is not a hard precondition of having a COI, having worked directly with an entity numerous times, as you clearly have, is sufficient cause to be concerned that there is a COI. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Please note the recently-created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gmacar, from a new account Notaharvardgrad, whose other two edits are comments at my user talk. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I partially blocked them per WP:PROJSOCK. From their comments to you they seem to expect you to know who they are, any idea what's up with that? There's a lot of moving parts here and I'm not at all sure I've got a clear picture of everything. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I am as innocent as I can be here. And believe me, there is no COI in VNY for me. But there is a HUGE COI for Modulato, as it seems to me WP is starting to realize without my help. Please also note that I created the VNY article draft, but I didn't publish it. I submitted it for approval. And another Admin approved it (this was over one year ago). This is the same approach that someone with a COI would follow, if I am not mistaked. Anyway, to prove my good faith, I think I have an idea: I can trim the article and make it look like its Italian counterpart (on Italian Wikipedia). I have nothing to do with that article. It was created by an Italian user. Does it sound good? Passani (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, back up your accusations or stop making them. And I don't know how you can claim that you have no COI when writing about a publication you have written for. It doesn't make you a bad person or anything, if anything it's better to admit to a COI and behave accordingly. I have no dog in this fight, I don't have an opinion about the actual article and am only acting as an administrator here. I've just perused the AFD in question and you behavior there is frankly ridiculous. You are badgering every person who's comment you do not agree with and making unfounded accusations left and right. You need to calm down and drop the stick. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It was all between me and Modulato who kept refusing to acknowledge evidence. About my supposed COI, if you write a post on FB, do you have a COI on FB? If you are at a Bruce Springsteen concert and he invites you and a few others on stage to dance, do you have a Bruce Springsteen COI? I sent articles to VNY because I chose to, there is no money, no obligation, no ownership. I don't own anything to VNY and they don't own anything to me. Anyway, you are right. I need to stop. This started small and escalated as Modulato revealed that he was hellbent on getting the page killed, not fixed. If the situation had not been this crazy, I'd probably already modified the page in search for consensus. Trust me: my job is in a totally different field. I just don't like getting hacked as you-know-who tried to do. Passani (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• This seems sufficiently stupid and hopeless that I've indef blocked Passani and their apparent alt account. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

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

All unsourced wrestling content, all the time

Kingabyan91 (talk · contribs). A final warning days ago had no impact. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's helpful if you provide more context and diff links so we know what the actual complaint is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Everything, it seems: [311]; [312]; [313]; [314]; [315]; [316]; [317]; [318]; [319]. Standard wrestling fan 'I saw it on tv' stuff. WP:CIR appears relevant....more eyes at Mia Yim would be appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Agree, I saw the Edge edit when it was made; a lot of this could really be considered WP:OR. — Czello 14:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked. I think they have good intentions, but it is causing a lot of work for others. I provided some instructions for them, and hopefully they will read and follow my directions. I've made it clear any admin can unblock without my permission. Sometimes it takes a block to just get their attention. They may not have read anything on that talk page, which is common for new users. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I note this user is using the mobile app to edit, which means they may not have even seen any warnings. I predict they will not see the block, let alone appeal it. Suffusion of Yellow's keeping a record of these here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing warnings is no reason to let disruption continue. GiantSnowman 11:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: They're using the mobile web interface actually. It's hard to say if they've seen the talk page messages. Logged in mobile users just get a little number in a red circle. It looks just like the system used by ten thousand other websites to tell you about spammy garbage that you don't care about, so they might not have realized that it's important. They will see the block message, though. But, there's no link to the their talk page in the block message, or any indication of how to appeal. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty good definition of chutzpah: [320]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by users Lithopsian and Narky Blert

I've been trying to eliminate the page Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation) due to there being only one person of that name, but these two are very keen on not allowing me to do that. Up til recently the disambiguation page had two articles, several redirects and several redlinks, and I got rid of all but one of those via prod. The two like to consistently edit-war without properly stating their reasons or clarifying their position; it's not even clear what they want.

