Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1077

Homophobic userbox

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.

---

Brandmeister has a custom userbox on their userpage that reads: This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman. All userbox templates containing this phrase or a variation thereof were deleted as a result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination. They were deleted because the community reached a consensus that they violate WP:UBCR, which states: Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive. I politely informed them of this but they have refused to remove the userbox. Wikipedia is not a forum for WP:FREESPEECH; we restrict speech that harms the community. In this case, content on userpages that advocates for restricting the rights of fellow editors who are LGBT can make them feel unwelcome and should not be tolerated. There is no right to bigotry on userpages. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

As long at the lad isn't posting his beliefs across the project? IMHO, it's alright for him to display said-userbox. Let's not overdo it, with political correctness. GoodDay (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The userbox was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, which determined it's unacceptable. This user is attempting to circumvent that consensus. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

What'll next, not be allowed on one's userpage? I wasn't aware that attempts (in the past) were made to remove the userbox. Are we becoming a Wikipedia of censorship? How far will it go? GoodDay (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination. There's a very clear consensus there. And userboxes are not Wikipedia content. Userboxes are meant to be a fun way to convey one's interests. Not for expressing hatred, there's no benefit to the community from allowing that. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry Tartan357, but would you care to explain to me exactly where you find expressions of "hatred" in the userbox on his page?--Berig (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Berig, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination. All relevant arguments were made there and a consensus was reached, I'm not going to relitigate that deletion discussion here. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

People are welcome to believe what they want, however what they put on their userpage on Wikipedia is very much subject to community standards. We are not a forum for free speech. Given that this has nothing to do with improving the project and the community has already rejected it on the grounds that it is not appropriate I see no way to justify allowing it.

The MfD aside this is very much the sort of discriminatory comment we normally do not allow. Like it or not in many countries same sex couples are allowed to marry and to deny this fact is grossly insulting to those in such a marriage. If it said that they believe that marriage only existed when both people are the same race would that also be okay? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

What will be next? We can't reveal our gender or that we have a gender? Because, it might offend somebody? GoodDay (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

That is an absurd suggestion, and nothing to do with this situation. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I've been aware of their deletion, but didn't start making a drama when they were gone. But as long as my userpage is involved I'll clarify my stance. The claim about "substantially divisive" is apparently overstretched here. In fact, we have a whole Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics/Ideology. And it looks disingenuous to me when people talking about tolerance and acceptance culture cannot apparently tolerate other people's views, throwing around homophobic accusations. Wikipedia editors may have different views on that matter and, as long as we want to be inclusive, we should respect that. Brandmeister^talk 08:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Brandmeister, it is homophobic. That is an unambiguously homophobic statement. You're saying that you should have more rights than me because of my sexuality. Advocating for the elimination of other users' civil rights is divisive and totally unnecessary. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357 I'm not saying I should have more rights than you. I'm saying that personally I believe in the man and woman union just like you believe in another union. That means I have the same rights to express myself as you do. Please don't interpret it another way. Thanks. Brandmeister^talk 09:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed HighInBC, its is absurd. But, that'll be coming in the future, concerning userboxes. GoodDay (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that, so it is nothing more than a straw man argument. If you need to invent easier to object to things that nobody is suggesting to make your point then perhaps reconsider your point. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I have to agree with User:Tartan357. Regardless of the reason for it, this kind of statement on a user page is not acceptable for the same reason that the username "Gaysshouldntmarry" wouldn't be acceptable. There are plenty of social media sites on which people can air their personal views. Deb (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Consensus was quite clear in the deletion discussion that such content does not belong on Wikipedia user pages. If people want to relitigate that then the place to do so is WP:DRV, not this discussion. Unless and until consensus changes there then it should be respected. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• I agree the place to debate this WP:DRV. This is an admin board and admins don't override deletion discussions that reached a consensus. I have removed the userbox per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Best you don't restore the userbox @Brandmeister:, or it may lead to your getting blocked. GoodDay (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• We have a behavioral guideline, Wikipedia:Etiquette, that also covers such issues: "We have many different views, perspectives, opinions, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an international online encyclopedia". Please, stick to it. I have nothing against LGBT and don't tell them what to put on their own userboxes. But since when expressing one's own traditional believe in marriage is discriminatory? Heterosexual people have the same rights as LGBT do. Once again, it comes down to mutual respect for each other's views. The same goes for religion, political affiliation, dietary preferences, etc. This becomes too unhealthy. Gosh, come on folks. Brandmeister^talk 09:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Heterosexual people have the same rights as LGBT do. Correct, but according to you, heterosexual people should have more rights than LGBT people. That's the discriminatory part. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Brandmeister you can take it to DRV if you disagree with the result of the MfD. Short of the consensus being overturned you are required to accept it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

So DRV be it. It's very disappointing, to put it mildly, that users are being harassed and threatened with block for their marriage beliefs in the supposedly inclusive Wikipedia. Brandmeister^talk 09:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Not to put too fine a point on it, but did Brandmeister manually recreate a community-deleted userbox which violated WP:UBCR? That in itself should call for a strong warning, IMO. Softlavender (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Softlavender, yes, that is exactly what they did, and they've admitted to knowing about the deletion consensus when manually re-creating the userbox. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed, even without the MfD this is far from appropriate. Wikipedia is not the place, there are hundreds of websites where you can make your opinion known. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Well knowingly doing so puts it in a different light, and I think he should be warned not do do so again.--Berig (talk) 10:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Further Comment: In my opinion, any effort to revive userboxes that clearly violate WP:UBCR and create a hostile and unwelcoming atmosphere are not going to end well, and will likely be reported to WMF T&S, which has taken a stronger and stronger stand against homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, and other divisive elements on Wikipedia. This is just a word to the wise. Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This is literally 1984. How can so many editors have a problem with homophobic userboxes that were already deleted, being revived and reinstated? Unbelievable, no logic at all. In all seriousness, it's not like there is already consensus regarding that userbox and it got subsequently removed, but the editor still circumvented it to put it in their page. This is the problem here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to be such a pendant, but I'm afraid I can't let that use of "literally" go. It is figuratively 1984. It was literally 1984 37 years ago. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: For the life of me, I'll never understand how people feel that if they state homophobic beliefs in a way that isn't just chock-full of slurs, that it's somehow not discriminatory or hateful. Surely we must have a guideline somewhere about this? I've seen a worrying uptick in these sorts of things online. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Well now he's resorted to just stating the viewpoint at the top of his userpage rather than using a userbox [1]. This seems WP:POINTY and a violation. Looking at his block log and his sanctions and his topic ban and his AE, it seems Brandmeister has a history of being disruptive and brooking no interference. Softlavender (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith and don't accuse an editor for activity not related to editing. Thanks for understanding. Brandmeister^talk 11:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Everyone's past behavior is subject to being taken into account at ANI, especially when patterns repeat themselves. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see how that's POINTy. If the argument is that it shouldn't exist as a userbox, well, it doesn't anymore. If the argument is that he shouldn't express the views, that's fine, but that's not what a significant portion of this ANI thread is about. I personally disagree with their views on this - but I don't see how allowing this is much worse than allowing someone to say "I'm a conservative Christian" on their userpage, which implies this view - and if we disallowed that, that would be quite an infringement on expression. I'm not sure what the solution here is - I generally think it's best to keep controversial views off of userpages altogether - but so far that hasn't exactly been community consensus. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    • • You make a good point, Elli. Not long ago I was hauled over the coals by other editors for preventing a new editor from promoting his Twitter feed on his user page. The broad drift of the opposition was that there is no actual rule that says you can't put your Twitter handle, Facebook ID, etc, on your user page. But there is a guideline that says user pages are not intended for material that doesn't relate to Wikipedia. Deb (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Exactly. I think by trying to create an inclusive community we've created a toxic environment where editors in good standing are being harassed for their views and beliefs. As I noted above, this runs afoul of Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:Assume good faith. There was at least one such case in Russian Wikipedia where a user effectively quit Wikipedia over pressure on their userbox. Some red lines that should not be stepped over must exist. Brandmeister^talk 11:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Implying and directly saying it are two different things. You can say you're christian/muslim/etc all you want, but don't try to prove a point that's present in those religions on wikipedia. The editor not only circumvented the clear consensus to include that userbox in their page, but is now actively trying to do the same in a text form because someone happened to notice that hateful userbox and bring to ANI's attention. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Stating one's religious affiliation does not attack any group or person and does not create an unwelcoming and hostile environment. Softlavender (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• FWIW, "Brandmeister" means "Firemaster". Interesting in this context. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Duden.de (like Merriam-Webster, but German) defines it as the commander of a firefighter unit. I do not think your contribution here is helpful. Moreover, since we are a international cooperation of volunteers, I think we should be tolerant of opinions that differ from our own. I do not support his opinions, but it's good to know who we're dealing with. Kleuske (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• @Brandmeister: I'm just a guy, but I believe your user page is a place where you talk about what you do on Wikipedia, not where you WP:Advocate for your views. I would not pick this hill to die on if I were you. MarshallKe (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I will not argue much over this, but here's just one thing. I've been editing Wikipedia for 16 years, started hundreds of articles, uploaded 25 featured pictures and this is the first time I see such an aggressive behavior towards me out of nothing. I just ask some editors to adhere to WP:AGF, WP:ETIQ and stop harassing any editor for their personal beliefs not related to editing. It's not helpful to wiki-collaboration. And as long as WP:Advocate is involved, it acts both ways. Personally, I've never had a problem with an LGBT user and ask the same for me. Brandmeister^talk 12:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    • If you feel that this is your personal belief not related to editing, why is it on your Wikipedia user page? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
      • For the same reason we have Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics/Ideology to begin with. If you disagree, you can start an RfC to prohibit expressing any personal beliefs on userpages. Brandmeister^talk 12:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• I think it should be pointed out that Tartan357, the user who created this AN/I post also has a number of potentially divisive and inflammatory userboxes. They are: "This user knows that democracy is so overrated", "This user is a South Park Republican", and (I submit this one somewhat tongue-in-cheek, although I personally find it offensive) "This user prefers to watch his anime dubbed". Would advise that there is a WP:POTKETTLE situation here. MarshallKe (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Have those userboxes also been thoroughly discussed? Is there any consensus on them? Did Tartan357 try to circumvent said consensus (if it even exists) and re-add any of those userboxes to their talk page? If not, then this is a false equivalency. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Is this a serious complaint? I don't think those two userboxes are at all harmful. — Czello 13:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've also removed this which was added straight after the UBX removal - Beliefs such as this really don't belong here nor do they help Wikipedia in any way, shape or form. –Davey2010^Talk 12:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • If we're now actively censoring peoples POV from their userpages, it gets hard to defend the view that Wikipedia is neutral. We do, after all, allow direct quotes from a totalitarian responsible for the deaths of millions. Kleuske (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Self reverted. Cba with all heterphobia bullshit so you can do as you please. Sorry for attempting to do what I percieved to be the right thing, Oh well. –Davey2010^Talk 14:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• This appears to be a matter of semantics? The community has stated "This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman" is exclusive. Therefore, an inclusive phrasing is required, such as "This user supports heterosexual marriage." That is very much in line with other userboxes. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Heterophobia at its finest. — Ched (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Really? Have you ever seen anyone advocating having a statement on a user page supporting marriage for same-sex couples but opposing it for different-sex ones? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ched, If you're referring to me as being heterophobic then I'm afraid you're completely wrong. I don't care whether you like the same sex or the opposite sex I honestly don't care at all .... but IMHO in the case of my revert the editor in question tried to circumvent the revert by reinstating it in a non-ubx format. Of course if the community believes the comment was fine and that it should be reinstated then I don't mind being reverted or even reinstating it myself but my revert was purely to revert something that thus far the community has seen as being problematic and as I said the offending text was already removed once per an MFD ... so IMHO trying to reinstate it in a non-ubx format is simply GAMINGTHESYSTEM/circumventing the revert, Hope this helps. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Don't know if I'm allowed to comment since I'm not an admin, but I see no problem with this. It is not our responsibility as wikipedia editors to make sure everyone in the world doesn't get triggered by our views. The editor simply pointed out their view on it which is fine. There was no insult or attacks towards a group. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 12:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Opposing same-sex marriage is blatantly insulting towards same-sex couples. It also implies that homosexual people should not be allowed to marry, i.e. do not deserve the same rights as heterosexual people. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok? We are allowed to have opinions. A person being Communist might be extremely offensive to others. Now we cancel Communism? What kind of mockery of logic is this? This world we live in is becoming crazier every second. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 14:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

"Ok"? You said there was no insult or attack towards a group, which the userbox blatantly is. Would it be okay to have a userbox advocating against mixed-race marriage? I would argue that advocating for a portion of the population to have less rights in society than another portion of the population is hateful discrimination and not just "an opinion", but regardless, you're allowed to think that way if you want. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a government, built on rules and consensi established through discussions. The established consensus was that this type of userbox is inappropriate, so it should not be used. It does not matter whether you disagree with that consensus. Overturning that consensus is not impossible, but using the userbox right now is actively going against site policy. If you want to cancel communist userboxes no one is stopping you from beginning that discussion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a difference between "This user is a Quranic Muslim" and "This user supports criminalizing prayer by Kafir". You can see that, right? This isn't just "having opinions" or "pointing out their view", it's saying that a specific group of people should have fewer rights than anyone else. That's fundamentally incompatible with a project where we're expected to be civil and collaborate with one another. Woodroar (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• "This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman" Pretty sure my parents and their parents would say this. Does that make them homophobic? No. I wouldn't care if he had a userbox saying he kills small babies with hammers, as long as their edits are good. Some people get all flustered over the least important of things these days. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  That's oddly specific... aren't all babies small? If not, what about big babies? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Don't want to discriminate against them too! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

"Does that make them homophobic?" Yes, it's a blatantly homophobic statement. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course. Meanwhile, in Kabul... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

That there are worse forms of homophobia than being opposed to same-sex marriage does not mean that being opposed to same-sex marriage is not homophobia. What a strange idea. Opposing same-sex marriage is advocating for reducing the rights of homosexual people in society. Fairly straightforward. If the userbox had said "this user believes marriage is between two people of the same race" that would be blatantly racist, this is not that different. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. I strongly suggest we refrain from this type of behavior. Censoring userpages due to personal beliefs, reverting them and threatening with sanctions violates WP:HARASS, WP:AGF, WP:ETIQ and WP:BATTLEGROUND at least. I didn't expect to get such an ANI thread after merely expressing my stance on marriage. This has went too far. There's much more to say about this embarassing attitude, but I'll be succinct to avoid wall of text in this thread. Brandmeister^talk 13:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• This thread is very disappointing.
  1. Everybody "believes in marriage between one man and one woman." Someone supporting same-sex marriage doesn't oppose heterosexual marriage. The only reason anyone says "I support marriage between one man and one woman" is to imply an opposition to same-sex marriage. It's the same. If this is somehow news to you; now you are aware. It's discriminatory, not just "disagrement."
  2. It's completely inappropriate to restore a userbox deleted as inappropriate via MfD.
  3. It's completely inappropriate to circumvent the spirit of that closure by putting it on your userpage without transcluding it or without having the form of a userbox
  4. It's completely inappropriate to fill an ANI thread with cartoonish slippery slope arguments as though "don't make discriminatory statements on your userpage that have nothing to do with Wikipedia" means anything more than that.
  5. If you think political ideology boxes are the same, you've missed the point. We can disagree; we just can't discriminate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • They never said they believe in marriage between one man and one woman they said This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman and I also believe that marriage is between man and woman both linking to the article heterosexual. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I was looking at I'm saying that personally I believe in the man and woman union just like you believe in another union, which seems to imply Tartan doesn't "believe in the man and woman union" when it's really Brandmeister who is excluding "another union." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I was typing up a long response above, but Rhododendrites expressed pretty much exactly the same thing I was thinking much more eloquently. It's not that people *disagree* with the sentiment, it's that the sentiment actively discriminates against them. I would just add that, above, Brandmeister says that as long as we want to be inclusive, we should respect [people with "different views"]. Well, inclusivity is a two-way street; it doesn't just mean you get to do whatever *you* want and everyone else has to just deal with it. It means that, if someone makes a reasonable and not unduly-burdensome request of you to accommodate them, then you do it, and I don't see how a request could be more reasonable or less burdensome than to abide by a year-old community consensus and remove a single userbox that is self-admittedly not related to Wikipedia editing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• The userbox was inappropriate, as it circumvents a community consensus that interpreted a PAG (WP:UBCR). As for this, yes the guideline only applies to userboxes, however, it merely summarises two policies that already exist and apply to all content: WP:Civility and WP:NOT. It's not circumventing a deletion discussion to add it into prose, but it's not a good look either, and I suspect it's equally as much a policy violation. There's also WP:POLEMIC and WP:UP#GOALS, and I think the diff is in violation of both. Policy aside, these kinds of views don't have any purpose being aired onwiki. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• I thought I had I participated at one of the MFDs on those userboxes to what I say below (But apparently not that specific one) but I'll reiterate concerns raised by Brandmeister and Good Day here - there's a slippery slope here given that we have apparently we have no problem with other political or ideological userboxes. I absolutely don't agree with the specific statement in question here, but taking that in mind, it is not directed at any editor or named groups of editors, and in fact still remains the principle belief of the Catholic faith (if not others), one of the major religions out there, so it is not like a complete fringe view. So the question of where such political or idealogical statements become inflammatory or divisive is highly questionable (eg in light of the last four years, I'd argue a box that says one is a supporter of the US Republican Party is equally divisive.) The key is that when an editor puts such a statement on their page, they are not editing with that POV on topics that touch that area. If Brandmeister was active on an article about gay marriage and constantly trying to include arguments against it or the like then we might have an issue at play. Yes, there was the MFD and thus technically the userbox should not be recreated, but I think that was a poor decision by the community done without thinking of teh consequences or larger picture. --Masem (t) 13:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  This is not the right place to relitigate the consensus or make special exemptions. Another deletion discussion can perhaps be had, but its result and interpretation of policy must be respected in the meantime. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  No, I agree that the recreation against the prior MFD was wrong. Just that there's a larger issue here in need of discussion. --Masem (t) 14:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• What Rhododendrites said. This userbox is 'civilly discriminating', and while we do disagreement and free speech, we don't do discrimination. This already got consensus in the MfD, and this noticeboard serves for acting upon that consensus, not for relitigating it. People who disagree with that consensus should take it elsewhere and not be posting here. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  While I do not agree with the userbox, it is not discrimination. You could make a lot of arguments why it is inappropriate but that is not one of them. PackMecEng (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. I encourage others to have a look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" (emphasis mine). This is not only a Wikipedia issue, but a blatant encroachment on freedom of thought which we either forget, turn a blind eye or are unaware of. Brandmeister^talk 14:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah... In my experience, when the UN Declaration of Human Rights appears in an ANI discussion, usually it's an indicator that we're heading into WP:IDHT territory. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, please. Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech, and never has been. It's not a "medium", it's a privately-owned website. There are plenty of others on the medium of the Internet where you can express your personal views if you want. Nobody has an unmitigated right of expression here. Nobody is expecting you to change your mind about your views, we just want you to express them elsewhere, not on this collaborative project. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with ProcrastinatingReader that this is a new level of WP:IDHT. By the way, the Declaration of Human Rights also says "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" so opposing same-sex marriage goes against that document. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) That you are not allowed to discriminate against other people on a volunteer encyclopedia-writing project does not mean you are being persecuted for your beliefs. We are not a country making rules for people who live here. We are a project with a purpose and rules to support that purpose. This is not an exercise in free speech. Being sanctioned on Wikipedia has nothing at all to do with your thoughts or opinions; only the way you interact with the rest of the community. The vast majority of speech is indeed allowed as long as it meets the rules we have in place involving treating other users with respect (and yes, requiring that people not be a jerk to each other is much more strict than a nation's laws should be). Asking you to treat the people who edit this project with respect (regardless of whether you think you are) is not discriminating against or attacking you. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Here we go again. If free speech is not allowed here, then why LGBT support is allowed? It acts both ways, otherwise we become hypocritical and dishonest both towards ourselves and others who hold different views. It's bizarre when someone who doesn't respect other people's views by telling them what to have on a userpage starts to demand respect for himself/herself. Now, opposers of same-sex marriage are legitimately important in same-sex marriage referendums where general public opinion is required. Suppressing someone's beliefs for the supposed benefit of others doesn't contribute to equal rights. Brandmeister^talk 14:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Explain in what way LGBT support is discriminatory. Your beliefs are not being suppressed, the policy per the aforementioned consensus is just that the userbox you used was inappropriate. If you want to change that, start a discussion concerning that, don't go against the policy by using the userbox anyway. No such discussion has been conducted on LGBT support, you're free to start one of those as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia gets to tell you which speech is acceptable on their private platform. It does not act both ways because they are not required to be "fair" in the eyes of anyone. They could even compel you to say something as a condition of being on this platform. MarshallKe (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Weird arguments by now. Wikipedia doesn't have any special privileges over other platforms in that regard, all are electronic media, itself part of "media" per Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. If Wikipedia thinks otherwise, then that's illegal. Brandmeister^talk 15:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

There is inherent irony in calling any argument "weird" after having gone down kicking and screaming, and even going so far as to appeal to the Declaration of Human Rights, over being asked to remove an offensive statement from one's user page because the overwhelming consensus of a previous discussion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: MarshallKe is right. If Wikipedia were to require you to state that you believe marriage is between people of the same race, then you'd be compelled to do that if you wanted to edit. It's not illegal. You're confusing your right to express your opinion with a non-existent right to use a medium not owned by you to express an opinion. What you can and cannot say on this medium is determined by the WMF and by community consensus. No human right violations involved. You'd be well advised to read this comment carefully and to act accordingly. Thank you, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I said The vast majority of speech is indeed allowed as long as it meets the rules we have in place involving treating other users with respect. Your response was If free speech is not allowed here, then why LGBT support is allowed? - Again, it's not discrimination against you that other people have the same rights you do and/or that other people think they should have the same rights. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Nobody has mentioned that the userbox was also discriminating against polygamy. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I did notice that. Deb (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• @Tartan357: might I suggest User:Gerald_Fernandez-Mayfield/Marriage, USer:Rev Mick man34/GovOut, User:UBX/Marriage Religious, User:Sundostund/Userbox/LGBT3? Alternately, this gives a list for somebody to propose these be deleted, as well. MarshallKe (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Note that the last one, which is probably the most controversial, Was proposed for deletion and closed as keep. MarshallKe (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure about the validity of the discussion (per (some of those above also dissented in the previous MfD)). Seems like a WP:CONLEVEL issue: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  It is probably worthwhile to have a centralized discussion on the nature of what exactly can be "inflammatory or substantially divisive" UBXes in light of this discussion and those MFDs, which may subsequently require deletion reviews/new MFDs depending on that result. --Masem (t) 14:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• This isn't about 'beliefs'. Marriage is a legal status - it is whatever the state says it is. If you "believe" that marriage is between one man and one woman, you are objectively wrong in the country I live in, and in much (most? all?) of the Anglophone world. You could say "This user believes that marriage ought to be only between one man and one woman", but you would be saying that you believe that rights already enshrined in law ought to be withdrawn from certain sectors of the community - I don't see how that can be seen as anything other than discriminatory. It's a belief you can hold, but I fail to see how it is in any way relevant to your editing here, or how it can be anything other than divisive. The arguments about other political beliefs are irrelevant whataboutism. I hope that Brandmeister will see that what they are doing here is wrong, and remove that irrelevant, hurtful and divisive statement from his userpage, without sanctions being necessary. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Several users agreed with me here, at least partially. It's now obvious that a wider discussion is needed, perhaps on Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes. Brandmeister^talk 15:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Accusing a user of being homophobic is a personal attack. That the community chooses to tolerate such a personal attack because of ideological and advocacy reasons beyond the actual mission of Wikipedia is sad. Slywriter (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Huh. I had a all this sensory overload is triggering my anxiety line for da funnies, but looks like it only took YouTube 8 hours to remove https://www.youtube.com/c/joeybtoonz hilarious video about Comrades SJW. But fear not, I found it elsewhere. Point of privilege! Your esteemed delegate, El_C 15:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• I would suggest treating this the exact same way we would treat someone having a userbox (or posting in plain text on their user page) "This user believes that marriage is the union of a man and a woman of the same race". --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. It does come up over and over again that when a userbox is deleted, it only applies to that userbox. So then we had people recreating the userbox display without actually recreating the template and people otherwise expressing exactly the same thing without using a userbox template as though all of the concerns expressed in the [many, now] MfDs are somehow assuaged because there's no CSS box. As with anything else here, it's the spirit, not the letter that we should be going by. The userbox is [almost] never the problem, and it would be better to stop framing it that way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Have we really spent this long playing a game of silly buggers, including but not limited to entirely misrepresenting the concept of free speech? Consensus was reached at the aforementioned MFD. Said consensus was based on content, not on execution; the meat of the issue was not specifically that a discriminatory sentiment was expressed in a userbox but that a discriminatory sentiment was being expressed at all, on a privately-owned platform to which no user has a "right" to remain. Whether that content is now displayed as prose text or in a little graphic tchotchke is largely immaterial and continuing to advocate for its inclusion is entirely circumventing an agreed conclusion; without overturning the previous decision (not something this noticeboard is to be used for) this issue should have had a line drawn under it from the outset. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 15:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Post-first-close discussion