First, it took a while (1, 2) for Blert to even realize that the page was full of redirects masking as articles. He then suggested I might've still been wrong, that there still was more than one person that would justify the disamb page's continued existence, and offered a source which, turns out, supported my position. I provided another source (here and here) to confirm. Blert then seemingly abandoned the cause and there was a lull in the discussion, during which the prod expired and one of the outstanding articles was deleted. Lithopsian then came out of nowhere and began laboring to undo everything I did, without offering any specific reason other than there still was a discussion (an abeyant one) ongoing. I reiterated my previous point, to which both Lithopsian and Blert responded by moving the goalposts and making this about disambiguating plausible search terms, however incorrect they are. I gave a similar reply to both Lithopsian and Narky Blert. The former, instead of answering, went on to claim to an administrator that my original prod was made under 'false premises' and demand its restitution. Blert said some nonsense which had nothing to do with the matter and then proceeded to undo a stop-gap compromise of mine and threaten me with 4RR.

To this moment, my last comments, both in the disambiguation page and in Blert's talk page, are not responded to. It's not clear what their grievances even are, but it doesn't look like the two will accept any reasoning whatsoever, it's clear they have no relevant knowledge of classical antiquity (or desire to obtain it) which would help resolve the problem, and my edit count for the day is expired. Avilich (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

All the relevant discussions I know of can be found (in chronological order) at Talk:Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)#Name, User talk:Narky Blert#Claudia Pulchra and Talk:Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)#The purpose of a disambiguation page (which I've only just seen, and haven't taken part in). For completeness, I add my {{uw-3rr}} notice}} at User talk:Avilich#6 April 2021 and my advisory post at User talk:Lithopsian#Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)

Courtesy ping to Graeme Bartlett, who reverted a near-blanking edit by Avilich to the page in question on 4 April 2021.

For now, I will let those discussions speak for themselves. I will simply remark that (1) failure to respond instanter does not mean acceptance, (2) my WP:ES "One more revert by Avilich will be WP:4RR" was not a threat but a statement of fact, and (3) the original inhabitants of Australia are famed for their ingenious missile weapons. Narky Blert (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You intentionally avoided responding the question which would have decided the issue, you didn't simply 'fail to respond instanter'. Avilich (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

No 3RR violations by my count, but right up to the line. Both sides should have been talking instead, of course. I looked at the request for undeletion. It is worth clarifying that Lithopsian asserts that speedy deletion of "redirects", not the prod, were made under "false premises". Lithopsian, what redirects do you mean? Dishonesty is a rather hurtful allegation if exaggerated or untrue. I have made some suggestions about how to move progress forward on the disambiguation page talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The redirects are all the other entries on the disamb page, whose deletion I requested under the same reasoning as the prod. Avilich (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, they were deleted as speedy deletion criterion G8. Of course, I can't see your original request and the criterion you selected. But presumably it's not the same as the article you put the prod on since, if it were, you would have similarly requested speedy deletion. --Bsherr (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

They were all dependent on a single article, so that when one was gone the rest followed. The prod justification seemed technically valid for all of them as search terms, though I can understand that Lithopsian would have preferred that I nominated each of the redirects indicvidually, so I apologize if such a bold move was unwarranted. Avilich (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The redirects referred to were all pointing to the PROD'd article (Claudia Pulchra Major), which has since been recreated by Avilich. A PROD is of course an entirely legitimate process, but using it as a mechanism to remove redirects without discussion seems over the line to me. For clarity, I have requested a refund of the PROD'd article (request outstanding as I write this), if only for its history, and recreated the redirects with hopefully better targets in existing articles. Lithopsian (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

So the article with the PROD was deleted, and then the redirects to that deleted page were tagged G8 and deleted? Do I have that right? If so, what's the supposed false premise in deleting the redirects? That seems entirely legitimate. --Bsherr (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

And then recreating the PROD'd article that the redirects depended on, albeit now as a redirect but still concerning the same subject? So back to square one, but the offending redirects are now gone. Might have looked good at every step along the way, but I don't think that's how redirects are supposed to be deleted. Lithopsian (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an adnin, so I can't see the histories; but when I by chance fell across what is now Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation) a week or so ago, almost all of those redlinks were bluelinks. Narky Blert (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You were also interested in the search history of a prod'd article of all things, for some reason. I wonder what is your interest in that, or in recovering incorrect stray search terms in general. From what I gather you only entered this dispute to begin with because you sensed some editwarring going on, which caused you to adopt a reactionary position by default, that is, returning to the status quo ante no matter the cost. Avilich (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: But you weren't talking about the PROD or whatever was created in its place after it was deleted. You wrote that the redirects were speedily deleted "under false premises". That apparently was a false statement, WP:Casting aspersions on Avilich. Very unimpressed with that conduct. --Bsherr (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Notification posted at WT:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#An ANI case. Narky Blert (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on the claims of disruptive editing or the like, but on the substantive matter of whether anyone other than the wife of Varus was called Claudia Pulchra or is so-called in current scholarship, User:Avilich has provided a substantial range of sources and a search for "Claudia Pulchra" on Google Books seems to confirm: no one uses "Claudia Pulchra" for any other individual. Furius (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

So the one person actually referred by that name is the last line of a long list of non-notable maybe,possibly named the same who require a re-direct to establish them at that name and then in most cases re-direct to a single mention in an article about their husband? Certainly not doing a reader any favors there. Slywriter (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I will note that Avilich has been very argumentative. And Avilich has cause most of the disruption here. I have also restored one redirect that should not have been deleted as it was created due to renaming of a page that had been there for over 6 years. So that was not a "recently created" name. Disambiguation pages can contain many redlinks, and do not need to be deleted just because they do! There just needs to be a proper civil discussion about what is real, what is duplicate, and what will never be notable. That is not for this venue though. The prod can be reversed on request. So this is an administrator that someone can take. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

IMO this didn't need to be referred to ANI. This is an argument over how best to apply Wikipedia policy to a disambiguation page, and should have been resolved there or with community input at Classical Greece and Rome. With respect to the issue, I disagree with Avilich's interpretation of old and new scholarship: the DGRBM is dated, but still a vital source; I'm not going to argue that at length here, except to say that if important scholarship once did support a particular name—especially a plausible one like the one at issue here—then it makes perfect sense to have a disambiguation page, redirects, and hatnotes, even if current scholarship does not use that name (which, I point out, is not the same as refuting it). I think that was the principle upon which Narky Blert was standing, and what Lithopsian was getting at. But more importantly, skimming Narky Blert's arguments I don't see anything disruptive or provocative, and having interacted with him before I wouldn't expect to. I don't see disruptive editing. P Aculeius (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I only argued the DGRBM is unreliable before finding out it actually supports (pp. 761–62) my original point. Apparently believing the other party would read his own source is to expect too much. I couldn't find any instance in older scholarship of the name being used in the manner you speak, and the whole stash seems to be a mess created by a single editor 5 years ago. Avilich (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You may not have noticed but there was persistent editwarring and a very low willingness by the opposing party to actually engage in conversation. They ignored comments of mine, shamelessly gave some misdirecting or misleading reply to avoid having to provide a straight answer, and kept mass reverting my edits based on nothing else than the other having already done so previously. They felt zero need to give an actual, substantial reason why there should be a disambiguation page dedicated to listing redirects with invented names, and, judging by Lithopsian's final answer in the disamb talk page, WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to have been the limit of their repertoire. Avilich (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avilich: Mostly what I see in the discussions is good faith disagreement about how to apply our policies and guidelines to the specifics of this case. I do not see any real evidence of "misdirecting or misleading reply to avoid having to provide a straight answer" etc, not any real reluctance to engage in conversation beyond the apparent frustration with what they feel is the wrong way you went about this. As always, it's easily possible that both sides will continue to believe their preferred outcome is best supported by our policies and guidelines. And with so few participants achieving WP:consensus may be impossible. Therefore using some form of WP:Dispute resolution such as asking for feedback from a relevant Wikiproject may be necessary as recommended by others. But for this to properly succeed, it would require both side to accept there is good faith disagreement, and so frankly I agree with others that you Avilich seem to be the bigger problem since you don't seem to accept that per you comments I'm replying to. While Lithopsian and Narky Blert may be unhappy with how you went about this, and I make no comments on whether their views are fair, at least that's a process dispute unlike your complaints. Nil Einne (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You're not paying attention then. My comment immediately preceding this one offered a solution to the existing predicament, and Blert ignored it altogether by deciding to focus on my wording instead. Immediately after that he went on to revert a stop-gap compromise of mine and put a 4RR warning on my talk page. If you can find a single good-faith contribution by Blert or Lithopsian to the discussion, bring it to me please. Avilich (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you're making my point for me, though. The reliability of a source isn't determined by whether its conclusions agree with or disagree with the current scholarly majority on a particular issue. It's not reliable when it supports your position and unreliable when it doesn't. You may be right about the name, although frankly I suspect that "Claudia Pulchra" was a perfectly acceptable way for Romans to refer to any of the Claudiae in this family when distinguishing them from other women of the Claudia gens. It doesn't take a lot of examples to know that this was a logical construction for the Romans, even if they used it only when necessary. But I digress. As I skimmed the argument, I didn't see disruptive editing; I saw two editors refusing to consider each other's points, and admit that they could both be correct. And in my opinion you tend to be a bit inflexible when it comes to the "truth" (and I'm not trying to be mean; I know that I have a tendency to be stubborn about things myself). Since you must have seen that Narky Blert regularly consults with CGR when there are questions of disambiguation beyond his knowledge, and that he's always quite courteous in doing so, I'm surprised you aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt; reporting him to ANI seems extreme, when you could simply have asked the members of CGR for some input. This doesn't seem to be a situation requiring administrator intervention or some kind of formal reprimands or warnings. My advice is to take a deep breath, and look for ways to compromise, or determine a solution that will be satisfactory to each of you. P Aculeius (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avilich: (EC) BTW, I assume you didn't intend to say that a source/DGRBM is unreliable if it does not support your PoV, but if it does then it's reliable. However this is what your comment says to me, and it's definitely not an argument supported by any policy or guideline. Indeed putting aside alignment with someone's personal PoV, it's generally a poor argument to say I though source X said A so it was unreliable but I found it says B so it's reliable. Sources being wrong about basic facts is a sign of unreliability but since a lot of the time basic facts are not easily established, it's generally better to concentrate on whether the author or publisher has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy on the subject matter etc. Nil Einne (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You ought to have realized by now that the reliability of this source is a red herring, and not relevant to this discussion. I'll repeat this as many times as I must: I only argued it was unreliable before realizing it supported my conclusions. Now I know it supports what I've been saying all along, so arguing what I think of its quality is pointless distraction.