• I don't think deleting the userboxes is enough, I think the users making and displaying these should also be indef'd. This isn't an acceptable opinion to hold or promote; using this website to promote discrimination violates our terms of service. Homophobia is no different than racism. If someone was going around saying they think marriage should only be between people of the same race, we'd indef them without hesitation. So should it be for anyone going around saying marriage should only be between "a man and a woman". It's time to stop treating this as if it's an acceptable point of view. I don't know about the rest of you but I do not want to be part of a community that tolerates the promotion of anti-gay-marriage opinions. Levivich 16:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with I don't think deleting the userboxes is enough and disagree with the close. The editor may well now be aware of the MFDs, but has made clear that he does not respect them and likely will not comply with them, believing that they infringe on the UN Declaration of Human Rights. There is a WP:IDHT issue here that requires administrative attention. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hard disagree. I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to be banning people for their personal views like that. Brandmeister was wrong to recreate the userbox, and he should be encouraged to keep his decisive views to himself, but I don't think it's right to ban someone for a different view on marriage. I would expect him to avoid any further disruption, however. — Czello 16:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Granted I'm not an admin, but I don't think banning people for expressing their views, even if it is a fundamentally immoral view like this one, is the right way to go either, but there is also the WP:IDHT issue at hand here and a persistent refusal to get the point and to accept community consensus, leading to this prolonged shouting match. If Brandmeister had accepted the consensus of the previous discussion and just removed the userbox (and now the message in text) this would have been over in a minute. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Not for their personal views, but for promoting hate speech on Wikipedia. If they keep quiet about their personal views then I don't care. But this is not the website to advocate or promote discrimination, period, and anyone who does this needs to be shown the door. Levivich 17:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• They may have removed the userbox, but they replaced it with text that is still there. That issue is still unresolved. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Kinda worried, what if a MOD is opened & passed, calling on the removal of republican PoVs or messages from user pages, because it offends monarchists? PS - BTW, why does anyone go around checking others userpages, anyway? GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

There should be no need for checking. If a userbox has been discussed at WP:Miscellany for deletion and formally deleted, anything that looks just like that userbox should also be deleted. But yes, you could reasonably argue that statements that someone might find offensive need only be removed from a User page if someone complains, which is just what happened here? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a false equivalence. The statement is not only an opinion or a point of view, but a discriminatory one that implies that certain groups should not be allowed the same rights as other groups. Political opinions concerning how a nation should be governed (monarchy, republic, whatever) and most other political opinions in general (how much taxes should you pay, what should the government spend those taxes on...) are not the same. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies to GS, but I'm unclosing this. The user still has the same divisive statement on their userpage - the fact that it isn't in a userbox does not make that OK, and I think this warrants further discussion. My own view is that they should be blocked from editing if they're not willing to remove it - not because they hold the view (I know plenty of people who do), but because they are insisting on putting it there when they know perfectly well that consensus is against them. It's classic WP:POINT. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing double here, four GSs! El_C 17:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

But this is no longer a discussion on whether a statement about believing in marriage being between one man and one woman is acceptable on a user page, it has (long since) degraded into an absolute clusterfuck, hence why I closed it - so kudos for re-opening and letting the nonsense continue. If you believe the statement should not be present in any form then remove it yourself/block the editor/do something. The longer this discussion stays open, the more unsavoury it is. GiantSnowman 17:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the offending text and warned the editor in question. If it is re-added I shall block. GiantSnowman 17:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, thanks for doing that - I support your action, and the consequences you have suggested. Your close didn't mention the fact of the user page statement, I assumed you weren't aware of it. Happy for this to be reclosed. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Why would anybody want to go around checking others' userpages? Isn't there something better to do? GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggest re-close there is nothing to be done here, and the above discussion is indeed a clusterfuck. Brandmeister has been informed that site consensus is against this type of political statement on userpages, and has been informed how they may challenge that consensus. If they do not challenge the consensus and insist on acting contrary to it, they must be blocked. Nothing else can possibly benefit from discussion at ANI. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Post-second-close discussion

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.

---

Just as an addendum, they've now added a user box (User:UBX/heterosexual2) which reads: This user is heterosexual, and is proud of it. Like Masem pointed out above, perhaps a centralized discussion about this type of userboxes should be held (also note other UBX's mentioned above, such as this one, this one, and this one). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Concur. Are there any userboxes along the lines of "I'm male and proud of it", "I'm white and proud of it", or "I'm right-handed and proud of it"? Because IMO there shouldn't be. Nothing like that or the stuff discussed above encourages collaborative editing. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, and in WP who cares? (so long as the mutt is housetrained). Declaring your interests is one thing; passive-aggressive declarations which implicitly demean other people is another. Narky Blert (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Ooh yeah, you just can't trust those dirty sinister left-handers can you. Especially the heterosexual married ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I resemble that remark -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah I'd love to see someone add the user box "This user is white and proud of it" and see how that goes over. Support site ban for violating the terms of service by repeatedly posting hate speech on Wikipedia. Levivich 18:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

In reference to GoodDay's comments, I should point out, that while I'm sure the recent stuff does involve intentional checking of the user page and userboxes on it, this is only because it's been drawn to our attention and Brandmeister seems to have decided to test the limits. The user box has been on the page since October 2020 since this change about 3 weeks after the MFD was closed [2], that's over 10 months ago. While I can't speak for how Tartan357 came across it, this strongly suggests no one is really going around systematically checking user boxes or user pages for concerns. Most editors have user pages in part because they expect their fellow editors to see them, whether when getting to their talk page or just if they're interested in what the editor has chosen to share. A user page isn't intended to be some super secret page no one visits, that makes no sense since they are a normal part of how things work here which you can easily get to including by accident. Heck a link to the user page is sufficient to comply with WP:SIG. If someone wants a super secret user page, WP:NOTWEBHOST doesn't even have to come in to it because logically no user should have a user page if they don't want anyone to visit. Given that, it's perfectly normal for someone to be checking out another editor's user page. At a random guess, I've probably visited the user pages of at least 10 users in this discussion in the past 5 years or so. And as always, if an editor comes across something which violates community consensus when using the site, it's perfectly fine for them to consider what to do about it; whether ignore it, bring it up with the editor or bring it to the community. Nil Einne (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sigh, this again? Support a block for the WP:POINTy behavior, which directly contravenes what 力 said above. As for the most recent userbox, it probably ought to be deleted. There's nothing wrong with a userbox that declares someone is heterosexual, or white, or is otherwise a member of some majority group. However when you get into statements of pride surrounding these groups, there is no ignoring the historical context (see straight pride, white pride, etc.) The best case scenario with this userbox is that someone who doesn't realize the connotations adds it to their userpage thinking it a direct equivalent to a gay pride userbox, and accidentally conveys homophobia that they don't hold to the rest of the community. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• There are many similar userboxes and many users who use them. Recommend we stop, put away the torches and pitchforks and get to MfDing. MarshallKe (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• This entire conversation is focusing way too much on "offensive" and not enough on "against consensus." It does not matter how offensive or benign an opinion is, there was a consensus to disallow it and this user is repeatedly refusing to adhere to that consensus. The changes that the user made absolutely reek of POINTyness and a general unwillingness to abide by consensus. Support indef until they can demonstrate an ability to understand that they may not defy consensus even if they disagree with it. Mlb96 (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually, the new userbox is technically different enough from the old one to not violate the old consensus. It should probably be brought to MfD first, where it will inevitably be deleted. When the user decides to add it back again, we can talk about indeffing. Mlb96 (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• I don't dissent from the close, but I would like to make a different point. There are beliefs that editors hold that should be known if they edit in areas relevant to those beliefs. For example, if an editor believes in the young earth theory, I want to know that if they edit biology articles that I work on. I would want to know an editor's views on equal marriage if they edited articles where this could be relevant. So I am concerned if editors are not allowed to state that they hold potentially relevant beliefs, provided of course that those statements do not amount to hate speech. Where, for example, is the line to be drawn in the following sequence, where <R/D> can be replaced by any appropriate religion or denomination:
  1. I am a member of <R/D>.
  2. I am a traditional member of <R/D>.
  3. I agree with the teaching of <R/D> on marriage.
  4. I agree with the teaching of <R/D> that marriage is between a man and a woman.
  5. I believe that the law should reflect the teaching of <R/D> that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Peter coxhead (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I see your point, but I see this community, as it stands in 2021, valuing regulation of speech deemed to be offensive over any desire for disclosure of conflicts of interest. I asked my cat and she thinks community consensus will land on #3 of your examples, because she just doesn't see removal of "user is a devout Catholic" succeeding here. Not yet. MarshallKe (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• If I add to my userpage - "This user is 6 feet tall" - Will that be too offensive? PS: It's creepy that anybody, is going around checking others' userpages. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • You're seriously approaching WP:IDHT territory, so let me spell it out for you clearly: It does not matter how "offensive" the userbox is when community consensus is to delete it. Do you understand that? Mlb96 (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Adding a perplexingly large number of these "what's next...?!" hypotheticals, and/or ramping up their absurdity so as to be indistinguishable from satire, does not make them any more helpful or even relevant. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Why does anyone go around checking others' userpages? IDK, maybe ask some of the 30 people per day who read mine? I'm not running a fanclub, I assume it's because they want to know something about an editor who's just fixed a typo or a bad link. Narky Blert (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support a site ban on this user. They've been warned and given many options, including avenues where to discuss whether the community consensus should be overtuerned and similar userboxes that aren't offensive. Instead they chose to repeatedly add userboxes or text with a similar content to the original one. They should take some time off to ponder why the words they so strongly want to have in their userpage are offensive to a minority several editors of this project are a part of. Isabelle ^🔔 19:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Aren't blocks a last resort? Just revert their userpage & full-prot. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose a site ban. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• This is all way out of hand. Yes, it’s WP:POINTy, but FFS this is a productive user who’s clearly feeling under attack from the entire community and now doing heat-of-the-moment stuff. Everyone’s getting very worked up but all that’s happening is A lot being made of little. Cooling off is what’s needed. Just close this already. DeCausa (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment a short block is called for, but for "continued contempt of community consensus", not "harassing editors". A site-ban is not called for. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Outside of their userpage, how are harming the community. The problem is their userpage, so prot it. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This is basically just the same discussion as before (that I have closed twice!), with the same people making the same points. Yes, I noticed him adding a 'proud to be heterosexual' userbox, which I personally think is just pathetic more than anything, but don't see it as being actionable in the same way that 'proud to be white' would be. As such, and unless anybody beats me to it, I shall close this at some point in the next 12-15 hours (depending on when I next log on). GiantSnowman 20:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) No site ban at this point. The most recent outcome involving a warning of a block is sufficient. Unlike what led us here, the new userbox, while so embarrassing [at least] that I'm surprised anyone would want to display it, has not been deleted or otherwise judged to be inappropriate in any formal setting. Time to let this thread close. Something else can be opened about that userbox, other userboxes, or [the best option] what kinds of messages along these lines are appropriate for userpages, regardless of whether they're in a box or a paragraph or a div or whatever. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any kind of ban at this juncture. As far as I'm aware that userbox is not banned, and while I think his behavious could be better he's no longer breaking any kind of rules. I say just close this discussion and we all go our separate ways. Only reason to resume this discussion is if he re-adds the proscribed userbox. Also agree entirely with what DeCausa said above. — Czello 20:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I think we all should keep our noses out of the editor-in-question's userpage. He hasn't been promoting it across the project. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The time has come to WP:JUSTDROPIT. — Czello 20:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Time to take the dog for a walk MarshallKe (talk) 21:22, 22 August 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.

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.

---

FYI: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/heterosexual2 Levivich 17:13, 23 August 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: Hemiauchenia

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 responded in an unnecessarily rude and dismissive manner to a recent post I made. Any other number of responses could have conveyed their perspective respectfully without being worded as a personal attack. The issue seems that much more pronounced as in the post I had referenced a recent news article outlining bias in editing on the Wikipedia site. It is my belief that the comment was meant to discourage users from diverse backgrounds or with diverse viewpoints from participating on the site by making the experience of doing so negative to the point that it becomes not worth it.

Link: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Naturopathy

E.yorke0 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Three points 1) try WP:Diffs not links to edit sections which won't even work at some indeterminate time when the section numberings change. 2) We get a heck of a lot of people making nonsense complaints about correct coverage of alternative medicine topics. If this is you and I did not read your message so I have no idea if it is, it's easy to see Hemiauchenia's frustration. Perhaps they could have been kinder in their wording, on the other hand it's kinder on us all if people don't keep making nonsense complaints, remember we are all volunteers. 3) Even if we accept Hemiauchenia's comment was not as polite or civil as it should have been, it seems very far from the sort of thing ANI needs to deal with, especially in isolation. So um, see 2. Nil Einne (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think your complaints can be safely ignored too. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is a link to a diff (I think, I am new to the site and not sure exactly how to produce these). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=1040124567&oldid=1040123035

My post was not the type of nonsense complaint outlined, and regardless of how the user Hemiauchenia perceived the content of the post, there remains a respectful and appropriate way to interact with other people.

I brought the issue here because that is what the Wikipedia page "Wikipedia: Guide to addressing Bias - under the heading "How to successfully make a complaint about bias" instructs users to do. Specifically: "Revisit the talk page frequently. Engage civilly with editors who respond, and try to remain calm, even if you feel the others are being dismissive or rude. If you can remain calm in the face of personal attacks and rudeness, you are far more likely to get your way. If things get out of hand, and you have remained calm while others insult and belittle you, then visit the Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents and start a thread, using diffs to illustrate the incivility of the others. Be sure to notify the editors you are reporting. If the editors at the noticeboard agree with you that the others' behavior is out of line, then they will be blocked from editing, for anywhere from a few hours to indefinitely." E.yorke0 (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

How is it out of hand? How have you remained calm when you came here after one single short reply? Nil Einne (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@E.yorke0: is this the only incident you're referring to? If it is, then I wouldn't say that the if things get out of hand criterion has been met yet. Yes, the comment is a bit personalizing (people like you) and dismissive, but unfortunately, this happens quite a lot around here (as elsewhere on the internet; anonymity and being strictly text-based has a lot to do with it), and this isn't by far enough to be actionable. I recommend a speedy close of this thread. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The post by user Hemiauchenia was not designed to be engaged with. Doing so would not have been productive. As stated, the user's comment was rude and dismissive, they referred to me as "people like you", and stated that my posts should be summarily ignored. These are not the types of comments that invite or where further comments from me would even be appropriate. Indeed, they are the kinds of rude and dismissive comments as referred to above. I have remained calm and acted as outlined. It may be that the practice of responding to incivility in interactions between users is different than the theory as outlined on the Wikipedia page providing these instructions. E.yorke0 (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

(EC) BTW I read your message now. You commented that people have been trying to address the issues on the talk pages for a long time without success since it's been rejected by plenty of editors. This very like means it was rejected by plenty of experienced editors who likely understand our policies and guidelines. Maybe 0.1% of the time this means there is really an issue, that unfortunately has fallen through the cracks somehow. 99.9% of the time, there is no issue and the editor complaining just doesn't understand our policies and guidelines properly. While we want new editors, especially editors from diverse backgrounds, it can be hard to learn when you are trying to edit a problematic area which you have strong feelings about; feelings which are at odds with that supported by reliable sources. It tends to mean editors make a lot of complaints which are unhelpful and waste time. By your own admission, if you complaint is trying to get changes which are unsupported by our policies and guidelines plenty of time has already been wasted on this by all those other editors. Again I'm not saying you are in the 99.9% since I have not looked at the details, but you need to be able to accept that maybe you're in the wrong and the plenty of experienced editors telling you that (as I see you also opened a discussion on the article talk page) are in the right. If all those editors are in the right, while I don't excuse Hemiauchenia being a little too personal and testy, I think it's understandable why they. It might be better if you learn to edit in less tricky area you have less strong feelings about since it doesn't help anyone if you are asking for changes which cannot happen because they are in violation of our policies and guidelines. See also WP:1AM. And to emphasise, whatever any of the pages say, this is not the sort of complaint that belongs at ANI even if your query was completely in the right and Hemiauchenia in the wrong. There is no realistic chance of any sanction over that single comment. While I appreciate you are new here, you bringing this here does not give credence to the notion you understand our policies, guidelines and norms here which again means there is a fair chance you assessment of your earlier complaint may not accurate. Nil Einne (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It is true that I am not intimately familiar with Wikipedia's extensive policies and guidelines yet, I have only come to this site recently after a news article published by the CBC outlined that Wikipedia has an issue with bias and as such it is attempting to encourage more female authors to participate. However, I do hold advanced degrees and have written academically, and am familiar with the appropriate referencing of sources - which was the primary point I was making in the post on the other board. I did in retrospect make the assumption the standards used here would be similar, if I am wrong on this front I'd be happy for that to be clarified and to be referred to Wikipedia-specific guidelines for citation.

Aside from this, I would say the rest of what is above represents a conflation of issues. I brought my thoughts on the article I was looking at to the POV discussion board, I did not bring those thoughts here. The only concern I raised here was that of mistreatment from 1 other user in response to said post. Which, based on all of the information I could find on the website is what I was instructed to do. This may not be the norm in practice and that is fair, but maybe also be conscious that new users have no way of knowing this and rely on articles outlining how we should conduct ourselves in what can be a rather confusing environment initially. Notably, it does not follow then that every other post I have made is somehow suspect, which you imply. It is also not true that many other editors have disagreed with me. In fact, I only had one response to the post on the POV board - the one in question. And the reason I posted to have a request for comment on the article's talk page was because I was asked to reach a consensus and there weren't any other editors engaging with the discussion at the time - the issue was actually a lack of engagement. The disagreements I referred to were based on other users' earlier work on other parts of the article. And regardless, none of that is actually relevant to my complaint here and should not have been treated as such. It would have sufficed to clarify that in practice if a user makes a rude or dismissive comment only once it is typically not subject to warnings or actions. Instead, what you have done is justify the actions of the user by blaming my inexperience as a Wikipedia contributor. It is not difficult to see how this would reinforce incivilities in culture rather than work to ameliorate them. E.yorke0 (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• E.yorke0 Your posts are very long, both here and on the noticeboard thread you've linked to - I haven't read through them all in full. I think that your complain is that in this diff, Hemiauchenia was dismissive of your argument. People are not required to respond to the substance of your arguments at length, and if they feel they are without substance they are permitted to say so, provided they don't make a attack on your person while doing so. While 'people like you' is not a phrase I would use when responding to someone, and I would generally encourage editors not to speak to people like that, I don't think it rises to the level of a personal attack that requires administrative intervention here. If there is anything else you want admins to look at, please explain it concisely; otherwise, I will close this thread. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• The comment by @Hemiauchenia was insensitive and unkind but does not rise to the level of actionable sanctions. Perhaps a reminder for all to be more kind in the way we communicate is sufficient in this case. Borrowing this from someone I admire, one of the most critical policies on the project is the need to remain civil at all times, no matter the provocation, perceived or otherwise. The comment here may not necessarily be the most egregious example of incivility but it is dismissive and insulting by nature and intent which, potentially, reduces productivity, engagement, and idea generation. That is why I suggest the caution to act with more kindness and understanding. No one is "required" to respond a certain way but sometimes not responding is better than responding in a non-constructive and dismissive manner. --ARoseWolf 14:47, 23 August 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.

Taking the knee

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 someone please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:2A02:C7F:B44B:1600:3D69:556F:5118:2775_reported_by_User:Bilorv_(Result:_)? IP is on some-number-of-RR-much-greater-than-3 and making unlimited numbers of reverts of now at least three people, including one other IP who clearly noticed the overt vandalism, and this looks to be getting enough pageviews that having these silly claims about "woke Marxism and communism" is a serious reputational problem. — Bilorv (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The lede of Taking the knee is currently a WP:POV nightmare. Compare this version from 8 August 2021 before the edit war broke out and the way it reads now. There's a case for reverting all the way back (about 90 edits) to that earlier version. Steve Baker for one might be surprised to find himself called a communist or a Marxist. Narky Blert (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point. The IP needs to be blocked so we can rollback to the status quo. There's no good faith discussion to be had with someone who behaves in this manner, and no-one but the IP who supports any part of the changes. — Bilorv (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Range blocked for a month, they've been doing this for a while, and I agree that there are BLP concerns with their editing. Acroterion (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looks like Acroterion did this, much appreciated and thank god. But it's a disgrace that we were promoting far-right misinformation for several hours on a high profile page. — Bilorv (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked new User: True Format who popped up to restore the IPs content twice. Obvious block evasion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll semi-protect for a few days as well EvergreenFir (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion, I put a sprinkle of block account creation on your /64 block. Thanks Cullen. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I must have unclicked that option by accident. Acroterion (talk) 18:48, 21 August 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.

197.240.60.160

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.

---

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

Apparently, a sockpuppet of User:Projects, a longtime LTA who persistently denies wrongdoing, not only here on Wikipedia, but on Wikiquote, as well. Something has to be done against him. DawgDeputy (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and protect my talk page and archives indefinitely against this user. DawgDeputy (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I've protected your talk page (for a month) and archive (indefinitely). Wish there were more we could do. Antandrus (talk) 20:27, 23 August 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.

Mastersun25

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.

---

"dude, you clearly have mental issues. Maybe you should stop really drop the stick and stop creating sockpuppet accounts on wikipedia" [3]

"lol, should i even explain this edit?" [4]

"Man I got you, no need to undo my every single edit just because it was made by me" [5]

"restoring native Turkic name to the article (previously was removed by an Armenian sockpuppet" [6]

These are the words of User:Mastersun25. He accuses users of sockpuppeting, reverts edits aggressively on countless pages regarding Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, and pushes a narrative of Azerbaijani supremacy. He has called a Kurdish banned user an "Armenian" [7] as well as everything else he does not like. Mastersun25 is WP:NOTHERE and constantly engages in racist WP:BATTLEGROUND rants. WP:GRAVEDANCING and WP:EDITWAR also apply. These disgustingly discriminatory words and actions can not be tolerated! Krawinskiyok (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S.: Mastersun25 has been involved in past discussions about his vicious behavior: [8], [9], [10]. This must be stopped! Krawinskiyok (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a sockpuppetry suspicion about Krawinskiyok regarding ClassicYoghurt which has been voiced on my talk page, but currently lacks the amount of obvious evidence I'd have required to take action without a SPI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

What exactly does this have to do with Mastersun25? Do you not have an opinion on the things this man called me and others? Maybe concentrate on this beyond sockpuppeting. I could call Mastersun25 a sockpuppet, too; does that mean anything? No, it does not. Krawinskiyok (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree casting "sockpuppet" aspersions

[11] User:ToBeFree and User:Mastersun25 are ganging up on me in calling me a sockpuppet. Wikipedia is a screwed up place, but don't label me as something just because it is suspicious to your subjective perception. This bullying needs to stop, along with Mastersun25's toxic behaviour! Krawinskiyok (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You look indeed like a sockpuppet.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

And you look like you my uncle (Redacted). Krawinskiyok (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Who even are you, Russki? Krawinskiyok (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked this account indefinitely for the above personal attacks - I haven't explored the sockpuppet aspect, if anyone thinks that is necessary they can file at SPI. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I've adjusted the block to disable everything. As a general principle, someone who says such things should not be permitted to speak in the public sphere, at least not until vetted by UTRS. El_C 20:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm Girth Summit, and I endorse this adjustment. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

No SPI required - CU confirmed by Zzuuzz. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, nothing more to do IMO. Good job everyone. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:19, 24 August 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:ගොඩය userpage threat and disruptive editing

This user has been making probably-good-faith but largely unproductive edits for several weeks now. Recently, they added this threat of violence to their userpage. While it's unclear if this particular threat is meant to be taken seriously, such a threat on Wikipedia is serious by its very nature.

The user also exhibits a great deal of WP:IDHT behavior. For example, repeatedly disrupting the layout of articles (see [12] for an example) despite multiple editors reverting, and being seemingly incapable of understanding the problem. Other editors have attempted to explain this and other issues to the user (see User talk:ගොඩය#Calm down) but it appears to be akin to speaking to a section of structural masonry.

The userpage threat is a major, immediate issue; the editing suggests a CIR problem. --Sable232 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Some major WP:CIR red flags. The "threat" seems like a bit of a nothing burger, tbh, but I took care of it, in any case. El_C 22:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I also get the impression that we're dealing with someone who is relatively young, so let's be gentle. El_C 22:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think the threat was serious either, but it's the kind of situation where there's no benefit in trying to discern intent nor giving leeway, in my opinion. --Sable232 (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense; still worth addressing, I agree. You're welcome, glad I could help. El_C 22:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C: This is probably a sock of Wabbittttt (talk · contribs) based on the userpage edit history [13] and overlapping edits to the same articles about a couple cars. ♟♙ (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Aakash Singh India’s continual disruptive editing

This user has made probably-good-faith but largely unproductive edits for a long time now. Just would like to bring to your kind notice of an incidence regarding the article Purvanchal Expressway for example. The user Akash Singh India has been continuously and constantly removing sourced data from the page. In the past, he has several times, inspite of being notified thoroughly of the edit war rulings of Wikipedia on his talk page, constantly broken 3 revert rule and engaged in edit war, while reverting and editing referenced info, making it one sided and biased, apparently inviting sockpuppetry allegations which now I believe is inevitable. Recently, he deleted the entire controversy section of the article “Purvanchal Expressway” which was sourced and put in by an unknown editor, I just restored the data citing unexplained sourced info removal, he has yet again responded with reverting, and also mentioned this in my talk page, ”Good to see u back here. Tomorrow I will create criticism section in Agra-Lucknow Expressway with sources. This is just for your information.” It is there in history of my talk page. I totally welcome if any editor edits or contributes to Wiki but I see it as an offence with the way he responded, as if anyhow I was related to Agra Lucknow Expressway and by doing this he will probably take revenge, totally indicates that he is engaged in edit war. Also, there is already a section of controversy on article “Agra Lucknow Expressway”, I don’t understand what he meant to express by saying that he will create criticism page with sources, and at the same time removing criticism page of another expressway article. What I supposedly assume is that both expressways are built by different Chief Ministers of different political parties, and somehow or the other he has been violating Wiki neutrality guidelines with his edits being kind of sockpuppetry towards a particular political party. Secondly, on Agra Lucknow Expressway article he has been continuously editing the mentioned source info and presenting it biasly by adding his own views. Need your help, as his engagement in edit war has been far more number of times, he has been continuously broken the three revert rule and rarely engaged in discussions on talk page. I have already notified experienced editors in the past, they also asked him to solve the disputes on talk page and to refrain from unnecessarily omitting sourced data, but in vain. I see that he has more than 3000 contributions but what I think is that the more experienced a user becomes the more responsible he should be. Continuous unexplained removal and disruptive editing that he continues to exhibit is something that apparently favours his sock puppetry leaning and is a threat to neutrality of the articles on this platform. Any user would be far disappointed with such behaviour from fellow editors. Kindly look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shresthsingh71 (talk • contribs)

Shresthsingh71, you don't sign your OP. You don't inform Aakash Singh India of this complaint, as is required (I guess I'll do that for you) — because how are they to know about it otherwise? You write one block of text, without paragraph breaks, that is difficult to read. You call edits you disagree with "vandalism," even though they are clearly not, because it's a content dispute. In short, this is poorly-drafted and implemented report, and, just on the basis of this glance, it isn't a good look. Oh, and attempts to discuss on the article talk page at this time = 0. Added: Huh, what was I looking at? Added 2: Ah, it was Talk:Agra–Lucknow Expressway for some reason. El_C 12:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shresthsingh71 and Aakash Singh India:, now with the protection of the article you have the opportunity to both discuss this on the article talk page. Please remember to be civil with each other and remain calm throughout. Don't make false accusations. Stick to content and stay away from discussing editor character. I really hope you both can find a constructive way to resolve the dispute but remember that walking away is always an option if things get too heated. I believe you both are here to make Wikipedia more complete and would hate to see either get banned over a content dispute. Wikilove is a thing and being kind to one another even when you disagree is the way we will build upon this amazing collaboration of ideas (properly sourced of course ). --ARoseWolf 13:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I accept that totally, my only point was that what I stand by is sourced facts on a page, and what I meant to convey was that this user has been continuously removing sourced data from pages, specifically the criticism data, just because he thinks that will somehow malign the image of the particular article. I expect any editor for discussion and a consensus to be reached before any edit is made following a content dispute, but not only me, other editors have also reverted his edits and asked him to not omit sourced data. Even now, has he not made edits to those articles, has he discussed it on talk page?

The problem is, he is editing and removing sourced data, and trying to present that page as only one sided, even though sources say differently. For example, on article Purvanchal Expressway, the sources say the foundation stone was laid twice for the expressway, once by erstwhile Chief Minister and then by Prime Minister. Now he has edited it completely and changed it to “the expressway was announced…” even when sources underlying clearly state the foundation stone was laid by former CM. Also, the entire criticism section has been swept, removed. I stand only against his consistent move to make changes to sourced data, presenting it not as the referenced articles state but as he wants it to be expressed. This is ‘biased editing’. Shresthsingh71 14:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry and vandalism can be damaging to another editor and, in my view, is tantamount to uncivil aspersions of some of the highest order when there is no evidence to back up the claim. It casts immediate doubt upon a fellow editor and potentially hinders future edits they may make. We should reserve that for only when we have considerable evidence to lead one to believe that to be the case. You both are embroiled in a disagreement. Edit warring has taken place. The article is protected for now. Please keep discussions about the content and not the editor unless you have significant evidence to make a claim. If you do have said evidence then I suggest you open a sockpuppetry case. You have instructed the other editor that they have broken many wiki-guidelines, well WP:AGF is a policy we are instructed to follow at all times. It is expected that you will stop casting unfounded aspersions without proper evidence just as it is expected the other editor will not engage in further edit warring without discussing it on the talk page and providing adequate reliable sourcing. A little kindness goes a long way to bridging differences. --ARoseWolf 16:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps both parties could consider looking at fixing the really poor writing and grammar throughout Agra–Lucknow Expressway, rather than arguing about trivialities? Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• I really can't understand the "my way or the highway" attitude around these roads! Over the past ten days or so, I've noticed that the topic is becoming more contentious than our castes! —SpacemanSpiff 01:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and suspected personal attacks by User:96.19.71.229

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.

---

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

This IP has a recent history of edit warring that has turned disruptive over time, and appears to be continuing this disruptive behavior despite multiple warnings. This comment seems to be the last straw here, and appears to be a personal attack. Note that when I warned about edit warring on Windows 93, the blind reason the IP gave in response was "it's fake," which we already know and the sources have acknowledged. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@JalenFolf: I've blocked the IP for 1 week, this has been going on for a while with no sign of stopping. It's just unacceptable behaviour ~TNT (she/they • talk) 17:00, 24 August 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.

Editor Arbitrarily Removed Content and Source, Attempts to Discuss Reach Dead End

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is concerning the article Jeremiah Lisbo. The article contains the following statement: In February 2020, Lisbo was among thirteen young actors selected to be a part of the Rise Artists Studio, a new talent agency developed under Star Cinema, the Philippines' largest movie production company. The phrase "the Philippines' largest movie production company" was removed by an editor because it was not supported by the source. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremiah_Lisbo&diff=1040049761&oldid=1040018807 I then provided a source for the statement, undoing the deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremiah_Lisbo&diff=1040111360&oldid=1040094878 The source I provided is a journal article. Subsequently, a different editor removed the statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremiah_Lisbo&diff=1040209836&oldid=1040111360 I created a section on the article's Talk page and brought to this editor's attention that the reference they removed was a journal article. The editor then revealed that they did not bother reading the reference that they removed. They also seem pretty adamant in refusing to revert the statement back because they arbitrarily dislike the source and don't want to read it. So to summarize: an editor removed a statement and its reference (which they did not read). When it was brought to their attention that the source backed up the statement, they insisted that the source is not good enough because they can't be bothered to read the source. Since I do not think engaging in further discussion with this individual will be a fruitful endeavour, I am bringing this to an administrator's attention. Koikefan (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC) The source provided by him never mentioned: "Star Cinema is the largest Film production in the Philippines". Later he also revealed that the source is need to be downloaded before you read those sentences. MaccWiki (talk) Koikefan (and MaccWiki), this noticeboard isn't used to decide content disputes. If you feel like you've reached an impasse on the article talk page, follow the steps outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (including by making use of specific Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests). Good luck. El_C 10:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Those mechanisms seem to be explicitly about content disputes and not the behaviour of other editors, which is one of my concerns here (is this really a content dispute when the other editor is refusing to read the content they have removed?) But, sure, I will send a request if you say so. Koikefan (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Koikefan, wouldn't hurt to just quote the relevant passage from that source on the article talk page and maybe get a 3rd opinion about it. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing anything actionable in your report right now. El_C 10:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC) User:El_C - The article Jeremiah Lisbo was nominated for deletion shortly before User:Koikefan filed this report. I think that means that the AFD is the appropriate content forum until the AFD is resolved. It also appears that this is the first place where User:Koikefan has taken this content dispute. It isn't the last. They have now filed a Request for Comments concerning the phrase. They also did file a request for a Third Opinion, which was declined because the RFC is running, and a request for discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which I declined because there is an AFD in progress, and a question at the Teahouse. I think that this report can be closed unless there are any boomerangs that have missed the kangaroo. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Once again, the question at the Teahouse has to do with process, so I'm not sure how you can characterize that as "taking the dispute" to the Teahouse (in fact, I was specific to use general language and not link to the article when I posted on the Teahouse). Thank you for your summary. I thought this was already closed, so please close it if it hasn't yet. Koikefan (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC) User:Koikefan - You are certainly using every possible forum either to ask about the removal of the phrase or to ask about the process for the removal of the phrase. I have a question and a suggestion. My suggestion is that you leave the matter alone for about 29 days while the RFC is running. My question is whether you have a conflict of interest with either Jeremiah Lisbo or Star Cinema. If not, you are creating a tempest in a teapot and should reread the guideline on due weight. If so, you should declare it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC) To answer your question, no, I do not have a conflict of interest with either. Perhaps you should look into this: WP:GF. Secondly, I'm pretty sure I have left the matter alone (after the third opinion request was closed). I thought the discussion here was pretty much over before you decided to restart it for some reason by writing a long summary. Once El_C's made his comment, I followed his advice and left this discussion completely. When the third opinion was closed and I was informed that a third opinion and RFC couldn't be requested simultaneously, I accepted it and did not protest. Read: I was not aware that there was a rule that they could not be requested at once. Again, WP:GF. Is that not leaving it alone? How can you suggest I leave this alone when this discussion was completely dormant before you decided to restart it? I maintain that the question at the Teahouse is about process and was not about litigating the dispute in another place. Your insistence on characterizing it that way when, once again, I used general language and did not link the article, is very strange. In fact, the only time I mention a dispute at the Teahouse section was in my opening sentence, to give context. If it would make you feel better, I can delete the first sentence. My question at the Teahouse did not have to do with the specific phrase; it was a general question about what happens when no consensus is reached in disputes, and whether original entries on articles are given precedence over additions. It sounds to me like you're just stirring the pot, to extend your metaphor. You seem to be animated overwhelming by an assumption of bad faith, from suggesting I have a conflict of interest (without any basis or evidence) to not accepting my reasoning for posting on the Teahouse. Let me walk you through the Kafka-esque journey so far: first I posted here. Then I was told I could not post here because it was not the proper forum (I was not told I should not post at all because of an ongoing deletion discussion). Instead, it was suggested I post on the dispute resolution notice board. So I accepted that and left this discussion completely. I went, as suggested, to the dispute resolution notice board. There, my post was closed because of an ongoing deletion discussion of the article. So I thought, alright, I guess that means I can't post there, and accepted it. I was not told or informed I should not try the other forums that exist, i.e. seeking a third opinion (which, by the way, was also suggested by El_C if you would just scroll above). So, since it was suggested by El_C, and I assume they know what they're talking about, I sought a third opinion. Again, keep in mind WP:GF. I was not aware I could not seek both a third opinion and a RfC. So I sought an RfC. Then the third opinion was closed, which I accepted. And now here we stand. So that's the timeline. I think the timeline is important when giving a summary of events. Your characterization of my actions is quite unfair (and not really backed up the events that have transpired), as if I just went to 5 different forums simultaneously and pestered people about this dispute. I went to these fora one by one as they were suggested to me, or when I was informed one was not the proper venue. Koikefan (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC) I have closed the Rfc and accordingly will not be pursuing this matter further. Therefore, as this discussion is now moot it should now be closed. Thank you. Koikefan (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC}

Pitzzaboy

Hello,

I'm not here to "report" anyone for anything that comes close to malevolence, but I would like to request assistance regarding an editor on the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election page: User:Pitzzaboy. I'm not aware of any improvements this editor has made on the page, or others. Clearly, not everyone here should be expected to be an advanced encyclopedia writer, and Wikipedia should be welcoming to editors of all levels, but this user seems to be "setting fires" in good faith, which have to be put out by other editors, ultimately consuming a lot of everyone's valuable time. I don't see the situation improving. Those are highly viewed pages, and the election is ongoing as we speak, and the editor has done things like misrepresent how the election is run (please see the editor's contribution history) so it's not really victimless (10,000+ people view the page per day).

2600:1012:B016:6506:31E1:F0D:B292:C5EB (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I have pageblocked this editor from 2021 California gubernatorial recall election for one month, which is past the election date. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yerfdog71 adding unsourced articles and their complete refusal to communicate

For years, Yerfdog71 has been publishing unsourced and wildly under-sourced articles of undrafted free agent NFL players who played their college football at BYU with no evidence that the player passes WP:GNG. People have tried to communicate with Yerfdog71 on his talk page about notability standards and referencing (example here), however the editor refuses to interact with other editors and deletes any message posted on his talk page. I believe a block is probably necessary to, if anything, bring Yerfdog71 to acknowledge and communicate that they understand notability and referencing policies. I am going to ping @Eagles247: who has nominated many Yerfdog71's articles for deletion over the years. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) The relevant WP:SNG is WP:NGRIDIRON. Players who don't meet that will have to pass WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The articles are of undrafted rookie players on training camp rosters, so WP:NGRIDIRON is not met. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Gordon Ramsay and Rod Stewart had unsuccessful try-outs as professional footballers. Neither is notable because of that; WP:NFOOTY applies. Narky Blert (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, the editor in question doesn't seem to care about either notability standard and deletes any attempt to explain and/or warn immediately off their talk page and then continues with the same editing habits. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed about a block, which is long overdue. Communication is required here, and Yerfdog71 seems to be only using Wikipedia as a sandbox for their BYU football fandom. The user has been here for 11 years, with 63 created pages, a third of which have been deleted (mainly through AfD), with other articles likely to be deleted in the future upon further inspection. Talk page warnings and AfD discussions have not deterred the creation of articles for non-notable subjects. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Yerfdog71 deleted the ANI notice off of their talk page this morning. They have made it abundantly clear that they are aware of community guidelines as this point given, they just do not care. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Paul Brown43

Not sure if that is really a major incident but the user can't edit at this moment.

This user has been blocked for sock puppetry by one of your admins but most of these contributions appears to be good. Am I right in saying this user may have registered under the same network as at least one other person who has been blocked for vandalism? (See this user's talk page as to who the "master" is.) I don't have full knowledge on how the admin who blocked the user was able to identify that the latter was abusing multiple accounts. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: You should not have brought this here. If you have a problem with any block of another user, you should ask the blocking administrator, in this case Materialscientist. You appear to be familiar with the SPI, so I don't understand your concern. And for pete's sake, can't you make your sig bigger (it used to be)?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about all of this, I will now know not to discuss anything like this here. I can see this page is watched by a high number of watchers which tells me this public page has, what Oshwah calls it, the Streisand effect. And I have fixed my signature once again, hopefully you can see it better now.

I will steer clear of editing this page as I now see this falls into the sock-puppetry category. Again, sorry about that. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: Thanks for fixing your signature.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Additionally I have seen the relevant text explaining why what's done is done. Nothing more to discuss here. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Peace is contagious

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.

---

Peace is contagious (talk · contribs)

Can someone take a look at this editor's recent edits, particularly at Sammy Davis Jr.? The problem seems to be one of attitude, as well as competence, and they do not seem receptive to suggestions. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that some guidance is needed. Deb (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

He asked for admin intervention. I responded by undoing his bad edits with an explanation, and now he's reverting me, calling me a vandal. So yes, action is definitely needed. Deb (talk) 13:16, 21 August 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.

Does anyone find it ironic that someone whose username is "Peace is contagious" is acting so aggressively and warlike? --MuZemike 18:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Not everyone's username is necessarily an accurate reflection of their character, though some are... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm actually deciduous in real life EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

... and I'm really rather more a shadow of darkness than a gleam of light ... ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

And I'm El Comandante, pleased to greet you. El_C 20:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Whereas I am both narky and a blert (and not, as one editor once suggested, a Belarusian named Наркиӥ Блерт).

Isn't there a WP:ESSAY somewhere which comments on the inferences which can be drawn from Wikipedians' usernames? Narky Blert (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Not to be an Andy, but I don't see anything in the username suggesting they think peace is a good thing. Perhaps they fear peace is contagious and so are trying to do best to fight this dreaded contagion before it infects the whole world. Nil Einne (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It's shocking but I'm not actually a wolf, a rose, or even a rose colored wolf. Have been known to howl on occasion. @Nil Einne, you just completely blew our minds. --ARoseWolf 16:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• One article that underlies my thinking on this matter is this [14]. At least to me it comes off as extremely rude to when someone tells you they view "M-----" as equally objectionable to "Muhamedan" to come back and tauntingly use the tem multiple times in the response. My claim that "M-----" is equally objectionable to "Muhamedan" is not just built on the fact that they are both deprecated terms, but that in both cases the term falsely implies theological allegiances that the people involved do not recognize. In the case of "Muhamedan" the term to some implies the people worship Muhammed, which they do not do. Some might point out that "Lutherans", "Calvinists" and several other groups do not worship the named groups, and pointing that out would probably be seen as rudely ignoring the desires of the people involved. Likewise members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints object to using "M-----" because it falsely implies they worship an ancient prophet, especially since in the Book of Mormon it states "if the Church is known by Jesus' name, it is Jesus's Church, if it is known by the name of a man it is the Church of a man". However beyond this, there is a more pertinent reason. The use of the name "M-----" to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints implies that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uniquely hold the Book of Mormon to be the rvealed word of God, when in fact members hold the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the Doctine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price to all be on par as revealed scripture and also hold the words of living prophets in high regard. Using the name is very misrepresentational in multiple ways. I wish I had explained this better before, but I have a suspicion based on other actions that the editor in question would have responded in the same clearly rude manner in doubling down on the use of the words in question. This often comes off as an unfair expecatation that I sit back and say nothing about the actions of others that are clearly rude and in this case arguably provocative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Legal threats from User:Ron.Tyler1995

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.

---

Ron.Tyler1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Legal threat (indirect) at Special:Diff/1040589009/1040589722 — DaxServer (talk to me) 14:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

DaxServer, it is rather indirect - they seem to be talking about you suing them, rather than the other way around. I wouldn't block for this in the first instance, but I will warn them. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! — DaxServer (talk to me) 14:55, 25 August 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.

Peaches Salinga's concerns about Paper9oll

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. I just got some really nasty messages from someone called Paper9oll. I was just trying to improve an article about Lisa from Blackpink and he wrote this nasty edit summary then sent me this nasty message on my talk page. He said something about how I should contact an administrator here if he is ever abusive. He is incredibly uncouth and not what I'm used to at all. I wonder if perhaps someone could have a word to him and get him to stop this abrasive attitude. It really makes people not want to contribute here. And it looks like he does it a lot. I'm not one to call for bans, but someone like that is not helpful at all. Thank you! Peaches Salinga (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the edit summary you find so offensive? I am having trouble finding it. All I see is perfectly civil communication about the manual of style, nothing even remotely offensive. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Also you are required to notify users when you bring them up here. I have done this for you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC I simply issued Template:Uw-MOS1 with optional message of quote "Please read WP:SENTENCECASE" to inform OP. In addition, this my revert [15] which has RedWarn generic rollback edit summary. Hence I'm not sure how is it rude message as per OP is stating. In addition, imo OP is not being WP:CIVIL here leaving messages with inappropriate headings and content which I find it as a form WP:PERSONALATTACKS. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this was most definitely incredibly rude! If you are going to leave massive warnings over the changing of an s to an S, which I put with a friendly edit summary, then you are not civil at all! I'd hope that the administrators are not going to take his side on this nonsense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaches Salinga (talk • contribs) 10:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Peaches, you are wrong. There is nothing rude about this message. If you are going to work in a collaborative environment then you need to be able to take constructive criticism better. Paper9oll has done nothing wrong and your reaction is not productive. It certainly does not require administrative attention. I suggest you read the linked information about the manual of style and try to stick to it in the future. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Goodbye good sir! How dare you! I tried to put in your precious diffs and your encylopaedia deleted them! If you are going to abuse people for being helpful then you are a bad place. Good riddance to your abusive place. H2G2 is much better! Peaches Salinga (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The Manual of Style is a huge swathe of documents and it's easy to fall afoul of it as a new user; while no long-term editor would see a problem with Paper9oll's comments I think sometimes it's worth extending an extra hand to help ease someone into the project; if Peaches Salinga would like some additional pointers or assistance in getting used to things I would be happy to help, or to point towards WP:Tearoom for a dedicated newer-user experience. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 10:42, 25 August 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.

Redirects by Misspelling Wizard

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.

---

Misspelling Wizard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor, despite the feedback of a lot of RfD discussions filed against them and a polite note from an admin, continues to create many misspelling redirects per day. Is this behavior appropriate, and if not, are administrative sanctions necessary to prevent it? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This is bringing back bad memories of Neelix, if not on that scale. Misspelling Wizard, this has to stop now. You have been warned about this, and your redirects are consistently being deleted at RfD. Consider this a final warning, if you continue to mass create redirects I will block you from editing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse block if behavior continues. Warned them directly on their talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd support a restriction that they can only create redirects by proposing them at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories, as was attempted with User:Soumya-8974 awhile back. Not sure how much good it would do, though, as they've had stuff like Albony rejected there and then created it anyway. They've got a few possibly useful ones, but the signal to noise ratio is bad. Hog Farm _Talk 19:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I just need them to stop creating these for now and given the signal/noise ratio, I think they need to do something other than waste people's time at Requests for redirects. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

As the reviewer for roughly 150 redirects at WP:AFCRC
for Misspelling Wizard, I agree with @Deepfriedokra. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:13, 25 August 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.