With regards to whether this is the right place or not to discuss the matter. I still don't know what those two even want, and arguing in good faith with either has been a waste of time. Maybe if I had taken it to the Wikiproject it would have solved things, who knows. ANI's purpose is to solve 'chronic, intractable' problems, which is what this is. I don't care about inflicting sanctions or whatever, I'll rather just leave the issue here and let an administrator have the final say in it. If I'm right, case closed, I got what I came for. If I'm somehow wrong, I'll move on, and it will fall to some other unfortunate editor to fix the outstanding mess; I wish him luck. Avilich (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"Although frankly I suspect that "Claudia Pulchra" was a perfectly acceptable way for Romans to refer to any of the Claudiae in this family when distinguishing them from other women of the Claudia gens." But do we have evidence that anyone outside wiki has ever done even this? So far I haven't seen any. Furius (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

We do not, and that quote is plain original research. I must've said this something like 4 times in the disambiguation talk page alone, but the source of the error seems to be one, at most two, editors doing some incorrect page moves and creating redirects 3 to 5 years ago. Although a general search on google returns not much of use (mostly wikipedia mirrors), google books and google scholar show no ambiguity with regards to who is meant by that name. Avilich (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, while I agree with your ultimate conclusion on the content issue to a substantial degree, let's nuance that point a little: we actually can pretty safely presume that some of those other women were likely to have been referenced as 'Claudia Pulchra' contemporaneous with their life, simply because this is pretty consistent with idiosyncrasies in Roman/latin familial onomastics, for the period of the relevant time spans. But the content determination just doesn't turn on that question. The real point of policy relevance is that, as a historiographic matter, only this one woman is known to history as Claudia Pulchara--or at least, we have not seen evidence of a source which contradicts this extrapolation. And note that in a sense we are doing a kind of light original research touch-over of the issue: because obviously we cannot, with mere absence of evidence, prove the negative that there is no other source out there that says otherwise, of any of our other Claudiea at subject here. But under the burden-shifting required of Wikipedia's relevant content policies, we generally prefer that kind of assumption over the the argument that "Well, someone may have called any of them this, so that justifies A, B, and C." This is really a straight forward read on WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BURDEN, ultimately, and that is why you prevail on the content matter.