Persistent WP:BLP issues at Jenelle Evans

Yes, this needs lengthier protection, but it also merits a look at the edit history for defamatory content. May need a bit of rev/deletion. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• There's even unsourced content that skates on thin WP:BLP ice. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• I've semi-protected the article for 1 month and stubified the article. I'd stumbled on it earlier through WP:AIV. Mz7 (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Mz7. And Firefly for the decision to redirect, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Frostyhelmet25

• Frostyhelmet25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user initial appeared constructive for a short period of time, but they have been getting increasingly problematic, including vandalism and BLP violations:

• 25 June 2021 [16]: vandalism at Evo Morales, received 1st warning.
• 3 July 2021 [17]: vandalism at Min Aung Hlaing, received 2nd warning.
• 20 July 2021 [18]: vandalism at Pedro Castillo.
• 23 July 2021 [19]: vandalism at Rodrigo Duterte.
• 27 July 2021 [20]: repeated vandalism at Min Aung Hlaing, received 3rd warning.
• 2 August 2021 [21]: vandalism at Hugo Chávez, received 4th warning (probably because of a different edit with NPOV issue [22].

Other edits had problems related to NPOV, lack of sourcing, BLP violations, and introduction of evident factual errors. The user failed to communicate at all, and did not adjust their behavior after any of the warnings. MarioGom (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

While they have not edited in about a week there are multiple serious BLP violations including others not listed here. I don't think it is a good idea to wait for them to make more serious BLP violations. I have indefinitely blocked them for multiple serious BLP violations. They can have their behavior reviewed if and when they come back and ask for a block review. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Continued disruptive COI editing at RPSI

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.

---

• Diningcarriage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Diningcarriage has been reasonably identified one of a number of COI editor by admins at Railway Preservation Society of Ireland (RSPI), some having a negative COI and possibly intending to simply to disruptive. Whether intentional or not that has certainly interferred with my update of that article. I believe I, and others, have issued almost every form of warning imaginable. Scrutinisers of this must consider whether I am issuing warnings to gain an editorial advantage, and must scrutinise my actions in totality. I would have likely to have got through the most of the update this weekend, RL, distractions and disruption to this article have all intervened; and my work on this is suspended. An option would be to stubify, work on a user page and then copy page over the top. I would like to collaberate in such as enterprise but realistically a collaberative effort in draft could equally be interfered with. The final edits questioning my improvements were at [23] which I am currently leaving in situ to de-escalate the edit war but leaves article in hiatus. Obviously risk of possible WP:BOOMERANG on myself but the minimum would be voluntary I-BANs/T-BANs as required. (Initially misposted to WP:AN by mistake) Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay ... I may have a WP:BOOMERANG here. If there has been a campaign against the article it has won. Will WP:STUBIFY per admin advice on the page. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

To confirm I have WP:STUBIFYed the article as originally suggested by an admin. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Reconstruction

While not mentioned here an admin has read this notice and responded on the article talk page and my talk page. The admin has indicated I am fit to proceed on a non-COI basis. The admin has supported the WP:STUBIFY and has notified WikiProject Trains in an assist of a reconstruction. Members there are likely to have access to resources I do not easily have access to, equally I have have access to resources they liikely do not. Some points: I very much wish to return to a Harvard style referencing. With very long citations it can be extremely hard to concentrate on seeing the prose from the citations at time; and I left a requested edit by a paid COI at Emer Cooke having spent over an hour longer than I needed to because it was not using Havard referencing. I'm meant to gain consensus for this. I one is looking for references/citations checking Old revision of Railway Preservation Society of Ireland is an invaluable place for a few easily easy resource pick up or pointers. In the final analysis if good faith challenged on this I accept I may have to, perhaps after a quick short discussed, back it out and raise a formal discussion or RFC. I can be arrogant and suggest I near top-link in some aspects wikipedia editing. I also need to be humble and state, that in addition to my grammar and spelling I make some real factual whoopers at time. When corrected the article usually ends up better. I intend to aim the structure of a Rolling stock section towards the structure, if not the exact words, of that at Old revision of Railway Preservation Society of Ireland; That is with locomotives grouped for comparison. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

(Self trout - this was meant for RSPI talk page) Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark has made serious allegations about admins in an edit summary and needs to be blocked indefinitely. His alts Bigdelboy & Djm-mobile should also be blocked. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:49, 25 August 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.

Disruption at RPSI, Part 2

As one of the admins mentioned in the "Reconstruction" section above, I feel I have a right express my feelings on this matter. At 08:44 today Djm-leighpark made this edit to the Railway Preservation Society of Ireland article, with the edit summary "Removing contributions and returning to stub. If the fecking admins are not going to deal properly with fecking properly with a fecking BLPCRIME/BLP1E or BLPTALK then I had better get myself fecking well blocked for a bit. I hope ye fecking admins on this site and fecking pleased and fecking proud of your fecking yourselves fecking selves. There are proper manners for dealing with safeguarding matters and it is not to bring it to this wikipediia sniping campaign. I may join the RPSI!" I get the distinct impression that this edit was in response to my comments made at 05:55 at talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland#Presumption to privacy and UNDUE. I don't consider that any comment I made then, or at any other time on that talk page has violated BLPTALK. It is obvious that Djm-leighpark wants no mention whatsoever of any scandals involving RPSI members in the article at all. Other editors apparently disagree, but seem to want too much detail included. My comments were aimed at seeing if a compromise could be reached. Some editors may feel that I'm now WP:INVOLVED, so I won't be taking any administrative action myself. However, it is obvious that something needs to be done here. At a minimum, I feel that all six editors named at talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland as having a conflict of interest should be indefinitely PBLOCKED from editing the article. Whether or not Djm-leighpark should be further sanctioned for the edit summary I mentioned above I will leave to others to decide. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Firstly: To be absolutely clear there is no question in my mind of Mjroots violating any BLP/BLPO in this matter. I have absolutely no question in his good faith in this matter, (and many, many others). There may be a question of competency: To put that question in context one might scrutinize his actions in this matter on a rating between 0 and 10; unquestionable on such a scale it is 6+; fairly obviously I would not rate it as 10, but I would not expect anyone to achieve 10. Where in-between is a matter of possible debate if one wants to go there. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• I will unquestionable accept a PBLOCK on any article page to which I have now declared a COI. I assume this does not relate to the talk page or {{request edit}}. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Mjroots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• wbm1058 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• It should be noted wbm1058 who closed part 1 was an involved administrator. [24] was an edit during an in-use session (to correct a trivial red-link). I nearly lost a 30 minute edit session because of it .... (I actually copy/past the existing version of the article ... wondered why my changes had not happened, they recovered my changed page. Understandably the air around me was blue. I took at at face value it was a genuine mistake, but there remains a tiny chance it was a deliberate, and it may have been simply obscured by the popups tool. Having has that involvement the closure above would have been inappropriate ... for an RFA candidate it would be genuine matter to be looked at. trivial maybe, but not good for my humor. 20:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

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

• then we come to the Luas, the #Free Luas campaign: the vandalism from those implementing the campaign, as journalist misrepresented as "updates" per mention on talk page, and lack of speed getting page protection in place (no-ones fault in particular). (Excellent work by other reverters and the person who spotted the campaign). Then and admin comes along any plonks a bare url with which happens to be from from media outlet where the originator of the source was formerly a journalist. Bare URLs are to a degree associated with BHG due to her campaign to clean them up, so a poor time to dropping them, though there will be claimed no correlation. The interactions may be judged, but the response at [25] can be interpreted as a serious personal attack relating to masturbating, though that may not be what was intended and I had done in my knee at the time as it happens. I've no been following Stifle (I had their talk page time limited on my talk page) but need to mention them here. My relationship to Free Luas stuff is now .... complex. 21:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The state with regards to my membership of RPSI is complex. I has 3 refused transaction completions but the RPSI have acknowedged from 14:00pm that I am a member (Gives access to 5' 3" sources ... I think). Whether I have paid the membership fee once, thrice or not at all I have not clue. Whether I have lost good standing I have no clue (with the IRRS also). I do say any actions I have made on WikiPedia are not on behalf of the IRRS/RPSI. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• A key statement in this sage is admin's Drmies statement: [26]: I've scrubbed the history. There will be no more undue and unrelated talk of child porn convictions (that had nothing to do with the organization), of volunteers who were convicted, of other volunteers who [predacted], and of "girlie thingies" thrown down the toilet.. The incorrect part of this if I remember correctly ... and I might not that the person implicated in child porn was not convicted per WP:BLPCRIME but was deceased before the trial. (I think thats the Belfast Telegraph). However if there's stuff beyond that its into BLPTALK. 00:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• I am challenging Mjroots assertion: "It is obvious that Djm-leighpark wants no mention whatsoever of any scandals involving RPSI members in the article at all." Its reasonable to say that is my general perference. But: (1): Have I not put the Midleton Incident into the article. (2): Have I ot introduced the new build Class W / Class WT controversy. Have I not suggested formal Arbitration by an independent (Probably the right way to go in the spirit of a BLP issue?). [27] ? Quite frankly if there is systemic issue at the RPSI, or there not implementing safeguarding and managing risks with due dilligence then thats a mention. The rostering issue may or may not be an issues ... refering to Sunday World (2020) no page ... no title ... and there's 50 issues a year! Apart from that the RS source Guards would likely bin make it inadmissible ... it's not obvious to me if this was true investative journalism with the RPSI given a chance to make an official statement or a jump on a volunteer with probably zillion things to try to look after. In the end if you have sufficient men around you will likely have a proportion of bad eggs. As I say : Formal dispute resolution offered ... well suggested ... blp related slagged continues. Not really best practice. Hmmmm .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Mjroots, I have blocked the user for that edit summary. Djm-leighpark, I have to say, I have no idea what you are trying to do here, with this disjointed message, poorly formatted, addressed at a whole bunch of different people, bringing up all kinds of issues--though I appreciate your ping, though you might now wish you hadn't done that. That edit summary, it's weird. Nothing in the edit you made actually had anything to do with the BLP matters which I indeed scrubbed from the history, and since, given your contributions on the talk page, I can't see you are in any way a positive influence on the article, I am going to block you indefinitely from editing that particular article. You will still have access to the talk page, but if you continue with these weird over-the-top rants, I will block you from that as well. Oh my word, how excited people get over trains. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

THankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Topic Ban for Johnpacklambert

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.

---

Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a longtime editor who, unfortunately, has been at this noticeboard a number of times. This is a different issue and one that (I believe) might have a possible solution, although it's not exactly an ideal one. As you can see here (and specifically here, where he's concerned about attacks on theology and at Talk:Mormonism#"Mormon"_as_a_"depreciated"_term, JPL continues to struggle to edit topics and people related to Mormonism in an NPOV manner. While the notability issues are mostly resolved at AfD, the latest round re: the LDS/Mormon naming has gone beyond that and I believe it may be time to topic ban JPL from LDS/Mormon areas if he cannot respect established consensus. Courtesy pings to those involved in current discussion @C.Fred, FormalDude, and Rachel Helps (BYU): for their input. ANI notice forthcoming. Wanted to have a direct link to provide him. Star Mississippi 15:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I have respected the conssensus since my initial edits were reverted, and have instead tried to contribute to discussions to change consensus. I have a right to express my support for the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the use of its name, and outright banning me from editing any topic related to it is unjustified. I recognize that I went to far in trying to implement my views against consensus. This proposed ban ignored facts like that I am the initial creator of the articles on Gerrit W. Gong, Ulises Soares, Ronald A Rasband, Dale G. Renlund, Gary E. Stevenson and many more. This is a horrible idea, and ignores that I have tried to work within consensus forming mechinisms for the last few days.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I think this is far too rash a response. Topic bans are a horrible approach to anything. I have made thousands of construtive edits related to topics connected to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I will admit my actions on Monday were rash. I will admit the wording of my edit including mention of the Be One Celbration of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was less than idea. However the proposal of a blanket topic ban of any kind is way too broad and too rash. It ignores things like the multiple fully needed updates I did recently to the article Black Mormons, and article essentially stuck in 2013, making both a false claim that there had never been a black general officer of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when in fact Ahmad Corbitt clearly is such, and listing the three black general authorities to that date, so I added mention of the four black general authroties called since then. I could go on and include many more contributions I have made. I am willing to admit that I was rash in my reactions. I am sorry I got really worked up about this. However such restrictions are not at all justified. I think it is much wiser to give me a chance to actually show that I can contribute in this manner is a measured way. I think restricting someone based on actions at most taken over two days is not justified. People should be given a chance to change their ways and show they can contribute in a more balanced way before blocks are imposed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• JPL, would you agree to a voluntary ban on editing ARTICLES on the subject, or specifically to a voluntary ban on removing or modifying the words "Mormon" or "Mormonism" from those articles, while retaining unlimited ability to edit the TALK PAGES of such articles? Just tossing an idea out for consideration. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  • No. I will not agree to any ban on article editing. I will agree to not try to change articles names without consensus. That seems reasonable. I will also agree to not change the use of words such as "M-----" and related derivates in articles that have as their topic subjects that are as a concept related to this such as The Word of Wisdom etc. I will not agree to anything that could be used to limit my reasonable ability to edit biographical articles. Nor do I think a topic ban on all edits to any articles is justified, since it seems to be built on an attack on one edit I did and is very unreasonably broad. As a white husband of an African-American wife who is a believing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and who I married in the Detroit Temple I find the lack of some coverage disturbing. This includes feeling that The Be One Celebration should be covered. I will admit that my attempt to put it in was clumsy, but a tpoci ban over one clumpsy edit is not justified. I will also admit that my attempts to unilaterally rewrite mentions to Latter-day Saint were premature, but this topic ban proposal seems to be really a reaction to how I maybe over reacted to the clearly rude and calous way some other editors treated the sttements of Russell M. Nelson. If a prerequisite to edit articles on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is never voicing in any way a request to others to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as either members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Latter-day Saints, that seems extreme. I will admit my language may have been over reactive, but I have a right to my own views on the proper naming of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and to try and ban my editing because I expressed these views on my talk page and in talk page discussions directly about naming, or to attack me for quoting and posting a link to the talk by Russell M. Nelson which clearly is a point of data that needs to be considered in a informed decision on what word to use in discussing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members currently is not justified. Words change over time, and to point to a document that defines very clearly one view of the current name usage issue is clearly needed. I may have been too forceful in presenting it as the most defining document, but it is a document that needs to be dealt with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Can you explain what the edits to Johnpacklambert talk page are supposed to show? It doesn't seem, Johnpacklambert did anything wrong from a superficial analysis. They simply removed comments to their talk page which they are entitled to do per WP:OWNTALK. In the first case, they removed comments in the middle of a discussion which may normally be a concern since this may mean people misunderstand what a respondent was trying to say. Except that the only person who replied is Johnpacklambert themselves and if Johnpacklambert is causing their own comments to be misunderstood, that's not our concern. And the second is clearly fine, the one in the wrong is FormalDude who reverted them once [28]. Johnpacklambert simply removed the latest reply. [29] [30] Johnpacklambert is entitled to end the discussion and remove any further replies if they so desire. If FormalDude wants a right to reply, they shouldn't be having the discussion on Johnpacklambert's talk page. They are free to copy the discussion to their talk page while complying with WP:Copying within Wikipedia and post their reply if they feel it needs to be recorded in a live page. Nil Einne (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • That was the only way I knew to link to show the discussion, since it's deleted, which I agree is within his right. But it's the substance of the conversation that (to me) shows the broader issue. Happy to present in a different way if that's better Nil Enne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Mississippi (talk • contribs)
  • @Nil Einne: and apologies for typo Star Mississippi 17:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support. I want to draw attention to the harsh personal attacks that JPL has levied at me and another user regarding their sweeping LDS/Mormon renaming edits. See this diff at my talk page and this diff from the other editor's talk page. And most importantly this diff at JPL's talk page where they call me a bigot for simply pointing out their NPOV bias. Even without these diffs, JPL has consistently shown an inability to accept consensus or follow Wikipedia discussion processes, and their history of editing to LDS topics shows at the very least a pattern of disruption. ––FormalDude talk 17:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Is that section they posted to you talk page really entitled Stop your hateful ways? That is slightly less than subtle. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is, and the second link FormalDude provided - the one to Jburlinson's talk page - is titled "Stop the hate mongering". -- MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, that is the editor who argued that because of past policies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we should just plain ignore the desires and wishes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in choosing its own name. If trying to bring up a policy that has not existed in over 40 years to justify disrespecting an organization and its wishes is not a case of engaging in hate speech, than nothing is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I will admit that I was too quick in my languge there. I am sorry. Topic bans because someone got worked up are not justified. Especially when you consider that the people in question, especially FormalDude, insist on attacking sources as biased, which is clearly a work with strong negative connotations, in a discussion where bias is not a relavant consideration at all. Groups have a right to disporportionately control what they are called, and so the statements of leaders of groups are always relevant. To try to dismiss such a staement as "bias" is to invoke a word with very strong negative connotations and to delibertely pick a fight. I will admit I over reactied, however tpoci banning for over reaction is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This is primarily a conversation about your NPOV bias; my comments were quite relevant, and I stand by them. The source you gave was completely biased to the topic at hand. ––FormalDude talk 18:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

There you go again using the negative word. The talk by President Russell M. Nelson of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the correct name of the Church is not "biased" on a discussion of what name of the Church should be used. It is not NPOV to insist on using a name for a group of people that they reject. That is just plain ludicrous. In choosing what name a group of people is referred to by we give special consideration and value to the views of members of that group. Thus a source that shows us expliciatly what that group feels about what names should be used for it is always a useful source and is never biased.18:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have a right to cho[o]se how they are referred to. - link. Indeed they do, but they do not have the right to enforce it outside their church. We do not use terms like "kafir", "Mahometan", "Mussulman", "Papist" and "Prod" (among others) outside quotes because they are widely considered to be sectarian, archaic, and/or insulting. We do use "Mormon" because it is commonly used in modern reliable sources; for example, in media coverage of the Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign. We do not require "Bible" or "Quran" to be prefixed "Holy", nor for the name of the prophet Mohammed to have appended to it "(PBUH)", because one group or another says that they should. We follow the modern independent sources. Narky Blert (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Narky Blert, exactly. This is not dissimilar to concerned Muslim editors who want to impose the prohibition of pictorial depictions of Islamic figures on Wikipedia, because those pictorial depictions are prohibited within the faith. Grandpallama (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Citing actions in 2012 ignores the fact the major changes on the langscape of the usage of the word happend in 2018. The pictorial comparison is not at all relevant here, and none of the above comparisons are at all like using "Latter-day Saint" as a general reference to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Good point, a very close parallel. Narky Blert (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: Given what I see in those diffs posted by FormalDude a topic voluntary ban is probably the best you can possibly hope to come away with. I’d jump on that now before anyone proposes a stronger remedy for the PA, incivility, battleground, etc. I would also advise against using hyperbolic legalese (“cease and desist” etc) in the future as people may interpret such statements as a legal threat. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • What about the fact that they double down in using words in convesation with my that I have explicitly asked them not to use. I will admit my language was overly harsh. However banning someone from contributing from a topic especially when editors know this is what I care about editing the most is not only unfair, it comes off as an attempt to try and kill another editors ability to contribute at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Johnpacklambert: Please provide diffs to where you explicitly asked them [me] not to use any words. I recall no such point. ––FormalDude talk 17:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, I said that I found them as objectionable as "Muhamedan" and then was attacked for even holding that view. Muhammedan is considered a highly objectional word that people should not use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Mohammedan does not appear to be an offensive word any more than the word Mormon does. (I want to clarify I'm not at all as familiar with the word Mohammedan as I am with the word Mormon, having lived 5+ years in Utah.) And as others have repeatedly tried explaining, just because a term is offensive to you personally, does not mean it is also offensive in general. ––FormalDude talk 18:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
          • • Mohammedan is viewed as a highly offensive term because of its false connotation that Muslims worship Muhammad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

              Echoing @Narky Blert's response above: the word Mohammedan is not comparable to the word Mormon in the way you're trying to say it is. ––FormalDude talk 18:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

              I don't know whether or not it's true, but I remember once reading a suggestion that "Christian" was originally designed as an insult for that same reason. Narky Blert (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• • One article that underlies my thinking on this matter is this [31]. At least to me it comes off as extremely rude to when someone tells you they view "M-----" as equally objectionable to "Muhamedan" to come back and tauntingly use the tem multiple times in the response. My claim that "M-----" is equally objectionable to "Muhamedan" is not just built on the fact that they are both deprecated terms, but that in both cases the term falsely implies theological allegiances that the people involved do not recognize. In the case of "Muhamedan" the term to some implies the people worship Muhammed, which they do not do. Some might point out that "Lutherans", "Calvinists" and several other groups do not worship the named groups, and pointing that out would probably be seen as rudely ignoring the desires of the people involved. Likewise members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints object to using "M-----" because it falsely implies they worship an ancient prophet, especially since in the Book of Mormon it states "if the Church is known by Jesus' name, it is Jesus's Church, if it is known by the name of a man it is the Church of a man". However beyond this, there is a more pertinent reason. The use of the name "M-----" to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints implies that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uniquely hold the Book of Mormon to be the rvealed word of God, when in fact members hold the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the Doctine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price to all be on par as revealed scripture and also hold the words of living prophets in high regard. Using the name is very misrepresentational in multiple ways. I wish I had explained this better before, but I have a suspicion based on other actions that the editor in question would have responded in the same clearly rude manner in doubling down on the use of the words in question. This often comes off as an unfair expecatation that I sit back and say nothing about the actions of others that are clearly rude and in this case arguably provocative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • The problem is that you, and perhaps some of your co-religionists, apparently now believe “the M word” to be objectionable, degrading, insulting, etc. - even though most non-“M”s do not use or intend it that way. When people speak of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, as it has been known and loved for 150 years, they are being respectful; they don’t know it was recently renamed. Landmark temples in Oakland, San Diego, and many other cities are still referred to by locals, without disrespect, as “the Mormon Temple”. This wholesale purging of the “M” name was decreed a mere three years ago, by direction of the leadership. And note that a press release at that time does not outlaw the “M” word; it merely “encourag(es) use of the full name of the Church”.[32] OK, so they had theological reasons for the change, as you have just explained. But your attempts to totally purge the original word seem to go way beyond what is necessary or required by the church. If you can’t accept that - if you are going to continue to insist that use of the “M” word (a word that was common and acceptable a mere three years ago) is hateful, bigoted, spiteful, etc. - then you may indeed need to have your editing privileges curtailed. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
      • MelanieN, my initial sense was that sanctions are called for here, which your explanation now further affirms. El_C 18:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
        • This is unfair. I have backed down from my previous edits. My personal views on the use of a word in personal matters should not be seen as ground to exclude me from making edits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

          Actually, you are still engaging in the problematic behavior. You stated above that FormalDude's intentions were to "delibertely pick a fight". You continue to call Jburlinson's words "hate speech". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

          • • Well, the justifying of disregarding others wishes by attacking a policy that has not existed for 43 years is highly problematic to say the least.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

              My point was that you have not backed down. Your response further illustrates my point. If you continue to edit in this topic area, do you intend to respond to uses of the term 'Mormon' by accusing the editors of hate speech and/or fight-picking? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The scope of this topic ban is far too broad and ill defined. I will apologize for some of my intermepate actions. I do not think a topic ban is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• John Pack Lambert, each of your responses here amounts to all other responses combined. Your gigantic paragraph-break-less, erm, paragraphs, even tower over the one by perennial long-winded Nil. If I were more cynical, I might think that this is a form of filibustering on your part, to drown the thread with text so as to make it impenetrable to an outside reviewer such as myself. El_C 18:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • How else is one supposed to react when one is attacked for expressing how they feel about the use of certain words, and people suggest they be banned for feeling that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ought not be subjected to being named with a name they have publicly and proactively rejected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Succinctly, that's how. El_C 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • JPL, I take exception to people suggest they be banned for feeling that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ought not be subjected to being named with a name they have publicly and proactively rejected I have not once suggested you should be banned for how you feel. It's how you're editing that appears problematic to me and to some others. I'm not continuing to weigh in, but could not leave that as represented as it's not remotely what I said. Star Mississippi 18:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Proposal I would agree to a ban that would limit my editing of references to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its members and related terms A-from article titles B-from articles that are explicitly about these topics (eg. God in Mormonism and Baptism in Mormonism. This would seem to cover the actual point where the actual debate has flared up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• John Pack Lambert, honestly, I don't know that such a watered-down ban is enough. I'll tell you: when I fully and move protected the Mormonism article 2 days ago, I didn't really understand what was happening. But now that I sort of do, it's worse than I thought. From all this, I don't think you can be detached enough to be editing the LDS topic area. El_C 18:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• John, we have been here way too much, sweetness. I am probably one of the kindest people, but not the only, you could ever find and I do it intentionally. I am empathetic to the message you are trying to convey but I wholly am against the way you are presenting it. No one is saying that you can't have an opinion. I have not seen a single person at any AN/I discussion concerning you that has said you can't have an opinion or even express it, so long as you remain civil. The way you have expressed it is to attack other editors and it wasn't necessary. So many people are turned off by the abrasiveness of your approach that they can't even see, let alone digest, your concerns. I disagree with the way you have presented your case and I believe it was uncivil and unkind. I also believe, when compounded with past issues, it is actionable.