...Or rather I should say that is where you would probably prevail, if you weren't busy shooting yourself in the foot over the issue. Because I'm afraid to say that the above is the sum of where I agree with your approach to this dispute. Early in the go with the two editors who represented your opposition to some of your edits, you seem to have consistently adopted a tone that was more combative than it necessarily had to be. I appreciate that you are vexed by the issue, particularly insofar as you apparently had to litigate the content issue once with another editor. But that said, you seem to have imported some of your existing frustration on the matter over into more recent discussions. Indeed, from my review of the discussions raised here so far, I would say you need to be careful of throwing stones at a behavioural forum on this series of exchanges, insofar as some of your comments to the two editors you brought here have been less than polite in tone and verging on uncivil. You certainly at a minimum seem to be taking the matter rather personally: please remember that no one is setting out to "make life more difficult for you", to borrow your own wording--and at the point that you begin to view the dispute in those terms, you may be losing necessary perspective. These two editors, whether they are in error about the content/policy issue or not, seem to be following what they perceive to be the editorially/procedurally appropriate course--they do not seem to be trying to thwart you personally. And you are meant to WP:AGF with regard to them in that respect unless they have given you good reason to suspect a bad-faith motivation. Nor is it a good look to speculate at length about their relative command of the subject: on this project you are meant to argue the point of the policy, not try to frame things in terms of your observations about your rhetorical opponent.

You then compounded these issues by pretty much skipping over numerous community process options at your disposal (WP:RFC, WP:3O, WikiProject and Village Pump noticeboards) that could have brought a community consensus to the talk page to seal the deal on your efforts (that you obviously feel represent an important content correction); instead you brought essentially a content dispute to ANI and implied behavioural issues (if not misconduct) by two other editors. When my best read on the situation says that at most they were trying to slow the roll over concerns that may have been perfectly legitimate from their perspectives, considering the complex procedural history of the issue here. For that matter, the argument that sometimes disambigs are used to represent content groupings which do not map directly to sourced nomenclature is, although not the winning argument here in my opinion, at least a reasonably relevant and good faith perspective. In short, I would attempt to de-escalate the issue from here and maybe own up to your own contribution to the issues that arose in in the previous discussion. You seem like a person with a fairly orderly mind, so I think if you read over the history of your approach to discussion with the editors in question, you'll find you missed opportunities to potentially convert their perspective by being too aggressive. Of course, I can't make you concede to any of the above observation any more than Nil Einne or P Aucelius could when they touched on some of the same points, but I am giving you my frank opinion that, given the contrast between the approaches of the parties the community is being asked to look at here, I don't think a behavioural discussion is the field you want to pitch your camp on right now. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That's putting it mildly, 'trying to slow the roll over concerns that may have been perfectly legitimate'; there was tons of obstruction, little engagement from their part. None of them came to my talk page to ask why I was doing what I did (only a 4RR warning after remaining aloof for most of the discussion). The overwhelming majority of arguments in the disamb talk page was authored by me, not them. The effort it took to have them understand or even read an answer or edit summary was astounding, and, when they did, they simply changed the subject and found another argument (which they had not bothered to mention previously) as an excuse to continue with their meddling. As for your 'missed opportunities', I went out of my way to reach out to Blert, whose petty objection started this all, in hopes of convincing him to consider an alternative approach, and he was mostly lazy and dismissive. In the midst of this, sure, I was uncivil, and that sucks, I guess...? Though I'm sure if you even read this reply you'll just roll your eyes, assume (like Aculeius) my tone and obstinacy just proves your point, and dismiss this as nothing more than embittered ranting. Avilich (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, me bringing this here isn't an escalation, it's simply a report of 'chronic, intractable' behavior, which is what editwarring on this scale constitutes. I'm done arguing what to do with that accursed disambiguation page, so what's required now is someone neutral with authority to assess the merits of each party and end this. Avilich (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: This discussion derives from the assumption made by several editors in the early years of Wikipedia that Roman Republican women inherited the cognomina of their father (eg. Claudia Pulchra, daughter of Appius Claudius Pulcher). This is generally not supported by scholarly sources and tend to favour Avilich's position regarding this disamb page (delete), considering there is already a disamb page for Claudia. However, Wikipedia has contaminated the web and some people may now look for "Claudia Pulchra". This is something I have seen elsewhere before and source of potential future similar conflicts. Perhaps a guideline/policy exists to deal with acknowledgment of mistakes coming from Wikipedia. T8612 (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You are correct that in early Wikipedia several mistakes of this nature were made (the sister and mother of the Gracchi for example). But with Claudia the issue is more recent (late 2015), and a standard google search overwhelmingly returns either wikipedia mirrors or sites like geni.com and myheritage. These errors don't seem to have become particularly widespread enough to merit a comment, even the older ones. Most of these errors have been corrected for some time now, so it's safe to assume that, just as the internet may repeat Wikipedia's errors, they may also incorporate its corrections (eventually) when they become available. Avilich (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Whether these women were actually referred to as "Pulchra" in their lifetime is not the be end of all this, the truth is simply that regardless many of these women will be called "Claudia Pulchra" in other works and as such it becomes a plausible search term for many of them. As such I think a disambiguation page by the name is going to be helpful for the average reader.★Trekker (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