To your concerns, proper etiquette is to utilize the pronouns or specific terms that an editor requests for themselves when addressing them and when those terms are made known. I would hope my fellow editors are kind enough to not continue to insult other editors when these things are brought to their attention. There are no sides when it comes to kindness. When it comes to articles, we don't have individual power to alter consensus within the article, even with sources we feel are compelling. We share what we find, we make our arguments and we move on. There is NO excuse for incivility, even when provoked. --ARoseWolf 18:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I am probably one of the kindest people, but not the only, you could ever find and I do it intentionally — kindness flex! ☻ El_C 18:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• • I object to your rude and condescending referral to me as "sweetness". The thrust above is that if I believe that "M-----" is an objectionable word, I need to be banned from editing. This is clearly punishing me for my personal beliefs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I called you that because, in our past dealings, you were genuinely sweet and kind to me and I wanted to interject some kindness and softness in my response. I'm sorry you feel it was condescending. I can assure you that was not the case but as it has caused offense I will not refer to you in this manner going forward. I continue to support you, a fellow editor, while not supporting your approach in this case. If you are banned it will not be because of your personal views. No one has suggested you be banned for believing that word to be offensive. It is your continued uncivil reactions that are actionable. Content, not the editor. --ARoseWolf 19:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• • • @Johnpacklambert: The thrust above is to try to prevent you from disrupting Wikipedia because of your minority belief that the M word is offensive. It would appear few are convinced you will stop your disruptive editing behavior that is based on your objection to the M word. ––FormalDude talk 18:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • You have a serious WP:IDHT problem right now. Reread everyone's posts and actually think about what they are saying. Mlb96 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support sanction based on the overwhelming WP:IDHT on display here and the repeated mischaracterization of "hate speech" and claims about "Mormon" and variations of it being "deprecated" and offensive. I don't see evidence that JPL is capable of editing this subject in a neutral manner--quite the opposite, in fact. Grandpallama (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment would a non-involved editor please weight in on JPL's edit on my Talk. I'm disappointed that a proposal based on his edits is turning into perceived discrimination, which it is not, but recognize I'm involved. Star Mississippi 18:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • (ec) I've added my take on this as an uninvolved editor at each user talk page. I support the proposal, but honestly don't think a topic ban would go far enough and is just a matter of rope. The issues here are much more fundamental than a single topic area, which is evidenced by multiple previous editing restrictions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

User indeffed

• Note: El C has indefinitely blocked JPL. Is this section ready to be closed, or are there further matters to discuss? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've indeffed JPL, Star Mississippi, in light of that, which is really a last straw for me. As I mention on JPL's talk page, major assurances will need to be provided if this block is to be lifted. El_C 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sigh I apologize to the community if anyone else felt my comment was condescending. I am no better than anyone else here. I was trying to support the editor, JPL, while also pointing out my disagreement with their actions. I just wanted to offer some kindness. --ARoseWolf 19:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, don't despair. You are beloved. El_C 19:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

El_C, Thank you! I never despair for long. I enjoy spreading the love too much. --ARoseWolf 19:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• • Thank you El_C for your action and the heads up. Sorry it had to end this way, but it didn't seem this was going to be a productive conversation unfortunately. Firefangledfeathers no objection to closure here but I assume I shouldn't as I'm involved, and I'm also not sure how to close an ANI section so double defer to others. Star Mississippi 19:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the "too much" sentiment for the indef, but don't think the indef needs to be infinite (hopefully the autism comments were a one-time mistake). I think a topic ban relating to the intersection of WP:Manual of Style issues and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is necessary for an unblock, I'm not sure how broad it has to be beyond that to be understandable and enforceable. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  I have made extended remarks on the content-related topic on my talk page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (assuming the indef is lifted at some point) as it's clear JPL can't edit neutrally in this area.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Indef Oh no :( I feel compelled to comment here because I saw the indef and because I had some weird run-ins with JPL the last couple of days. I feel like this is an extremely productive editor outside the topic of religion, who maybe needs to take a minute to reflect before commenting. I feel the indef prevents too much and I hope it will be lifted. And I hope, JPL, if you're reading this you can show in an unblock request that you can productive in other areas but maybe take a step back from editing topics so close to home as religion and/or LDS-releated topics. --Mvbaron (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  Can you provide any diffs that show that this editor is extremely productive? In my experience he has simply been extremely disruptive for many years, but maybe I haven't intersected with him in the right areas. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger: Take a look at some of the articles they've created. They have over 400k+ edits, I've seen several examples of productive editing from them. ––FormalDude talk 21:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment for simplicitly, linking to my comment on JPL's talk. I accept his apology, but remain in favor of the topic ban with which he also seems to concur. Neutral on the unblock and leave it for an uninvolved editor. Star Mississippi 20:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Commenting as an involved editor. I'm clearly against the wholesale changes Johnpacklambert has been trying to make over the past couple of days. I spent a good hour the other day manually rolling back most of his changes and moving back the 20-whatever pages that he boldly renamed. That said, I've worked in the same topic area alongside JPL for years, and this isn't normal behavior for him. Like any editor here he has his quirks, but he's generally a helpful and productive editor. It's clear to me that he got really really worked up about the Mormon naming issue, and then reacted poorly when everybody jumped on him. Clearly admin intervention was needed, and I think El_C's block was a good wake up call. But I think it would be tragic if we were to end someone's nearly half-a-million-edit Wikipedia career over this. I hope admins will consider JPL's unblock requests and give him a chance to show that he can do better. I also oppose a broad topic ban for the LDS (Mormonism) topic area. As I said, his edits are generally constructive, and he knows a lot about the topic. I'm fully satisfied with JPL's commitment to not move any more pages in the topic area without prior consensus. I would like to see an acknowledgement that he let his bias get the better of him and a plan for how he's going to avoid that in the future. That, in my opinion, is the root of the problem, and a more serious issue than namecalling or whatever was the last straw here. ~Awilley (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Indeff. JPL is an editor of 15 years standing, who while maybe a little too Deletionist, has made a huge number of useful contributions. It's a reasonable position to view the M word as offensive. LDS ran a massive awareness raising campaign against the M word back in 2018. That said, the M word may still be the WP:COMMONNAME, JPL seems to have been too tenacious in arguing against consensus, and he did allow his annoyance to cause a few NPA violations. In my view at least the thing to do when a prolific contributor gets worked up like that is just to give them a short block, perhaps even taking away TP access if they keep arguing about it. No dramas. Only if they need several of these blocks in any one year is there any need to give them a distressing Indeff. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Look, obviously, I'd rather no one gets distressed, but "annoyance to cause a few NPA violations" — I don't like that. I think phrasing it this way diminishes from the distress felt by those whom JPL falsely accused of "hate speech" and of being connected to discrimination against neurodiverse persons.

Anyway, the reason why I did not set the block to expire was because I wanted the basis for JPL's assurances to not be weighed down by knowing that, in either case, they could just wait out the block. I haven't had a chance to review the text that was written below my block notice at JPL's talk page, and there's a lot of it. I just got home and am about to turn in early. If another admin, who did review all that text, feels that the threshold for an unblock has been met, they have my blessing to go ahead and unblock with immediate effect. El_C 00:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I've a different view on indeffs, but I should save that for the Village pump. Sorry my wording was imperfect, essential for us to have caring admins still willing to block when the downside is outweighed by distress/disruption for the wider community. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I added my view on the indef here at JPL's talk page. TL;DR: At present I support an unblock & a minimum six month topic ban from all LDS-related articles. My mind could be changed if new info is presented. ––FormalDude talk 23:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: On one hand, JPL's conduct has clearly been unreasonable, and it seems like he may be unable to constructively engage others on the topic of the appropriate name of the church. On the other hand, I don't know if I can I support him never editing Wikipedia again over this (or even support a topic ban on a subject he's clearly knowledgeable and passionate about). Someone above has said that a ban on page moves in the topic area may be warranted, and this seems like it'd be more helpful than an indef. jp×g 00:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• JPL is one of the more difficult editors to deal with and I always thought they would get blocked per DS in the AP topic area, for their right-wing bias combined with their obstinacy. I did see a bunch of their LDS edits go by (on Monday?) and was wondering about that--but since I have no interest in that area I didn't check on it, and now I wish that I did. Maybe some of this could have been staved off, I don't know. I did not know they were on the spectrum, and I don't know how much it matters. I do know that JPL has, on the whole, been a net positive; as with some other editors, I think they get in trouble in an area they care too much about; Lord knows I stay clear of Alabama football articles for that very reason.

  I think El_C's block was absolutely correct, and the comments that JPL directed at Star Mississippi were absolutely wrong, and I also think that we should consider unblocking JPL with a topic ban or two in place. I've not looked at the actual disputes in article space; those who have might could propose an 1R restriction or something like that, if that was the kind of thing that led to it. I fear, though, that it should simply be the entire LDS area that's off-limits, at least for now. On the whole, though, I do believe an unblock is warranted and I'd do it right now, but it is prudent to slow down and make sure that we get the right restrictions in place, and that JPL understands them and can agree to abiding by them. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• I am taking on this unblock request. I am so far not involved in this dispute. I have read through this thread and the user's talk page. I am taking into account the various opinions given here. I will not unblock without the agreement of the blocking admin, though nothing in the unblock review process will prevent the community from reaching its own conclusions. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• El_C and others, at some point we'll need to talk about revoking TPA. Given the socking (confirmed by two CUs), the unblock request is much less likely to be granted; if that is indeed denied, then I believe we should revoke TPA, because the comments there are disruptive and serve only to dig the hole deeper. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  Drmies, you're probably right. But I am wary of doing so myself, tbh (for reasons which are my own). El_C 14:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  I support TPA revocation. I like JPL, I've defended him several times before at ANI, I hope he resumes editing, but right now it's clear he is having a very difficult time and having TPA is counterproductive. I know it's paternalistic of me but I really think revoking TPA (and probably courtesy blanking everything on the talk page other than well wishes) is the merciful thing to do in this situation, for JPL's own sake, given what he is writing. JPL should continue the conversation about unblocking conditions, with admins, in private, on UTRS, after taking a little break and recollecting his composure and thoughts. Levivich 15:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

For reference

• Question - Does anyone know if there is a list anywhere of the various things that JPL has promised to not do from the various times he has come before AN/I? I ask this merely because it might be helpful to him to have it as a concrete list that he can refer to, than to just rely upon memory, which may be forgotten in the heat of a discussion. - jc37 23:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

From personal experience. I find that editors who are fixated on one topic, constantly or on & off. Tend to be the most troublesome. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Like several other editors above, I'm most familiar with JPL from WP:AFD discussions. Given that JPL has over four hundred thousand edits across a wide span of the project, it's not fair to suggest he is a single-purpose account. Certainly the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an area of interest (potentially to the degree of a conflict of interest), but not the only one. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I did state "on and off", not just constantly. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It would be useful if someone put together a list of times John has been brought to ANI over the past 8-10 years since this is a pretty serious discussion of repercussions from the latest spate of bad moves and disagreements with other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Liz:, here's a quick summary searching for his username in the archives:

• Ban request, May 2013
• Johnpacklambert continuing the Group of 88 thing, July 2014. This also includes half-a-dozen links to previous ANI discussions about JPL.
• Edit warring, October 2015
• JPL, September 2016
• AfD ban, March 2017
• Block review, February 2019
• Prods, August 2020
• AfDs, February 2021
• Disruptive POINTy AfD !votes and racist comparisons, April 2021
• Emptying categories, July 2021

There are others, and for transparency, I was the OP in one of the above issues. I've not made any attempt to make any summaries of these ANI threads. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

See my comment below. The thing is, you go into half those discussions and you get more links to earlier discussions etc. JPL's issues go back nearly a decade. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

A long-term pattern that needs to be examined and taken into account before unblocking should be considered

(Note: WP:OUTING does not bar discussion of off-wiki postings, and the Arbitration Committee has made clear in matters as recent as last year's Lightbreather ban appeal that off-wiki activity germane to an editor's on-wiki actions may be raised and often enough should be acted on.)

John Pack Lambert is engaged in a personal jihad on Wikipedia against the Roman Catholic Church. He claims upset because he believes diocesan bishops are treated cas sufficiently notable for articles, while LDS figures who he deems equally important are found less notable. And he engages in disruptive deletion campaigns (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Zimmerman (bishop), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Zimmerman (bishop); in the latter, JPL astonishly claims that coverage in newspapers like the Orlando Sentinel cannot count toward the GNG because it is "hyper local". It is impossible to take JPL's arguments as good faith. And when you realize that John Pack Lambert, off Wikipedia, has posted virulent hate speech against the Catholic Church, calling it "the false religion", denouncing Pope Francis for ordering "idol worship", and saying "The Catholics in Rome have now bowed to false God's. Any Catholic who believes in Jesus Christ should find a new church". (links will be provided privately on request; there are some pages that should not be promoted publicly. There are even more hateful things there, not just anti-Catholic fervor.)

The moderate face he presents on-wiki (not terribly steadily) is belied by the raw hatred he expresses elsewhere, and that hatred makes it all but impossible the justifications he provides here for his attacks are advanced in good faith. If he is to be unblocked, an idea I find appalling, the unblock must be accompanied by a broad topic ban on all pages concerning religion, religious figures, and religious institutions, as well as all edits to pages involving religion-related content, construed broadly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, while surveys suggest an overwhelming majority of the world's population is +ve about religion, and >95% of the thousands of social science studies find religion is at least slightly pro-social, if we looked at some of the groups most likely to edit here, e.g. middle class Londoners, we could easily find a majority against religion. And taking that to the level of a virulently -ve view on the Catholic church isn't that uncommon. IMO having a strong off wiki view against Catholicism or other religions ought not in any way count against editing here. That said, agree JPL's editing has been problematic in this area. Personally I'd support a one year religion topic ban, but with an exception for LDS, where I think JPL's edits have been mostly good. (Maybe he could have a separate 3 month LDS topic ban though, just to give the editors he's recently been insulting a break.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, from my experience he is *extremely* disruptive in the LDS space and should never be allowed to edit within it again at the very minimum. I would agree with “mostly good” but we can’t ignore the 2-3% which are abusive, PA, or batshit crazy. Note that he blamed his most recent tirade on still being all worked up over page deletions that happened in 2019[33]... Thats a long time to be that angry or in his exact words “seething.” How many years are we expecting them to seethe about something much more serious like a TBAN? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Re to Hullaballoo's points, some of that landed obliquely on Wiki here: User_talk:Johnpacklambert#Wikipedians_are_so_rude. I don't know his off wiki edits and don't want to, but I think an LDS topic ban, if implemented, might still solve much of this here. Star Mississippi 11:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Banning from religion will hardly address Johnpacklambert's problems. They extend beyond religion and go back years. I am just going to repost my comment from earlier this year and say community ban Johnpacklambert - he is a drain on the community and his victims over the years deserve more consideration than him.

• See selection below. This is by no means exhaustive, but serves merely as a small sample of the issues over the years.

In which JPL is banned from more than one AFD nomination

In which JPL is topic banned for amongst other things, making racist accusations

In which JPL's obsession with categories and sexist editing resulted in contributing to significant negative press

Block for edit-warring BLP violations

Is it now time to revisit the ban idea from all deletion discussions I previously suggested due to JPL's complete inability to understand the problems he causes. Despite promising (again) to take feedback on board, once again we are here.

So far JPL's history of editing is one of warring with other editors, engaging in systematic sexism, accusations of racism, obsession with categorisation, abuse of living people, disregard for other editors by deliberate abuse of the deletion processess, and rampant incivility. So what point do we get to show him the door? Is it that time yet? Do we need someone to write up some more news pieces naming him publically? Because as with the Tenebrae saga, that is the current bar it takes to get action here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The above I posted in April and contains links going back years. Just show him the door already. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't the category thing a whole decade ago? If that's how far back we have to reach to find a single incident, I don't think it is very relevant (and one of the articles linked even has the headline sexism-on-wikipedia-is-not-the-work-of-a-single-misguided-editor). jp×g 21:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

*He's done a lot of good, he's done a lot of harm. He really wants to edit. I think he should have a block long enough for him to take stock, and some serious restrictions, such as some broad topic bans (including AfD and LDS). But a permanent ban is likely to lead to dealing with an infinite number of socks and more difficulties down the road. Let's try to be constructive, but let's be very, very serious about the many, recurring problems we have encountered over a long period. Jacona (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) I apologize, I reconsidered my comment and find it ill-considered. It's early in the morning, sorry. Please ignore. Jacona (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - JPL is an ultra-inclusionist at AFD on any topic touching upon Mormonism and an ultra-deletionist, to the point of disruption, on every other topic. To my way of thinking an indef improves the encyclopedia, but maybe that is just the bitter moderate inclusionist in me talking... Carrite (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I was just looking over the links to the dramaboards supplied by Lugnuts, above, and while there's some improvement from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive846#Johnpacklambert_continuing_the_Group_of_88_thing to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1065#Disruptive_POINTy_AfD_!votes_and_racist_comparisons_by_Johnpacklambert, I see that older pattern repeated on the very talk page: attack the critic, retaliate, point elsewhere, pull in unrelated matters, apologize, attack again and blame others, apologize again... Looking over those half dozen or more threads, it's actually surprising that they are still here: I did not know that there has been this much discussion/disruption. I reiterate that serious restrictions need to be in place before we unblock--if we unblock. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m not as surprised, wikipedians as a group respond well to emotional blackmail. For all the nasty things we say about each other we are profoundly empathetic, even when it clouds our collective judgement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah so this and this happened. That must be a new record for either socking or joe jobbing. I will leave it to a Checkuser to see which. Given they seem to want to accuse me of hatred of people with autism, something anyone who has had to deal with JPL's routine excuses for their bad behaviour will recognise, I personally lean towards the former rather than the latter. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Gotta be honest, with how his mood was affecting his spelling I'm more likely to lean joe job. Also this is a little on the nose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry to see two editors are being harassed, but it's a CU matter now; there's little to be gained by non-CUs discussing the likelihoods of who's behind it. I think this thread should be re-closed, let the CUs handle it from here. Levivich 18:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

       Unrelated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Now that this unpleasantness has been resolved can this discussion be re-closed? Don't see the purpose in keeping the discussion open and I think Floquenbeam summed it up correctly the first time. --ARoseWolf 20:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I support re-closing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:15, 26 August 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.

Why was JPL blocked?

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.

---

Sorry to add to this, but I read the closing statement, and most of the discussion, and as an uninvolved party I don't understand why was JPL indeffed. Can the closing statement be adjusted to say not that 'he has been blocked', but also 'why he has been blocked', in a way that uninvolved editors can understand? (Note: I did notice some diffs of incivility presented, but I don't see which ones were considered sufficient for indeffing, neither am I seeing a consensus for a community block, and all of that happened in a about 24h?! Isn't this a bit too fast for an editor who has been here for 15 years? What am I missing?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Strongly oppose adding the reason. We don't want to risk encouraging further repeats of such unnecessary Indeffs. JPL was blocked for this diff along with his previous recent disruption. The diff was arguably not blockworthy on its own, but clearly is as a "last straw". It was an indeff as the admin wanted "the basis for JPL's assurances to not be weighed down by knowing that, in either case, they could just wait out the block". A short block was fully warranted, making it an indeff was a mistake in my view, though obviously impossible for active admins not to make a few of those.

At least this debacle demonstrates the vacuity of the statement made by admin Llywrch at the recent Arb request involving yourself: blocks for a fixed period are no longer effective to protect the Wiki: the only recourse, I regret to say, is an indefinite block. Faced with a block for a few days or a few months, an experienced Wikipedia will simply wait it out, & return just as convinced they have been wronged & less likely to change their ways. But an indefinite block -- which by definition can last anywhere from say 10 minutes to 10 years -- this puts the burden on the sanctioned Wikipedian to admit they need to change their behaviour before they return.

I laughed when I read that, as it seemed Llywrch was intentionally echoing the nonsense "Short blocks won't work" play from WP:UNBLOCKABLE , for humorous effect. Surely any fool would see the "logic" in Llywrch's satement only make sense in a near ideal world. Issues with it include:

1) Many associate an Indeff with a Permanban, the two often turn out to be functionally identical. It can cause panic.

2) It's exactly our most valuable editors, who devout much of their lifes energy to improving the project, who are most susceptible to such panic.(Per the hobby possibly being the main thing that gives their life meaning)

3) The logic seems to assume reviewing admins are consistently good & wise actors (in fact even the decisions of professional judges have been found to vary significantly depending on time since last meal.)

4) It seems to assume that people cant type out an "I was wrong - I'll do this better" unblock request without having a sincere change of heart.

5) It seems to ignore the fact that people from certain cultures, or with certain personality types, find it very hard to admit they are wrong. etc etc.

If we're going to switch to handing out indeffs for long term editors instead of escalating blocks first, there's going to be a lot more of this drama. (The horror of which may sometimes be experienced only by the blocked long term editor, as lower profile types can be indeffed without it being brought to a notice board). The very least we should do is change "The free encyclopaedia that anyone can Edit" to "... any elite graduate can edit" FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable I agree with a lot of you wrote (except subpoint 5, but that's probably OT, and I'd love to see a ref for subpoint 3), but I don't understand why you oppose adding the reason? As I said, I don't have a cow in this issue, and looking at the diff, which is indeed problematic, as you say, a short block might have been warranted. But a block, short or long, should be clearly justified with a proper reason. You talk about how 'indef block' idea may panic experienced editors, but IMHO blocks without rationales are even more scary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a matter of opinion I guess, perhaps you're right. A good ref for 3) is Chpt. 3 of the very influential Thinking, Fast and Slow. If you go to our Injustice article, ref 18 is for an individual study on the issue. There were about 10 other studies when I looked into this a few years back, there may be even more now. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The lack of self awareness and the lack of sensitivity on the parts of both of you is a little shocking to me, tbh. El_C 10:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a delicate matter to be sure. I don't like to be that guy, and have the self awareness to know saying things like the above will make me seem like an arse to some, increases the odds of sanctions for me if I get into a future dispute, plus slightly reduces the chance of my views being taken seriously on other matters. But there arent too many editors remaining with a willingness to speak up directly for prolific contributors, so I thought it was my turn. There's quite a few who like to encourage harsh sanctions & even try to discourage editors from defending others with talk of "enabling" and what have you. Those types don't let their sensitivity hold them back from supporting permabans.