But this is still kind of a digression from the main issue here: this was a dispute over how best to serve our readers, and it shouldn't have grown heated; but editors dug in their heels, carried the argument across multiple pages, and it wound up here. I think just about everyone can agree that while the conversation could have been handled better, there wasn't "disruptive" editing in the sense that admins need to mete out sanctions—a simple reminder of the rules and principles by which we're supposed to work should be enough, where all the parties involved are genuinely trying to do the right thing. And really this discussion—mostly civil—should already have accomplished that. This is not an instance of "chronic" and "intractable" behaviour on the part of two editors whose actions are unjustified by comparison with those of others. It's just a dispute that wasn't resolved well. I hope we can just close this referral here. Whether the page or its contents are justified can still be discussed—calmly, I hope—at its talk page; this isn't the place to do it, since the contents here won't be found on the article's talk page, which is where the discussion needs to be. P Aculeius (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

User:ITACCPH committing blatant WP:AGENDA

This account has been recently created, and has attempted to rewrite the article of the Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines) with a blatant agenda, utilizing the article as if it is an advertisement space. They have been previously warned by one of the Wikipedia bot accounts, yet they persisted. As a result, I have had to become involved and reverted their contributions. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The username seems pretty clearly to refer to the church in question, I've blocked for WP:ORGNAME and spamming. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

IPs keep adding WP:NOTNEWS, OR and off topic to Joseph Estrada

At Joseph Estrada some IPs keep adding unreferenced or poorly referenced/off topic/broken syntax with OR claims that it comes from material deleted from a website ("This part gone"). Also [321][322][323][324][325][326]. I keep trying to trim it back to what we can reasonably cover per WP:NOTNEWS but they keep adding it again. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Please try to discuss with the IP first and notify them of this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk page messages didn't lead anywhere. The IP has been blocked for a week and the article semi-protected for a week as well. – NJD-DE (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Problems with User:Neverrainy

User:Neverrainy is someone who’ve I had trouble with before back when I used to focus on editing video game pages. He recently went onto a set of Game Show pages that I edited to follow infobox rules and changed them all back without an edit summary. His edits were adding modern distributors rather than the ones that existed during the show's air dates and removing the BBC as a production company, although unlike most broadcasters they do indeed produce shows in-house.

I then reverted them back and sent him a talk page message asking why he did so and included all of this. But he deleted it instead and reverted back his edits with the vague “No it’s not”. I tried again on his talk page, asking him to look at the infobox to show what I said was true, but once again he deleted it without an edit summary.