More important than the self awareness thing, Im sensitive to the fact implied criticism can be painful to admins and possibly even could discourage them from their essential work. Especially in a case like this with all the special JPL circumstances. Sometimes it seems worth taking a risk though, as otherwise what's to stop the trend to more unchallenged indeffs? Depriving us of valuable prolific editors and the distress that entails for those blocked from their fave hobby. In your case, I'd guess you'd almost certainly have seen the downside yourself without me saying anything. Doesnt mean the anti indeff remarks wern't worth saying. I've seen you around for a long time, you strike me as a most high calibre individual, it would be unexpected if me criticising the indeff has any long term effect. ( On you I mean, possibly theres an admin or two reading this with one hand on the ban hammer, thinking "Ahh Feyd, you're so going to get it the next time you take another of your risks." ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeydHuxtable (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) FeydHuxtable, I'm just dissapointed more than anything. Re-opening and/or contributing to this thread, after it's been closed twice already, is not a good look. Most especially due the serious nature of this matter. Doesnt mean the anti indeff remarks wern't worth saying — no, it means now's not the time. Once JPL's TPA is restored, it'll probably be revisited. Finally: it would be unexpected if me criticising the indeff has any long term effect — indeed, it would be unexpected. Sorry I've given you that impression. El_C 12:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I for one am damn thankful that the attitude of Wikipedia has shifted away from defending toxic contributors on the grounds that they are prolific. And no, I don't think you're risking a ban on the grounds of you stating your opinion. That said, is JPL really the poster child you want to use to make your ill-advised point (if you can even call it a point, I'm not sure exactly what the grounds for your argument are)? Seems to me there are better candidates out there. --WaltCip-(talk) 11:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable: see, this comment above is exactly why re-opening this was a bad idea. El_C 12:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Fine. Duly struck.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:06, 27 August 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.

Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa

Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User keeps adding copy pasted (without any attribution) battles into articles where they have no relevancy and don't make much sense either (making it seem kinda random). He has been reverted and told times why it's not a good idea, yet he continues with the same stuff (perhaps a lack of WP:COMPENTENCE).

[34] [35] [36] [37] [38]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• I did given them a final warning a while back but haven't had a chance to look at subsequent contributions. The problem here is more of "polite disruption" with a complete failure to either understand or acknowledge any feedback as seen from this. —SpacemanSpiff 17:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I took a look and this refusal to take in feedback and/or correct behavior is just causing a waste of other editors' time. I've blocked indefinitely, they could be unblocked if they display an understanding of the problems and show what they will avoid going forward. —SpacemanSpiff 17:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I came here after reverting[39] Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa's edits[40] to Indian campaign of Ahmad Shah Durrani. They made an utter mess of the refs, and after spending a few minutes trying to sort them out, I realised that it was way too messy to unravel. So I reverted BP's edits, and went to User talk:Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa and saw the link to this ANI thread. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  PS I have no knowledge of the topic, and encountered the page only when i was cleaning up ;Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter. So I can't judge the substantive merits of whatever BP was trying to do; I can only note that they messed up the refs badly.

  I know that en.wp's referencing systems are complex, and hard for a new editor to learn. However, BP left the page with lot of errors displaying in the reference section, so they had no excuse for not knowing that their changes had caused problems. A responsible editor would seek assistance to clean that up, and possibly self-revert pending help, but BP just left the page in a mess.

  The last of the four definitions of WP:COMPETENCE is the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up. That self-awareness criterion does not seem to be met here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Accusations

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

---

User:Zqzkqzq‎ is apparently unable to handle WP:BRD, throwing around accusations of "disruptive editing" instead as an alternative. See Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#Outrageously false accusation - what can be done?, User talk:Kleuske#Disruptive editing, here, here. Kleuske (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

If there's a CU around who could take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Best known for IP, that might be informative. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

1. I made an edit which I explained *very* clearly in an edit summary. That summary was:

   removed text from lead that alleged "historical reasons" without specifying any reasons, offered opinions ("misleadingly"), promoted the POV of a source ("in the words of"), did not logically fit in the text, and did not summarise anything from the body of the article)

2. A single-purpose account devoted to reverting edits and templating users reverted my edit and templated me. They falsely accused me of not explaining my edit, even while not explaining their own revert. I find that to be disruptive.
3. Soon afterwards, User:Kleuske followed that disruptive template, undoing my edit without explaining why, and falsely accusing me of not explaining my edit. I find that also to be disruptive.

If the user has any genuine interest in the article, and in the merits of this text in particular, I am sure we could have a good-faith discussion about it. I see no evidence of a genuine interest. Zqzkqzq (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You do not start good faith discussions by accusing others of malice. Kleuske (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for a short time. The edit-warring and accusations of malice are completely uncalled for and they have continued after the discussion started at WT:AIV. And yes, a CU would be useful here. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've now  Confirmed Zqzkqzq (talk · contribs) to Wtqf (talk · contribs) and blocked them indef under WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Best known for IP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 26 August 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: RogueShanghai

The user RogueShanghai has been making disruptive editing changes to Wild Side (Normani song). In the article the user keeps removing the mention of the song being critically acclaimed because they believe the sources used aren’t reliable, despite them being notable sources that have been used on Wikipedia multiple times. I also believe that even if they weren’t reliable the better alternative would be to request a better citation versus overall removal. They also remove mention of the song being the top selling r&b song of the week from the commercial performance section without explanation, despite this information being mentioned in a Billboard article. They then add that the song fell thirty something spots down in its second week. I believe the focus should be on the peak and it’s overall performance in that section. Also the cited source doesn’t mention this drop which makes it original resource. I also noticed this user seems to make almost biased edits against recording artist Cardi B and positive edits in favor of Recording artist Nicki Minaj, who have notably feuded. I have no bias towards the matter of towards either artist but it seems like the user does. Especially considering I haven’t seen them make edits about a position drop on any other song pages, including for the recording artist Nicki Minaj. In fact if you check the user's talk page you will notice they have gotten into confrontation with other noted users over the two recording artist. I’m seeking help in the matter because it seems like the user wants to insight an editing war. Kanyfug (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sigh, not this again (see also [41] and other ANI discussions). I also noticed this morning that Rogue Shanghai has been edit-warring on Nicki Minaj against a consensus lede which had support on the talkpage. I have suggested this before, but I think it is time this user had a rest from the range of BLPs that they are frankly now being disruptive on; partial blocking could be used so that they can still contribute on talk pages. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Just like Black Kite said. The agenda on this user's contributions is: delete any negative info about Minaj in her article, add puffery, remove the most about artists the user openly dislikes, disruptive editing, go against consensus... I remember this month the user received a last warning (cc: Mlb96). Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh? If your accusations of me only deleting any negative info about Minaj in her article, then almost 50% of the entire personal life section would be wiped out. I don't wipe out the facts about her husband's past or her brother since, while negative info, it is true. (I was actually the one to add the sentence about the recent lawsuit by her victim when the news broke.) I recently expanded the Influences section and am working on expanding the Controversies section, so the accusation from you that all I do is delete negative info about Nicki is absolutely false. You cannot just call well-sourced facts "puffery", adding that the New York Times *did* call Nicki the "world's biggest hip-hop star" isn't puffery because it is literally a fact that they did so- whether or not it belongs in the lead is a different topic, but the defintion of puffery is "the addition of praise-filled adjectives and claims." Saying "The New York Times called Nicki the biggest female hip hop star in 2015" is not a claim, it is a well sourced fact.

And as I've said, I've never openly disliked Cardi B or said any horribly negative things about her, like wishing she should die or whatever, on a talk page- my opinions, like the political affiliations of editors, are not relevant to be brought up in an encyclopedic space. I already showed my proof that the reason why I was reverting the stuff about Wild Side was because they were being undone with no edit summary, and removed with sockpuppet IPs most likely belonging to Kanyfug, NOT because Kanyfug actually tried to show proof that thatgrapejuice.net is a reliable source, or that the well-sourced fact that the next week, Wild Side dropped 31 spots on the Hot 100 doesn't belong in the commercial performance section. If it was done that way I wouldn't have reverted it and instead discussed it on the talk page. In the past, you've been accused of disruptive biased edits towards other female artists as well by multiple editors, and removing well-sourced facts in articles, especially to articles about other female artists as well.[1][2][3]shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: Actually, a very important fact you're leaving out is that I recently called out Kanyfug for his obvious sockpuppetry, detailed here. This user reporting me has been removing my edits with NO edit summary whatsoever.[1] and again, in the linked sockpuppetry investigation above, I have very convincing proof that him and the 2601:4a:c184:bf0:fcc7:8583:2401:b1db ip are the same person. Before the revolt.tv source was added, the only source for the "critical acclaim" claim was thatgrapejuice.net, which, and I will repeat this again, is not an encyclopedic reliable source. And I haven't been edit warring on the Nicki Minaj article at all; I have been using the talk page to suggest improvements, such as specificity of accolades and a debate on whether or not Minaj is notable for her usage of double entendres in her songwriting. Kanyfug, from the proof I've seen, has been abusing IPs to revert edits w/o an edit summary. I try my best to consistently source all of my edits with proper sources. My writing of the drop of Wild Side, in my opinion, isn't biased at all. It simply says, "The next week, the song fell down 31 spots on the Hot 100." And links the Hot 100 source to back it up. The sentence wasn't written to be either anti-Cardi nor pro-Nicki. shanghai.^{talk to me} 15:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Additionally, to refute Kanyfug's claim, if you're making such a bold claim such as "critical acclaim," you need to have a source to back it up. You cannot just leave it at "This song has received critical acclaim, (citation needed)" because that is not how critical reception sections on Wikipedia works. For other sections citation needed IS useful, but for a "critical acclaim" claim you need to have sources to back it up. I removed the "top selling R&B release" because in the linked Billboard article there is no usage of the phrase "top selling R&B release". At all. And how is sourcing that the song dropped -31 spots the week after it debuted irrelevant? Seemingly negative information is not always irrelevant information, as long as it stays neutral. And again, this could have been avoided if you discussed it with me on the talk page rather than seemingly using IPs to revert my changes w/o an edit summary. shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• And the fact that you're persistently rewriting a consensus lede paragraph on Nicki Minaj? What's the reason for that? Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  That was a misunderstanding- I thought RfC meant only about stuff that was being disputed in the lede, I was mistaken. I am still a noob when it comes to RfCs and the like, and I apologize. shanghai.^{talk to me} 02:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

User:BillBoyd2017

• User: BillBoyd2017 (talk · contribs)

• Article: Jeff Spangenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BillBoyd2017 has been removing sourced content from the Jeff Spangenberg article. Edits are being reverted without proper explanation or rationale on the basis "they are not accurate", despite the fact there are four sources that back-up the content. I have attempted to open a discussion . I have also issued two other warnings.[42][43]. The user has failed to reply to request for a discussion and instead continued to remove the sourced content with the same edit summary. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

pblocked for edit-warring, also left them a note asking for them to comment on their pretty obvious COI. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy response. I will give it a day or two for them to comment before updating the Spangenberg main page. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  19:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I started the talk page discussion, but no response from BillBoyd2017 yet (partially blocked from the article, but not from the talk page). I cleaned up a few small issues with the content in question. Meters (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Sheijiashaojun disruptive editing

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

Regarding bludgeoning: On this page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Asian History (journal), this user replies to every post that disagrees with their position.

• An editor comments: [44], Sheijiashaojun responds [45]. This is early in the AFD and Sheijiashaojun becomes argumentative discounting WP:NOTINHERITED which is based on guidelines and policy.
• An editor ivotes [46], Sheijiashaojun responds [47]
• The same editor comments again [48], Sheijiashaojun responds[49].
• An editor comments/replies [50], Sheijiashaojun responds [51].
• An editor comments saying: [52] "This has been hopelessly bludgeoned by the article creator, for which I've given them a slight admonishment..." The admonishment was posted on Sheijiashaojun talk page first consisting of instructions for managing COI [53]. This was followed by noting "...bludgeoning a debate..."[54].
• The article under discussion has been created by Sheijiashaojun. An editor says it "...has been WP:REFBOMBed to the point of making notability difficult to discern... [55].
• Another editor notes bludgeoning [56]. Sheijiashaojun responds [57]. In a second post the same editor writes "badger" for the edit history, and says, "...discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree with you. Not every rationale has to be explained in excruciating detail, on-demand..."[58].

And there is much more in between. The page is 78.6 kilobytes. The page has 177 distinct edits [59]. The result is Sheijiashaojun leads the discussion all over the place in a serpentine manner. In this way, productive editors get worn down and leave the discussion. See WP:DISRUPTSIGNS number 4 and number 6. Also please see WP:CIR.

In agreement with two one of the above posts, this user seems to have a strong COI. In fact, it is as if a loss will be incurred if the page is not kept.

Note Sheijiashaojun's account was opened in September 2005. There were only two or four more edits that year -- during the next month, October 2005. Then the next edit was in March 2020. [60], [61] (pls scroll down). So this account was dormant for 15 years. Then, the account was again dormant from between April 2020 and July 2021. It seems to be active now up to the present moment. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse Steve Quinn's assessment of the situation. I am the editor referred to in the final bullet point and truly do not think Sheijiashaojun understands how consensus works and that they don't need to rebut every single point made to "win" the argument. I'm not sure whether the article will be kept as there are solid points made by established editors as to keep/delete, but I don't think this issue is going to end with this long-running AfD. AGFing that the lack of COI is a true statement, but likely a topic ban might come in to play Star Mississippi 16:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Same here. In fact, I have stopped communicating with this particular editor. --Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  I've issued a block for that page (first time I've ever used the partial block feature!), that should help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, a partial block should be helpful.---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• I also want to mention that Sheijiashaojun apologized during the AFD [62], and then decided to "...renew apologies..." [63]. However, they did not modify their editing behavior and kept on bludgeoning - after the apologies. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Hello, thanks for the notification. I'd like to suggest that Steve Quinn and Randykitty also be partially blocked, since they also respond to everyone who disagrees with them. Yes, I present new information when I found it to the AfD, and I also try to convince people with direct evidence, but they ignore it. If they say, for instance, that the journal is not in WoS, then I assume good faith and give the evidence or the navigation information so that they can convince themselves that it historically was. Their stance, that they know better than Clarivate what Clarivate does and does not index, despite direct evidence https://paste.pics/850a40e81eb771f06cb9d001d9abaaa6 https://paste.pics/57aa0d9d0c797ec2b03b405f788b9754 is incoherent. It's a pretty grim result for Wikipedia when editors blatantly disregard the same standards for notability they insist upon earlier in the AfD. I don't know how it should be proved, but it is the case that I have no COI. I also work in Asian studies, and don't like to see either my work or useful pages for Asian Studies being deleted. I should add finally that I often make small edits because of typos or afterthoughts, so I don't think sheer number is a fair indicator. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• I endorse the partial block against Sheijiashaojun for this AfD. They have certainly had their say and at this point their constant posting there has become disruptive. I would have done it myself if not already done. Regarding the request that Steve Quinn and Randykitty also be blocked, I do not see how that is justified at this moment. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• OK. I would encourage people to look at the actual arguments of the AfD. It seems absurd to me that the indexing which so clearly meets WP:NJOURNALS (but can only be checked through Web of Science) is simply ignored. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  Your carrying on about this at such length here is only making me more convinced I made the right call. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps. I'm worked up because the principles and guidelines of notability are being ignored, not because I have a COI (I haven't). I'm trying to deal with incredulity that evidence and notability guidelines made no difference to the discussion. If some are not amenable to either, then how is consensus supposed to eventuate? If erroneous statements are repeatedly given, does one just let them stand? Some questions are matters of opinion (is an index selective? is a source "more than trivial") but others are matters of fact, and I don't think the latter should stand when they're gotten wrong. The above editors make several errors of fact (the claim that the journal is not published by the ANU; the claim that it is not historically indexed in the A&HCI and therefore the Web of Science) and use them to support deletion. In good faith, I would think one provides the evidence to show them they are mistaken. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• It does take two (or three) to bludgeon to this extent. I'm sympathetic to the argument that other editors (with more long-standing wiki experience) should have also been blocked, but the partial block for Sheijiashaojun on its own is justified. If those other editors continue bludgeoning, surely (maybe?) they shall also be P-blocked. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• When I suggested that User:Steve Quinn and User: randykitty also be partially blocked for the AfD, and tried to follow "you must notify them on their user talk page," the former characterises it as an act of disruption, and the latter writes "do not post here again". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steve_Quinn&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty&action=history Surely it's clear that I was trying to follow the rules, and aren't I obliged to post on the talk page according to the big golden banner on the pre-publication edit screen here? Instead what appears is more claims that I disrupt. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• The above is an apt illustration of the problem. You keep seeing the world as you'd like it to be, not the way it actually is. What I said was "Please do not post on my talk page any more, you are hereby released from any obligation to notify me about anything. Thanks." I did not admonish you for that particular post, I just told you to refrain from any further posts. Not the same thing at all. --Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• No, it is an illustration of my being relatively new here and seeing only the summary ("do not post here again"), and reading that as a claim of disruption (a claim Steve Quinn certainly made), not realising there would be more if I clicked through. Sorry for misinterpreting, and sorry for not knowing that. But it is not an "apt illustration of the problem." This might be an example of your unwillingness to assume good faith, though. Not pinging, as per request. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this is bordering on the disingenuous. You have almost a thousand edits. In addition, when I comment in the above-mentioned AfD, often the only edit summary that I use is "cmt". You didn't have any problem then to see that I wrote more than just "cmt" (by plastering another wall of text), so don't come now playing the newbie who doesn't know what an edit summary is for. --Randykitty (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is what I mean by unwillingness to assume good faith. I could see your edits in the AfD because they remained there, and I can see them on that page just by navigating to the AfD...but on your Talk page you had already deleted them by the time I visited, and I only saw the summary. I should perhaps figured it out how to do the page-comparisons to see the already-deleted text, but didn't realise that was an option, and that's all there is to it. I assume good faith about your errors, so I would appreciate if you would do the same, which if I'm not mistaken is a WP rule anyway. As for the walls of text, they were attempts in good faith to provide evidence. AfD is a particular genre, and I didn't know the conventions, not all of which are the ones that are written down. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Dynamic IP introducing errors, copyvio and unsourced edits in Brazil footy-related articles

I'm not sure if this is the right forum and what can be done, but there's a user editing from a range of IP addresses making unconstructive edits on Brazil football-related articles. Here are some of the IP addresses, though I'm sure there are more:

• 2409:4073:4E1E:6EBF:0:0:B549:F913 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:296:4AF5:0:0:29F8:8AD (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:2E94:915D:0:0:B5C9:2B04 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:28F:D0:0:0:8B7:A8A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:2006:C08E:0:0:1243:80A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:2082:6B:0:0:2691:70AD (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:19A:E58C:0:0:25E7:8A4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:2193:EF8F:0:0:15D:78A4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:4D9F:A246:0:0:B549:9601 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:4E04:F7E:0:0:B549:6B13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

They almost exclusively edit the following articles:

• Brazil national football team
• Argentina–Brazil football rivalry
• List of international goals scored by Neymar

And they're blocked on Commons for uploading copyvio photos: Commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tittto.

Since they're not editing any other articles, I don't think there's any serious harm done by a range block. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

2409:4073::/33 looks to be the appropriate range. It looks quite busy, perhaps partial rangeblocks from these articles would be better. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Oof, that is pretty busy and I guess article blocks would make sense, though they might be expanding their edits to other footy-related articles (see [64] and [65]). Ytoyoda (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Editing to add one more address from this range, used to vandalize Argentina national football team:
  • 2409:4073:4E80:A9F0:0:0:B509:A703 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Ytoyoda (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Visnelma allegedly violating WP:HARASSMENT

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 accused of harassment with this single edit. I want to know opinions of other editors on whether it violated WP:HARASSMENT. If you share your opinion, please explain how it violated the policy and why; feedback without reasoning is unuseful for me as I won't learn anything out of it. If you think there is another problem with this edit other than harassment, please share you opinion on my talk page instead of ANI. Thank you.

My thought on why it doesn't violate: Harassment policy clearly states that behaviour needs to be repetitive, including in "What harassment is not". I strongly think it needs to fit in the definition in the policy, as otherwise it would possibly cause users being false accused of harassment.--V. E. (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

P. S. If you say don't dispute issues related to other projects on English Wikipedia, I absolutely get that and don't object to that. My concern is to learn whether it violates harassment, and if yes, why. Because if it is a harrasment, and there is a reason for that, I don't want to repeat a similar thing in the future. Thank you.--V. E. (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Don't drag disputes from other projects onto this one. Whether it meets the policy definition of harassment or not is irrelevant, it's simply not acceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Notified Dr. Coal on your behalf, as while they are not the direct subject of this notice, they are very closely related to it. Incidentally, I will say as an uninvolved and inexperienced editor, that I cannot see any positive resulting for you from bringing this matter here; less formal forums may be better suited for future discussions of this nature. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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

• I'll say it explicitly, since the message does not seem to be getting through: yes, your edit was harassment. Note in the policy where it says "appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person" and "the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated". There is no constructive reason whatsoever for you to have followed the admin to an entirely different website and posted a diatribe against that user in an entirely different language, to advertise your dissatisfaction with that user to an audience who can do nothing about your issue. If you had any interest at all in a constructive resolution to a problem you're having on the Turkish Wikipedia, you would have attempted a resolution on the Turkish Wikipedia. If you keep this up, you will quickly find yourself with a problem on all of the Wikipedias. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about Userboxes?

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

---

As someone that has had relatives murdered by this vile ideology known as Communism I am much dismayed to discover that this place seemingly permits users to endorse and support such ideologies of mass murder. I can't help but notice a definite double standard at play here. It bans support for ISIS, Nazism and Al Qaeda among others which is what you would expect but strangely it permits visible support for the ideologies also responsible for tens of millions of murderers - Communism and Maoism?

Why does Wikipedia permit people to visibly endorse such murderous ideologies via userboxes? I thought the policy on user boxes were they were not meant to be divisive? So how is visible support for an ideology of mass murder in which 100 million were slaughtered last century "not divisive". The co founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger has recently claimed that Wikipedia has a distinct left wing bias and with bullcrap like this allowed to go on who can blame him?

Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content_restrictions states: Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.

Surely users putting on their user pages their love of Communism, Maoism and other extremist ideologies is a direct contradiction of these rules?

Here are some of the highly offensive user boxes:

This user is a Communist.

This user identifies as a Maoist.

This user identifies as a Titoist

This user is a Communist.

This user is a Communist.
Workers of the world, unite!

This user is NOT communist, but instead supports communism.

I suggest those user boxes be removed as they promote nothing but division and revulsion among many users and clearly do not belong on an encyclopedia that is meant to be welcoming to all. Also I noticed no one has ever complained about my username despite it obviously lending support to a political party responsible for millions of murders. I chose it deliberately as a test to see if anyone would care, but apparently not. Its fine to name yourself after a political responsible for millions of deaths on here. Says a lot about bias on here...

OldBolshevik (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Does it really need to be pointed out that support for an economic system is not the same as support for authoritarianism? Number 57 18:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hint: quoting Larry Sanger is guaranteed not to advance your cause, even if you're not taking the piss. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The topic starter is best blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably connected to Leroy08. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed; OldBolshevik (talk · contribs) indeffed, and Leroy08 (talk · contribs) tagged as a sock of OB (given that the OB account is older). GiantSnowman 18:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, GS. Aside from the socking, summarizing OP's 13 contribs, in order: #1 questions whether Gender pay gap is real; #2 PRODs WP:NONAZIS; #3-4 objects to calling it Migration Period instead of "Barbarian Invasions"; #5: calls Wikipedia biased; #6-7: complains of left-wing bias at Gab (social network); #8: corrects the color of the Nazi SD (Sicherheitsdienst) uniforms from "green" to "toxic green"; #9: creates user page with anti-communist userboxes; #10-13: this ANI. Good block. Levivich 18:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OldBolshevik, as an interesting thought experiment, imagine someone had posted this exact comment, but instead linked to these user boxes: 1, 2, 3, 4. One might say that any number of individuals from certain groups (1 2 3 4 5) would be equally upset about mass murders (1 2 3 4 5 6 7) perpetrated by various people (1 2 3 4) associated with the words in those userboxes throughout history. However, many on this wiki recognize that the ideas involved in the aforementioned userboxes are not inherently linked to the aforementioned massacres. This is, however, not true of Nazism or white nationalism, which are inherently linked to and necessitate atrocities against others (1 2 3 4). Do you, perhaps, see the difference?— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

As a bystander, I do agree that userboxes declaring the support of Communism (the economic system) are allowed under the current userbox system. However, I do agree with OldBolshevik on one thing, and that's my concern with the maoist userbox. unlike the other boxes, this one specifically espouses support for a brutal dictator's ideology, economic or otherwise. in my opinion this box is more deserving of deletion. Feel free to respond or disagree. Sanix (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Mao has a controversial legacy at worst. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

At best. At worst he has a very dark legacy that goes beyond "controversial". — Czello 14:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but there others that are weirdly fetishising totalitarian regimes. There's some that paint a rewriting of history, 123 or outright opposing democratic movements and calling for the restoration of dictatorships, 4. There's also this one, which I'm guessing is trying to paint over the more reprehensible parts of Guevara's legacy. — Czello 14:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Well I predicted it & now it's coming to pass. Currently there's an attempt to delete some pride infoboxes (that MoD was closed, but a few editors who disagreed with the closure judgement, had the MoD re-opened) & now this. I'm hoping, monarchists don't begin an MoD, to demand 'pro-republic' messages be deleted from user pages. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 27 August 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.

Report regarding the RfC Talk:Persecution of Christians#RFC:Should the following be included

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 report a situation that occurred at this RFC. I don't name anyone, because things seem to go smoothly now. I am reporting it, because I promised to the editors that was participating in the RfC that I will move it to a dispute resolution and because the problem might still be there, just silent for now. After spending some thought on it, I don't want to move it to a dispute resolution, because in my opinion it will be a waste of time for those people at this notice board. It will be way better if every body goes with the almost perfect consensus that exists. So, at this stage, I do not request any action, only your attention on this matter. I hope it's a good approach. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

As the person not being named, I am unsure what this is for. This is not the place to seek a close of an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

[66]. this after 9 days of discussion about the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

And this [[67]] dismissal of my opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 27 August 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.

Category adder

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.

---

Category adder (talk · contribs · count)

CA has been running amuck with adding genres he preferers. No sources, no discussions. Countless warnings/discussions on his talk. Someone with some time to look through his 'tribs. He causing a lot of work for editors cleaning up behind him. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 02:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked, which in this case does not mean "infinite"; simply acknowledging and explaining how to address the numerous concerns people have raised will suffice. The flippant comment in response to the last warning is what pushed me over the edge. If that happens, I have no problem with a unilateral unblock. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights Can his contributions be massed rolled back, please. Thanx - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 03:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. Since mass rollback is a rather blunt tool, no objection to anyone restoring any individual category. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:37, 27 August 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.

YeshuaAdoni is NOTHERE and promoting fringe content

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

On Talk:COVID-19 misinformation, they are insisting on promoting various "magnet" conspiracies [68]. They also appear to be promoting some Russian who claims to be creating anti-gravity devices [69]. The username also has clear religious themes. I think the user clearly is NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I was not promoting magnet conspiracy theories. I posted recent news to the talk page and asked if it was relevant to the Wikipedia page. I made no edits to the page.

On Podkletnov's page, I posted peer a reviewed paper as a reference for content that had been on Wikipedia for decades. The peer reviewed paper was later cited by 21 other papers from different authors. The page in question is the author of the paper (and not a specific topic).

I have not made any edits regarding religion, or made any edits to Wikipedia religious pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YeshuaAdoni (talk • contribs)

I have not made any edits regarding religion, or made any edits to Wikipedia religious pages. [70] doesn't count? Robby.is.on (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I forgot I edited that page. Although a moderation thanked me for the edit.unsigned comment added by YeshuaAdoni

Here is another diff re: magnetism pseudoscience [71]. Just to add to this, the user has also been combative on their talk page, perceiving all DS/alerts and welcome templates as warnings/accusations about their conduct, even when carefully explained [72][73]. They firmly believe anti-gravity devices are not fringe. They have also introduced weasel wording into other antigravity articles to insert their POV [74]. I think this user needs a warning/clarification about what wikipedia is for.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I second the complaint regarding Eugene Podkletnov. The user seems to have no undertsanding of Wikipedia rules about our article content. The fact that a piece of pseudoscience based on primary sources sat in wikipedia unnoticed for decades does not mean it must be kept forever. However at the first glance the user made some reasonable edits as well. In any case, his edit history must be thoroughly reviewed because of what I said. The user is strongly recommended to review our policies about WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY , WP:FRINGE. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

This all started after I pointing out new information on a Covid talk page (ie: Bell's palsy now listed as a warning in Canada) . After that it was like shaking a wasp nest. I did not even make a change to the page, it was just talk discussion.

I will stop editing Wikipedia, and spend my time and energy elsewhere.unsigned comment added by YeshuaAdoni

Legal threat at Talk:Bulgars

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.

---

A new account has made a legal threat, because of your apparent refusal to accept other scientific data and opinions and to present them fairly in this site an official signal to the Prosecutor's office of Republic of Bulgaria has been made.[75] They are also being generally disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Clear legal threat, but I wonder what the Bulgarian Prosecutor's signal looks like? Does it light up the skies of Sofia? Dumuzid (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I wonder what Брус Уейн would make of that? Anyway, blocked for the threat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was probably a wicked sick drum line that carries over the Balkan mountains. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 27 August 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.

Request IP block for part of United Kingdom regarding article Batman: The Adventures Continue

Hi, I would like to request an IP block for part of the United Kingdom for this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Adventures_Continue

I know an IP block for a large geographical location may seem drastic, but there is an editor who persists on making bad edits to the page. This person appears to have a dynamic IP, all coming out of a general location in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman:_The_Adventures_Continue&action=history

A mix of registered users and IP editors have edited the page, but only the UK IPs are causing problems.

Please help! Thanks! Posters5 (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Diffs please of the problematic edits. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The UK IPs keep trying to add text about DC Comics characters being "introduced" into the continuity started by Batman The Animated Series, despite repeated reversions and information added to the Talk page. However, the UK IPs have ignored the edit reversion summaries and do not participate on the Talk page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Batman:_The_Adventures_Continue ). This is a problem going back several months now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman%3A_The_Adventures_Continue&type=revision&diff=1040767244&oldid=1040763591

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman%3A_The_Adventures_Continue&type=revision&diff=1039479309&oldid=1039445257

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman%3A_The_Adventures_Continue&type=revision&diff=1037931437&oldid=1037931225

The one time that the UK IPs provided an "explanation", they claimed that the previous comics were not part of "canon", but this is refuted by both relevant Wikipedia articles as well as the fact that in the introduction to one of the previous comics series, there's an editorial note which explicitly states that the comics are stories that take part in the same timeline as the Animated Series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman%3A_The_Adventures_Continue&type=revision&diff=1027431995&oldid=1027407481

https://i.postimg.cc/GLFCDYjj/Continuity.jpg

More recently, they decided to just copy-and-paste (plagiarize) advertising copy from DC Comics instead of helping write actual plot summaries of the comic book issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman%3A_The_Adventures_Continue&type=revision&diff=1040767296&oldid=1040767244

Thank you. Posters5 (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

No comment on the dispute, but I think I can translate the IP addresses for you. There are only two ranges: 2A00:23C5:5311:FE01::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 2A00:23C8:5D00:ED01::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), and they appear to be in completely different parts of the country. I'm going to just ping TheresNoTime as they blocked another IP prominent in the article's history. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Not really concerned about the American IP address as again, the problems are being caused by UK IPs (probably one person making edits while commuting or traveling). Posters5 (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

If the geolocation is correct this is unlikely to be one person as the addresses locate to Penarth in south Wales and Grimsby on the east coast of England. A journey between these places takes at least four hours so no-one is likely to be doing this as a commute. Neiltonks (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I dunno which IP trackers you guys are using, but I've seen any combination from both IP sets being located in Essex to both in the Greater London area. Either way, a UK IP ban isn't going to affect the article's quality. UK editors who are serious about improving Wikipedia will have a registered account already and won't be affected by an IP ban. Posters5 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

There isn't going to be any sort of "UK IP ban", because (a) the IP range of the UK is utterly massive and not even technically possible to block, and (b) it's much easier to semi-protect the article, which is what I have done. By the way, the quality of that article is utterly terrible and most of it is unsourced, so now that IPs are barred from it, that would be the perfect time to fix that problem. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't suggesting banning the entire country, just the two IP ranges that are consistently used. Thank you for the semi-protection.Posters5 (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Geolocation in the UK is a crapshoot, the best conclusion you can reasonably derive from UK geolocation is that an address is "in the UK" or that it is "not in the UK". Anything more precise than that is a wild guess and should be taken as a wild guess. We don't have the technical means to block the entire IP space of an entire country (except Nigeria, it has weird allocations) and we would not do so anyway. Semiprotection is a good approach, but did you say there's a copyright violation there? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the UK IP editor copied and pasted advertising blurb from DC Connect in an attempt to replace legit plot summary. Posters5 (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's what the UK IP editor did, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman:_The_Adventures_Continue&oldid=1040763124 :

UK IP editor's summaries for Issues 3 and 4 (notice how he even copied and pasted the curly quotes): "The Hunter or the Hunted" (Issue 3): Batgirl sets off on the warpath after she learns Jimmy “The Jazzman” Peake is free and back out on the streets. She’ll do anything to capture him again especially after what Jazzman did to her father (in the BTAS episode "I Am the Night"), even if it means disobeying Batman. But can she capture the criminal before he’s taken by another mysterious vigilante; the Huntress hitting the scene? Peake played the piano while the Bertinelli family was being murdered, which is why Huntress wants to kill him.

Issue 4: After a body washes ashore at the Gotham docks, Batman hunts for a mysterious mercenary known simply as the Muscle. But can the Dark Knight protect the assassin’s next target: Detective Renee Montoya?

DC Connect #13, https://www.dccomics.com/comics/dc-connect-2020/dc-connect-13 Batgirl sets off on the warpath after she learns Jimmy “The Jazzman” Peake is free and back out on the streets. She’ll do anything to capture him again especially after what Jazzman did to her father, even if it means disobeying Batman. But can she capture the criminal before he’s taken by another mysterious vigilante hitting the scene?

DC Connect #14, https://www.dccomics.com/comics/dc-connect-2020/dc-connect-14 After a body washes ashore at the Gotham docks, Batman hunts for a mysterious mercenary known simply as the Muscle. But can the Dark Knight protect the assassin’s next target: Detective Renee Montoya? Posters5 (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

“Rope to hang yourself with”…

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 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 am a victim of childhood sexual abuse and due to that I recently attempted to kill myself at the age of 43. I survived and now I am an advocate for children who were sexually abused. It was brought to my attention that an article on wiki was sugar coating the excessive sexual abuse of a minor, by her sister. I am a long-standing contributor of Wikipedia as well as a donor and I adhere to citation and reference rules when I edit, as I did in this case. Upon attempting to edit the admitted childhood sexual predators page to more correctly demonstrate that the sex abuse shouldn’t be characterized as “exploration” or that it only happened one time (but happened for 11years, per Lena Dunham), editor NorthBySouthBaronof decided to write that they were giving me “Rope to hang myself with.[76] Is this the behavior we want the admins of Wikipedia to be exhibiting? That was the most callous thing anyone has ever said to me about my abused childhood, and literally without any regard for personal feelings or past situations. I was only, continually, asking how to report an admin who I felt was violating my rights to edit when this editor said this to me. How do I escalate this so that I can get some leadership in here to deal with this before I go public with it?MainEditoreditoreditor (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The line itself is a reference to a common Wikipedia essay, WP:ROPE, which is frequently used in internal discussions; the community has a lot of its own jargon. I certainly don't think NorthBySouthBaranof intended to be callous at all, it wouldn't come off that way to most editors, although I can understand why you would have such a visceral reaction. On the other hand, you need to carefully read what the people on your talkpage have written to you, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)MainEditoreditoreditor, the link to WP:ROPE is commonly used. It is perhaps an unfortunate analogy, and I am sorry that you have been hurt by the choice of words, but I do not see any reason to think that NorthBySouthBaranof (who is not, FWIW, an administrator) meant it as reference to your own life experiences. I'm looking into what you have been doing at that article recently - I'm not familiar with the case, but on the face of it, it looks like you have been edit warring, and I see that people have accused you of violations of our WP:BLP policies. Please don't edit the article again for the meantime, while I take a look to see what has been going on. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 18:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You are required to notify the editor in question. I have done so for you this time. —El Millo (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The context which is needed: The above user's edits to Lena Dunham amount to false and defamatory statements which are clear and unambiguous BLP violations - describing a person who has neither been charged nor convicted of any crime as a "childhood sexual predator" or as a perpetrator of "sexual abuse" is simply right out. The issue has been extensively discussed on the talk page, sourced statements regarding it appear in this article and Not That Kind of Girl (the book in which the controversial passages are published), and the insertions they are making are unacceptable. With myself and User:Paul Erik having extensively attempted to explain this to the above user, they responded by demanding to be able to "report" the issue. I simply provided them with the link to this page, and with a link to a commonly-read essay exploring what would predictably happen after they reported the issue. No offense was intended.

OP's edit-warring and BLP violations are worthy of administrative attention, as the OP has refused to listen to multiple editors patiently explaining why their edits do not comply with policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Having acknowledged both here and at your talkpage that you had a previous account, which you aren't using because of a forgotten password, please consider identifying it. Grandpallama (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

MainEditoreditoreditor I've reviewed the material in detail, and I agree that your editing at that article was in violation of our BLP policy - your edits were not supported by the cited sources, and was based upon your own interpretation of things described in the subject's autobiography. Again, I am very sorry if your encounters with other editors here have caused you pain, but they have been correctly enforcing our policies. If you are interested in contributing to this project, you need to be much more careful about how write about living people. I'm going to put a notice on your talk page about the discretionary sanctions in place in that topic area. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 19:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That’s incorrect as I had already admitted to being a childhood sex victim when the editor said these unbelievable and callous statements towards me. The editor knew they were being hurtful and did it without regard for people or feelings.

    I would like to know how to escalate this aspect of my situation to a higher leadership so that we can get eyes on this situation from those who are paid to handle conflicts such as the demeaning of suicide survivors and childhood sex victims. Please let me know how to proceed with my escalation. Thanks.

• A word of advice: Any escalation will end poorly for yourself. Rather than continue to push what will ultimately be a fruitless endeavor, I'd suggest studying Wikipedia policies instead so that you can become a productive editor. Mlb96 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Note: OP was indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE by GeneralNotability. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

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

I am not commenting on the specific issue above but I think it may be time for the community to abandon this "rope to hang yourself with" terminology, which I find really creepy and I do not think that I have ever used it myself. Many people find it very cruel. It was commonplace in the earlier days of Wikipedia to admonish people to "don't be a dick" but we have mostly abandoned comparing people to genitalia, and the sexualized adolescent female Wikipe-tan character used to be trotted out much more commonly than it is today. It is time (it has always been that time) for Wikipedia editors to grow up and abandon hurtful and childish memes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as the primary author of that essay, this is not how it is intended to be used. See Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope#Citing this essay. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I've always disliked the use of this violent metaphor. Compare the Optimist's guide to Wikipedia, bullet point 7. Bishonen | tålk 13:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC).

What's a better metaphor? Give em enough runway to crash? It's about allowing people to make choices so we can see if they make bad choices (really the sentiment kind of sucks tho I agree with it) but I struggle to think of a nonviolent/non-entrapment-ish way to express the thought. Levivich 13:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

As an expression it may seem insensitive to some, but it is a common phrase used outside wikipedia too, to mean the same thing. I had never considered it insensitive until reading this discussion, and frankly have not changed my mind. "Dont be a richard" is also not considered insensitive, just a well considered description, hereabouts. Please people, dont all be dicks, give us some rope to use. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

People are commonly vulgar and insensitive, it's true, but we can choose better metaphors. Levivich 14:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favour of marking it historical. Even if you can overlook the violent metaphor, this is a bad essay. It advises us that rather than dealing with a problem editor at an early stage when gentle correction might suffice, we should instead not bother trying to fix things and instead wait for the problem to get so bad that kicking them out is the only option left. The fact that the essay likens this to giving an unstable person the tools to kill themselves so that we don't have to get messy ourselves is really just window dressing. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Just as we can reword manned to crewed, we can reword "rope to hang yourself" to many other phrases that would transmit the same meaning. Why traumatize anyone if we have a choice? Just because we are DICKs who have a tradition of using an archaic phrase? Jacona (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't like the phrase, I agree with Cullen that it's unnecessarily graphic and an alternative would be preferable, but I do think the principle itself is a sound one. It is basically akin to giving someone either a last chance (if they're on the verge of a lengthy block) or a fresh chance (if they've already had a lengthy block). The gist being that if someone promises to rectify problematic behaviour, we AGF and give them an opportunity to prove it to us, with the proviso that they'll be blocked immediately if they revert back to the old habits. That's a positive thing IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It will probably not be a popular move, but I've nominated the "rope" essay for deletion. Jacona (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

As for alternative metaphors, someone did try to write Wikipedia:Let the tiger show its stripes a few years back. It was kind of doomed from the start (creator was an admin with sockpuppets) but its deletion discussion also has links to some other metaphors you could try. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Along the same lines, I was going to propose WP:Let their actions speak as a violent metaphor-less, more optimistic and AGF-y take. I'm no wordsmith, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Back when all the world and love were new, I was friends with a wise old accordion player who used to say, "if you let people talk, they always tell on themselves." Not sure that's lively or pithy enough, but I thought I'd toss it in the mix. Cheers, all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Reminds me of the celebrated (and often paraphrased) quote by Maya Angelou: "My dear, when people show you who they are, why don't you believe them? Why must you be shown 29 times before you can see who they really are? Why can't you get it the first time?" Rather contrary to the second-chanciness of WP:ROPE, but could easily be given a catchy shortcut like WP:BELIEVE. Generalrelative (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we're missing a great opportunity to come up with a new metaphor here. Give them enough water to let them pee their pants? WP:PEEPANTS Or maybe Give them enough gummy bears to let them develop an upset stomach. WP:GUMMYSTOMACH If enough wikipedians start saying it, it could leak into the real world, and you just might hear someone say Give them enough toilet paper to clog their plumbing. WP:TPCLOG ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Two of those are still problematic (for people affected by real chronic medical conditions of which those things are symptoms) but I'm interested in being able to cite WP:FATBERG. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

So more of a Give them enough baby wipes to ruin their neighborhood's sanitation system. There's also something somewhat related to the original essay, Give them enough snake to run into their own tail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue with all the proposed metaphors is that they all imply that the desired end is for the user to screw up again and be blocked. Yes, some editors are doomed to run afoul, but the messaging shouldn't be implying that they're being set up to fail. Besides the toxicity, WP:ROPE runs counter to the spirit of WP:AGF, because we're giving users the "rope" in bad faith. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

That is a good point, Ytoyoda! Robby.is.on (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The first mention of suicide in Special:Contributions/MainEditoreditoreditor comes after the rope metaphor was used. I have trouble seeing the whole episode as anything other than M3ed trying to add weight to their threatened complaint.

Wiktionary doesn't offer any alternatives. Cabayi (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

..."give them their own petard" ? Cabayi (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Just bears mentioning that this is also a violent metaphor, even if cloaked in the Bard's lovely language. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

True, but more "let their carelessness be their undoing" than "let them kill themselves so we don't have to". Also, cloaking an unsavoury process in iambic pentameter would be very Wikipedia. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi is correct that the M3ed's assertion that they were an attempted suicide survivor came after NBSB's allusions to rope. I have no way of knowing whether anything they said about themselves is true, but in their fourth edit the admitted they weren't new here, and in their seventh, having been reverted twice (by different users), they were already asking about how to make a complaint to administrators. It might be genuine, but the whole thing strikes me as being consistent with how someone might behave if they were attempting to manufacture a complaint, and attempting to make it as weighty as possible.

None of which, of course, really speaks to Cullen's point about whether the metaphor is appropriate - while I'm not afraid of colourful language, I tend to agree that we can do better than this, it's probably not helpful to use a violent metaphor, particularly when it's an essay that is often referenced in fraught situations. I think the 'petard' one is quite stylish, but it's not much better from a 'violence' perspective. We might not actually need a metaphor - we can just argue that someone should be 'given a last chance to prove themselves, under close scrutiny'. Write that up as an essay, call it WP:LASTCHANCE (which currently points to WP:ROPE), and we're good. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Something akin to Barnum's "egress" ? Cabayi (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I vote someone write this up as Double Secret Probation! Dumuzid (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I always thought the message to be communicated was, "instead of trying to predict what a user will do after being unblocked, just unblock them and let them prove it one way or another, because the risk of doing so is low and actual data is better than predictions". Levivich 16:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it's like a test at school, "let them re-take the exam"? Because what's happened is someone faced a tricky situation (an edit-war, a bad reversion, a criticism) and they messed up in how they handled it. So we want to see if they've learned from the mistake, or whether they continue to do the same thing. All of us do stupid things from time to time. A willingness to say "oops, my bad, won't do that again" goes a long way. Elemimele (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

A Mulligan? —valereee (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that the common operative meaning is: "give them the freedom to be good or bad, and we'll see what they do and they will be treated accordingly" North8000 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly right. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

No. There’s a presumption that they’ll take the “bad” option, thereby self-harming. That’s why the message in the essay never quite tallied with the saying. DeCausa (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

My previous post plus: Probably often accompanied by "I'm concerned that it may look like I'm being too easy on them by unblocking/not blocking them, and so I'm including a reminder that they will lead themselves to tough consequences if they blow it". North8000 (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Using a phrase like "self-harming" is really not helpful here. Also, the essay makes it very clear that the intent is to give blocked users a chance to succeed, or to fail, it does not presume either outcome. The actual goal of this essay is, and always has been, to actually give blocked users a chance. And again, it is not intended to be directed at blocked users at all, as it unfortunately was in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Offer them one last windmill — Ched (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• There are some excellent ideas for alternative metaphors above (I laughed out loud at the plumbing one). But, I don't think this is going to address the problem – whatever realistically happens, there is still going to be the WP:ROPE shortcut hanging around, and it will necessarily continue to lead to a page where some sort of rope metaphor is used. The one chance to make a meaningful difference is to change that one rope metaphor. Surely, hanging yourself isn't the only way you can cock it up with a rope. You can tie yourself to some object using a nasty knot you can't untie, or you can get hopelessly entangled, or – if it's a skipping rope – trip yourself up. There must be other ways, too? – Uanfala (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest we just let the MfD resolve this. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with HighInBC: the OP has been appropriately blocked and the "Incident" aspect of this thread is resolved. The discussion on ongoing use of the "rope" terminology is best resolved at the MfD page, where the current viable options are "keep" or "mark historical." Unless anyone has a further current incident to add, suggest closing this thread to centralise conversation over there. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:59, 28 August 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 RepublicanJones1952 WP:NOTHERE

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.

---

RepublicanJones1952 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account's history consists entirely of rants about Wikipedia's supposed bias [77][78][79], nonviable edit proposals [80] [81][82] and removal of well-sourced content [83]. Their most recent comment [84] again complains about "leftist propaganda" and "DemocRATS", citing the NY Post even after being warned not to. Several editors including myself have reached out on their talk page with no response. Even if they do have a legitimate grievance, they're either unwilling or unable to work within our policies and guidelines. I think a block is in order here. –dlthewave ☎ 18:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, that "DemocRATS" line was enough for me. Indef'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:23, 27 August 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.

Valor Christian High School

Page protection and blocks requested--persistent attempts to remove sourced content, whitewashing. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

IP gets invited to all the parties now! El_C 11:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

User:The Banner mislabelling good-faith edits as 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.