I would need some help with this person, and I’ve noticed he’s been blocked a small number of times for unsourced information, and from this I don’t think he’s even listening to any advice or criticism he gets given. I will need some help with this situation. Luigitehplumber (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging NinjaRobotPirate who did the last block for "unsourced content". He's had two, and this sounds similar. The fact that he would just delete your two talk page posts, which were polite and proper, and not comment or use a summary, starts to sound like WP:Tendentious editing. Perhaps they will come here an explain, as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't really remember specifics about the previous block, but this does seem pretty tendentious. It looks like Neverrainy was previously removing citations and adding unsourced content. This is fairly common on pop culture topics because everyone is a subject matter expert on pop culture. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@LTPHarry: You are required to notify an editor regarding a discussion you start on this board regarding their editing. I've done so for you here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Some context as another admin who has blocked/monitored Neverrainy over the years. Neverrainy rarely communicates and focuses on gnoming tasks related to templates and infoboxes. It can be difficult, but is possible, to get through to him regarding changes or misunderstanding he has on template/infobox documentation. Once he gets it though, he runs with it and applies it. Further context: I've long monitored LTPHarry as well as an editor who has operated in similar fashion to Neverrainy, and has required a lot of guidance in years past about proper use of infobox fields, such as misusing fields in Infobox company and Infobox video game. What I'm seeing here in this case is that the only guidance {{Infobox television}} gives for the Distributor field is "the original companies". I see a lot of the back and forth here is that LTPHarry is adding Company and Distributor to show infoboxes (apparently without any obvious sourcing) and Neverrainy subsequently removes it again (In response to his talkpage, saying it's "against wikipedia policy", which if he means WP:V could be true, but if he means the infobox doc is wrong). Both editors need to adjust what they are doing here. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • On regards to that, I am really strict on what the infobox rules say, so if it says "original distributor" and not "current distributor", then I go for that. Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • But that doesn't seem to be what is happening here? In the set of reverts I reviewed, Neverrainy wasn't adding distributors at all (original or modern), he was removing it after you recently added them without any sourcing. Perhaps you need to provide some explicit diffs so we're all reviewing the same issues? For example, are you talking about a case like Special:Diff/1016167055? You were the one that added both the original AND current distributor, so the wrongness of the edit started with you. Neverrainy might not have been correct in removing the original and leaving the current, but it began with your edit. How about Special:Diff/1016405817 this one? Why did you add the "current" production and distribution companies? -- ferret (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • So, as for that... The show currently still airs, and BBC Scotland co-produced the series starting in 2010 until the BBC cancelled it and Channel 5 got the rights, this was already there to begin with. As for my additions, 12 Yard traded as a joint-venture company before ITV purchased them in 2007 and so they solely owned the IP and copyright. Now, when it comes to their earlier shows that didn't last long, like Dirty Money, that was produced in 2002, when 12 Yard was first formed up, so ITV had no involvement with distribution back then. This is all of that done as how I refer to it. I won't be reverting or re-editing any pages he reverted from me until this situation is cleared out. Luigitehplumber (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
        • So where did you bother explaining any of this? I'm not convinced this explanation works with the infobox's directive of "original only, not current", but let's pretend it does. It's not in your edit notes. Your first message to Neverrainy at Special:Diff/1016405630 doesn't, in your edit to that at Special:Diff/1016407157 you add a little vague insulting that he doesn't understand infoboxes but give him no further rationale on why later subsequent companies are treated as "original", and in your final message at Special:Diff/1016575959 you ABF that he didn't read or check the infobox, again don't explain how/why subsequence companies would be "original", and use his block log as a threat. -- ferret (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
          • I'll be honest, maybe I did take what I said to him a little too much, but still. He doesn’t need to be blocked or anything, I just want him to know next time about what the infobox says, although he'll likely still delete my talk page posts to him.Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
            • Right so, that's kinda my point. Neverrainy's reverts, while not well communicated, are more inline with the infobox documentation than the edits you were making. You cannot tell him "The infobox says ONLY original" then complain when he reverts your edits that are listing multiple companies with sequential year ranges, which means ONE of them is non-original. I don't think he lacks understanding of the infobox at all. And I don't really want to defend his typical lack of communication either, he certainly has an issue there. But you've dragged him to ANI when he was, technically, correct. -- ferret (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
              • So, what should I do now? I do want to re-add everything, but he won’t take all of that and just turn it back to how he wanted it before. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
                • But why would you re-add everything? You were putting non-original companies into those fields in many cases, and in all cases not providing any sourcing. His reverts are, for the most part, in line with Infobox Television and WP:V. This can probably continue elsewhere, on your talk page or if you want, mine. -- ferret (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
                  • Okay then, we'll finish this all now. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've issued Neverrainy a warning for failure to communicate. Regardless of the merits of the content dispute, users are not allowed to simply refuse to communicate in good faith. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)