---

User:The Banner has reverted several of my edits, falsely describing them as vandalism. I have found that I am not the only person they have attacked in this way; here are some illustrations of their behaviour, two relating to my edits, the third to someone else's:

1. List of countries named after people
   1. [85] I removed an entry which incorrectly suggested that an actual historical person was a legendary figure
   2. [86] The Banner undid the edit without leaving an informative edit summary
   3. [87] The Banner accused me of vandalism
2. Aidy Boothroyd
   1. [88], [89], [90] I removed some recently-added unencyclopaedic text, changed a word to reflect a neutral point of view, and rewrote some ungrammatical text which lacked an encyclopaedic tone.
   2. [91] The Banner undid the edit with the summary "Revert vandalism"
   3. [92] The Banner further accused me of vandalism
3. Steaua București
   1. [93] User:8Dodo8 added some text to a disambiguation page.
   2. [94] The Banner undid their edit with the summary "Revert vandalism"
   3. [95] 8Dodo8 left a message for The Banner asking why they had been accused of vandalism
   4. [96] The Banner replied "Because it was"

I left the template {{uw-notvand}} on their talk page; they responded by saying "Hope you overcome your grief shortly". I commented on their incorrect claim of vandalism against User:8Dodo8 and said I would report any further instances that I saw of false claims of vandalism; they removed that message, and then shortly afterwards re-reverted several of my edits with further false claims of vandalism. So, as it seems to be a pattern of behaviour that they are doubling down on, I think it's necessary to report it here. Could the user please be strongly reminded that describing good-faith edits as vandalism is not acceptable? Thank you. 46.208.152.48 (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

A highly aggressive editor with edits that are at least questionable, like removing sources. This IP is clearly not a newbie, seeing how quick (s)he found its way to this page. The Banner talk 09:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

For example: here and here. The Banner talk 09:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You may disagree with my edits; you may not describe them as vandalism. Are you familiar with WP:VAND and WP:NOTVAND? 46.208.152.48 (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You know your abbreviations. But I can help to notice that you keep reverting. The Banner talk 10:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

He was already warned after calling me a vandal on Talk:Steaua București, I hope he changes his behaviour (and that also includes salty, arrogant remarks). Nothing else to say on this matter.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 10:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

(S)He is nicely fanning the flames on a discussion that had already died down. The Banner talk 10:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• On balance I agree with the IP here. Regarding St. Lucy, the debate seems to be whether a person who actually existed but whose life and accomplishments are mostly religious accounts of miracles should be considered a legendary figure or a historical one. That's a content dispute, not vandalism. Regarding Aidy Boothroyd, the IP's edits have generally reduced the amount of pretentious sports writer cliches (though I still dislike terms like "many pundits" and similar) and the major contention seems to be the sourced sentence labelling Boothroyd "Aidy Hoofroyd". Again, this is a content dispute and not vandalism. For Steau Bucharest, I generally agree that the disputed material is too much detail for a disambig page but the issue is being argued over by several other editors. Once again, a content dispute and not vandalism. Basically, you can't just go around labelling any edit you don't like as vandalism, because not one of these actually was. Reyk _YO! 10:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  That said, the IP does seem to be at 4RR on the Hoofroyd article, which I also don't approve of. Reyk _YO! 10:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  My edit was reverted without an explanation using rollback by User:Randykitty. I think it very likely that they saw User:The Banner's false accusation of vandalism and took it at face value. That just illustrates the damage that such bad-faith accusations can cause. Like I say, anyone is welcome to disagree with my edits, but nobody is welcome to describe good-faith edits as vandalism. Neither User:Randykitty nor User:The Banner has provided any sensible reason to undo my edits. 46.208.152.48 (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  I've restored my original edits three times, not four, by the way. 46.208.152.48 (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• I have to say that the IPs edits to Aidy Boothroyd are an improvement. The disparaging nickname for him, for example, was sourced to a local newspaper website that is 404 anyway, and an opinion column. They certainly weren't vandalism. I can't comment on Grote Reber as the IP doesn't make it clear why the paragraph they removed as "false" is actually false. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Edit: And the IP edits to List of countries named after people look correct as well - Saint Lucy is not unequivocally a legendary figure. Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• The Banner clearly has no intention of changing voluntarily, so sanctions are needed here. Our community is hugely biased against unregistered contributors, but here we have one who is completely correct. It takes two to edit war, and neither of them should be doing so, but only one of the participants was acting constructively. From their talk page archives, The Banner seems to have a consistent astonishingly poor tone. Responses like this show the user is not interested in volunteering in a place with a collaborative atmosphere. Their accusations that the IP is "clearly not a newbie" is irrelevant, as volunteers are completely allowed to edit in the long-term without an account (and there are many good reasons for doing so).
  I support an indefinite block for The Banner for persistent incivility. They've been subject to an i-ban and blocked for edit warring in the past and yet they clearly continue engaging in regular edit wars (this is just the latest—look at their talk page archives). The block should be retracted as soon as The Banner makes (generously construed) a genuine apology for past incivility and explains what they will meaningfully do differently in the future. (Indefinite is not infinite. The Banner can be an excellent contributor, but only if they stop disrupting other volunteers who are acting in good faith.) — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not deny that in the past I had mental depressions causing me to loose self-control, what you can see in my block log. But since 2015 I had just one (1) fully warranted partial block, falling in the period that my mother was dying. I am working on myself but that the past now comes hunting me down is a bit sour. Note: this is not an excuse, but an explanation. The Banner talk 12:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry about your personal circumstances. My comments are related to things that have happened since 2020 (so definitely post-2015), including the i-ban, the diff I linked and your talk page archives; we can discount the partial block if you want but there's still a pattern of rude comments and being warned for edit warring. I am glad that you are taking my comment seriously, and that you are working on yourself. That's a major step to what I was hoping a block could achieve, but I think you can go a bit further. Complaints are being made about edits you made literally today, and I can't see you acknowledging a problem with your conduct.

If I can speculate a bit, what I'm getting the impression of is that you are seeing a lot of sockpuppetry, bad faith behaviour and trolling, and this is making you have your guards a bit too high when it comes to good faith behaviour and particularly to IPs and people approaching you with criticisms of your behaviour. A lot of editors are in that position (I have been, definitely), but it really causes problems for other people when you act that way. — Bilorv (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Banner, please fix this. Retract the warnings you shouldn't have issued, restore the edits you shouldn't have reverted, show the community you understand the difference between vandalism and WP:NOTVAND and that a sanction isn't necessary here. Levivich 12:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • My reverts on articles edited by the IP have all been reverted. My warnings at his/her talk page are also removed (as being trolling). Please advice me what should be done too. The Banner talk 13:08, 28 August 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.

Rasa husseyni

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.

---

Rasa husseyni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New user is vandalising countless articles by adding gibberish. All of his edits have been reverted by different users.

Some examples;

[97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102]

Clearly WP:NOTHERE.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition to vandalising existing pages he is also pointlessly making new ones such as [103] and made two more additional pages. His edits don't make any sense. Kailanmapper (talk) 17:45, 28 August 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:NOTHERE by Zamuel2000m

Zamuel2000m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This new user seems to be here on a mission of Azerbaijanification, rather than here to build an encyclopedia.

He makes baseless interpretations of (mostly) primary sources, which he then spams on various talk pages;

[104] [105] [106] [107]

Inserts unsourced additions or Azerbaijani transliterations into articles;

[108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a possible sockpuppet of EljanM, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EljanM/Archive. Pushing Azerbaijani names and POV, very similar behavior. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I encountered this user before, but an AIV report I filed was closed as stale. The one behavior I notice for them is that they insist on using Latin instead of Arabic script for pre-1929 Azerbaijani-language translations (example diff). At their own talk page, they responded to a level-2 vandalism warning with similar OR and a few personal attacks accusing enwiki users like HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) of historical negationism. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

profanity and hate speech from a new seldom used account

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Ida&diff=prev&oldid=1041141341&diffmode=source Can you just read what this person posted. They aren't here to build an encyclopedia. They have four edits total. One which got reverted in another article, one minor edit, the posting of this, and then reverting it a minute after posting it. Obviously some would check the history to see changes and see this though. Hate speech in it, so can someone erase the edit from public viewing? Dream Focus 22:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a ban evading editor, to me. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, do you have a particular editor in mind? I was thinking about a 4im warning, but if you have specific evidence of ban evasion I'd be willing to consider it. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

No one in particular. Just intuition. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Confirmed to globally locked account, DunstanPuffin8502. I'll go block. --Yamla (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

And on through to Jrdyhrberg. --Yamla (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

15+ years on the 'pedia. I can very much see'em a mile away. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Revision deleted per WP:RD3. Miniapolis 23:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Greek chauvinism

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

---

User Jingiby is making anti-Greek edits, edit wars, and intimidating me—a new user. See Xanthi. This is abnormal! Napoleon Sumpter (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You've barely been on Wikipedia for 24 hrs. How do you know so quickly, about WP:ANI, reverting, etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

And... gone. El_C 18:27, 28 August 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.

Persecution of Christians

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 open Rfc [115] about the addition of content that it turns out was already in the article (since before 2020). That means, in my understanding, that the discussion must be about content removal, not addition, and the Rfc as it is stated is incorrectly stated and should be closed. I posted a diff showing that [116], but the author of the Rfc, Slatersteven (talk · contribs), refuses [117], and instead says I suggest you ask for a formal close at the appropriate venue. So that's what I am doing.

Discussion of this has been going on since 12 August [118] with consensus being reached and ignored. That is not the primary issue here, but perhaps it is still relevant to your decision. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:10, 28 August 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.

Numerous Issues

I'm having several, ongoing issues with two users. Joshuarshah is going around reverting people's correct edits on multiple pages, including Rogers Wireless. He edits the pages and either provides no sources supporting his edits, or the sources he provides are not reliable (such as forum posts). He also removes any attempts to discuss this issue on the article's talk page or his user talk page, and makes personal attacks. Some examples of this behavior: [119], [120].

Also, MrOllie is doing the same edit reverting on multiple pages, and is engaging in personal attacks in his edit descriptions. He is even editing other users' talk pages to remove items in discussion. Some examples of this: [121], [122], [123], [124]. As you can see, this user has a long history of vandalism, edit warring, and even blanking other users' talk pages. 2601:140:501:29D7:8CEA:D9E4:3507:8F79 (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, you have admitted that you have previously been blocked. What was that account or IP? Do you now have an active account? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 - Yes, it was a 7 day IP range block by NinjaRobotPirate. I do not have an account, and was unable to create one during the IP ban. When I previously contacted the admins about this, I was told that this was an IP address range that was shared with other users, and another IP address in the range had broken a rule, so the entire IP range was blocked to prevent vandalism. However, my issue here is with these two users reverting edits and making personal attacks. 2601:140:501:29D7:8CEA:D9E4:3507:8F79 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any personal attacks by MrOllie. Please quote the worst personal attack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 - The primary issue with him is the edit warring and reverting of every edit I've made. He is also editing another user's talk page while we were trying to have an ongoing discussion. See here. He said that I was "harassing" and "block evading", likely confusing me with the other IP address that was banned. 2601:140:501:29D7:8CEA:D9E4:3507:8F79 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Looking at NinjaRobotPirate's rangblock here, which is clearly the range block in question, there appears to be a tremendous amount of information left out of the description above. There are multiple IPs in that range which are continuing the disruptive edits of the indefinitely blocked accounts Dnywlsh, Dv42202 and Dv4200. I appreciate that you're claiming to be someone else, but that dog just won't hunt. I was going to say that I've re-blocked that range as obvious block evasion, but Mr. Ninja beat me to it. Kuru (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

So that's the end of that. Thanks, Kuru. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Good morning everyone. I can confirm that 2601:140:501:29D7:8CEA:D9E4:3507:8F79 is Dnywlsh as this IP Address is currently bothering me on my talk page speaking on Dnywlsh's behalf Joshua Shah (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I also have not attacked anyone. Joshua Shah (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

• Goddess Helvetica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Muhajir people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Muhajir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A user with the intention of replacing Muhajir (a common ethnic designator in Pakistan and even in other Muslim countries) and with the uncommon "Urdu-speaking" has disruptively edited multiple articles, to this end the user has disruptively moved pages repeatedly (e.g. 1, 2, 3) despite being reverted by different editors (the disruptive moves are not limited to this space either), created new cats to replace long-standing Muhajir ones; among other disruptions which clearly show WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Not a single reply or comment comes through the user explaining or wanting to discuss their edits.

The user should be topic banned from this space and moving rights be rescinded until they are willing to discuss their edits and an attempt at resolving/discussing the issues is shown, because the user does not seem to have any intention of doing that till now. Gotitbro (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a big notice at the top of the page requiring you to inform the user, {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~. You know where the {{trout}} are kept. Cabayi (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That was sloppy of me, thanks for handling that. Gotitbro (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, this is apparently about User:Goddess Helvetica. They moved a large number of pages recently, they do not leave any edit summary and they have not responded to complaints on their user talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

We have an article Urdu-speaking people about a term which seems exceptionally easy for almost all English speaking people to understand. The article Muhajir is about a far broader concept and is a term I never heard of until five minutes ago. How can it be disruptive to use a term that is widely understood as opposed to an ambiguous specialist term? Why bring this routine content dispute to ANI before trying other forms of dispute resolution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute but about editor behavior (see below). That Urdu-speaking people article is itself a contentious one, created fairly recently. Muhajir is a subtopic of and shouldn't be conflated. But that isn't the issue here, the issue is about the disruptive editing of the user. Gotitbro (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

An RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan might be a good place to resolve this dispute affecting many pages.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Arguments about what editors are familiar with or think is more apt is not the contention/issue here. This incident is about the specific editor's unwillingness to respond and discuss moves (including cut and paste cat moves) and repeatedly reinserting their edits and reverting editors without explaining the same or anything at all, i.e., no edit summaries, comments (even on their own talk page), or any explanations at all. This is basic WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour if any. Gotitbro (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. The recent edit/page move history of Muhajir people makes sorry reading. I knew at once that GH was the subject of this thread, because I'd reviewed their edits earlier today as a follow-up to Talk:Acre#Page move. Narky Blert (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: as far as not leaving edit summary is concerned, they seem sock of User:Dawood.XV as one of the sock of them Dawood.XV like User:Prince of Azerbaijan also did the same thing if you look theiir contributions similar edits and SPI is also opened where same reason is raised.59.103.203.239 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Multiple IPs making possible unconstructive edits (second round)

A couple of IP users, some of which have been blocked for two times (e.g. this one), including IP ranges (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) (probably used by the same person), have repeatedly made unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Some edits have clearly violated the RfC consensus. (like this one and this one) and others include unexplained removal of content (like this one and this one). Moreover, the IP user is simply unwilling to stop despite warning messages on the talk page.

P.S. This is the ANI archive regarding the IP user just two months ago. --HypVol (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Off topic diversion

Note https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?page=History_of_Asia&users=Drill+it&users=Safari+web&users=HypVol&server=enwiki & https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?page=List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Hong_Kong&users=Drill+it&users=Safari+web&users=HypVol&server=enwiki. He may use sock puppets to avoid directly participating in editing wars.--61.224.26.142 (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC) You are not a check user and these are only groundless speculations. --HypVol (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Add another https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?page=Democracy_movements_of_China&users=Drill+it&users=Safari+web&users=HypVol&server=enwiki The participating sock puppets are Special:Contributions/Safari_web and Special:Contributions/Safari_web--61.224.26.142 (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Let me make it clear, I have never and will never use any sock puppets on Wikipedia. And your groundless accusations have nothing to do with my complaint of the Taiwanese IP here. --HypVol (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Isn't it obvious? Those sock puppets help you avoid 3RR.From my point of view, because two accounts have been blocked, it will be obvious to use other sock puppets, so you use your account for editing wars.In addition, I want to make another point. I’ll be back later, I want to find the link first.--61.224.26.142 (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC) If you are confident about your groundless accusations, take it to WP:SPI and let the Checkuser decide, instead of IP users like you. --HypVol (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Safari_web Special:Contributions/Safari_web registered at 15:12, 2 August 2021.After that, Special:Contributions/Safari_web began to actively participate in the editing war, and Special:Contributions/HypVol also appeared at this time and made more than 100 edits within 2 days(08:08, 3 August 2021 to 05:37, 4 August 2021) .--61.224.26.142 (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Take it to WP:SPI, please. --HypVol (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Coincidentally, the same phenomenon occurred on another date, which is 30 June 2021.And this happened to be the time when Special:Contributions/Drill_it assisted Special:Contributions/HypVol in editing the war. After that, Special:Contributions/HypVol edited more than 100 times (11:26, 29 June 2021 to 16:51, 30 June 2021).Why does Socks help him in the editing war, Special:Contributions/HypVol's editors always increase so fast?I am very interested in this.--61.224.26.142 (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC) The bulletin board above clearly state: To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.. So take it to WP:SPI. --HypVol (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Then I want to raise another topic. After reading your early edits, I found that you seem to be keen to eliminate traditional Chinese or increase the priority of simplified Chinese, and your talk page history also has related records. You even did similar things in different wiki projects. Because you will delete my message on your talk page, I will directly question you here.Another thing to question is why you are keen to delete the Hong Kong-related classification and replace it with the Chinese classification. The two are not incompatible.I found that if no one questions you or initiates a discussion, you will start an editing war. It seems that this is one of your editing habits.--61.224.26.142 (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Then I want to raise another topic. You haven't take your sock accusations to SPI, which is the right place to go. Why?--HypVol (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC) From my point of view, you want to delete the content of this page like your talk page to avoid being noticed by too many users that there may be sock puppets intervening in your editing wars.Because you deleted most of the discussions on your talk page, I think only this page will make you more serious reply.In addition, I do not have the authorization to edit SPI.So if you ask me to edit SPI, I don’t have the ability to do it.--61.224.26.142 (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC) WP:BLANKING, a content guideline that editors should attempt to follow, explicitly state that Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages and There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. Since I have read your accusations, it is definitely OK for me to removal messages on MY OWN talk page. And you have done exactly the SAME thing for two times. (first and second) Please stop applying double standard. Moreover, you may register an account to open an investigation on WP:SPI. This is not a valid excuse.--HypVol (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC) I found that you did not respond to the point, but you copied the content on our talk page here.You don't have the right to ask me to register (you can suggest), just as you don't have the right to delete the comments here.--61.224.26.142 (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC) You also don't have the right to dictate what I comment here. And I didn't ask you to register an account, please note I used the word may, which means suggestion. --HypVol (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You refused to respond to my queries and repeatedly raised your needs.Since our communication is invalid, these contents are left to other administrators to judge.Hope there will be no sock puppets or you remove these discussions.--61.224.26.142 (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't note { { cob } } here.--61.224.26.142 (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

If there's an editor who needs a block here it's HypVol for a persistent pattern of disruptive editing and POV pushing with respect to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. Some examples:

• Replacing neutrally worded 'see also' notes with ridiculous 'Hong Kong belongs to China' POV pushing in templates: [125] [126]
• Replacing the flag of Hong Kong with the flag of china in a list of universities, next to the university of Hong Kong: [127]
• Systematically whitewashing articles to remove all mention of the Special Administrative Region status of Hong Kong: [128]
• Sorting a huge number of articles on various things in Hong Kong into "China foo" categories: [129] [130] [131]
• Removing Portal:Hong Kong from Category:Portals by country because "Hong Kong isn't a country": [132]
• Recategorising people from Hong Kong into the categories for mainland china: [133]
• Across a huge number of templates removing all mentions of Hong Kong being a SAR and merging their topics into the sections on mainland china: [134] [135]
• Changing a huge number of "Hong Kong Foo" categories from being "Foo by nationality" categories to being subcategories of "China Foo": [136] [137] [138]

Taken together the sum total of their contributions show a distinct pattern of POV pushing that makes it clear that this editor is WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopaedia. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: OP's diffs are not depicting the IP contravening RFC consensus, if this is the RFC OP is referring to. It ended in no consensus, case by case basis in April 2020. Also worth saying, while some of the diffs provided by OP here are indeed problematic (particularly this one from IP [139]), I am even more troubled by the diffs the IP has provided of HypVol, which do appear to systematically represent Hong Kong as a purely Chinese entity not separate or autonomous, which it still very much is. A fully fledged government with its own passports and currency and culture. We must be careful to represent Hong Kong as an independent entity, but one that is still a part of China, as that is the established consensus on the relevant talk pages.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: just to be clear, I (the IP that provided the diffs) am not the same editor that HypVol brought here. I came across this editor a couple of times in template space, most recently today when they removed History of the United Kingdom from Template:History of Hong Kong, claiming that it wasn't relevant because "UK no longer Hong Kong's suzerain state" [140]. I also want to be clear that I only provided a small number of problematic diffs - if you look through their contributions basically their entire edit history here has been POV pushing. Some more diffs for those who are interested:

• Describing the flag of Macau as a "regional flag": [141]
• Modifying the location of Macau to imply it's uncontroversialy a part of mainland china: [142]
• Adding some rather POV-pushy leads to a couple of articles on Taiwan's international relations, stating how country X does not recognise Taiwan, it's part of china: [143] [144]
• Adding two countries reactions that supported the Xinjiang internment camps then tagging nearly every entry in the list of people there as needing a citation (which can be found by visiting the articles): [145] [146] [147]
• Removing see also links on controversies from china related articles [148]

Again this isn't an exhaustive list, but taken together they show a distinct pattern of POV pushing. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. It is sometimes difficult to tell with IP addresses. But I see now that you are indeed a different range. Thanks for the reminder. Keep in mind that many editors do not distinguish, since it is so easy to use novel proxies or masking services to jump around on different IP addresses. Companies make them faster than wikipedia can block them. Another reason why you might want to consider making an account! :) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

NickWilson1964

NickWilson1964 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user added several copyright-violating images (now nominated for deletion on Commons) to articles. I reverted them as copyright violations, and now the user is spamming random discussions on my user talk page with personal attacks ([149], [150]). User is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. --Sable232 (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You reverted my own images of my own vehicles saying copyright violations. Just how did you yourself determine I violated copyright on my own pictures of my own cars???? Those are MY pictures of MY cars and I have posted them plenty of times on the internet. NickWilson1964 08/28/2021

So how did you determine the pictures were supposedly copyright violation? Did you just assume without contacting me the contributor?

NickWilson1964, first of all, you have made clear and unambiguous personal attacks against Sable232, which may still result in your account being blocked. Now, is there any reason why you have uploaded pictures which were very obviously created by photographing a computer screen? If they were your own pictures, why didn't you upload the original files? Girth Summit _(blether) 19:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Having said that, many of the pictures to appear to have been taken in the same physical location. The personal attacks are clearly completely unacceptable, and I don't blame Sable232 for their actions at all, but I would like to hear NW's explanation for the pics - there might be something in it. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

NickWilson1964, you were contacted on your talk page at Wikimedia Commons, which is where you uploaded the photos. If you have previously uploaded the photos to copyright restricted websites, then you have created a problem with their free licensing on Commons and Wikipedia. You should straighten things out at Commons where many of your photos have been nominated for deletion and several have already been deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 I do not have a clue how to navigate this stuff. I don't know how to get to the commons place to defend my own pictures and I am not sure it worth all the stress and frustration it's causing me because i wanted to share and add to a couple of post using my pictures of my cars. I am at a loss here and very stressed because sable assumed something without first verifying it as fact. and now I am the bad guy. How do I get to where you said to go???? I am not sure if any of my comments are posting anywhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NickWilson1964 (talk • contribs)

I've given NW a link to their commons talk page over on their talk page here, alongside a warning and some words of advice. I think this is a new user who is perplexed by our systems, and who got frustrated to discover that all their uploads were being deleted, and lashed out. I've warned them for the personal attacks, and advised them to engage on Commons. I'm not ready to block as NOTHERE - I think this is someone trying to help, and I actually buy their story about the images. Sable232, I appreciate that you were wronged by the abusive messages, but would you be willing to allow that to flow under the bridge? Girth Summit _(blether) 19:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@NickWilson1964: The Commons discussions should be linked at commons:User_talk:NickWilson1964, where there's an open discussion for the deletion of the images. I will say, for the record, that this is obviously a photo of a computer screen displaying a photo. Knowing where the original photo came from would be helpful. (And I don't blame you for not being able to figure out the Commons thing; it's a huge pain in the ass and isn't very intuitive). jp×g 19:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit - After seeing the explanation on Nick's user talk page, I agree that this does appear after all to be good-faith editing behind a lot of misunderstanding of Wikipedia/Commons. A succinct apology wouldn't go un-noticed, but regardless of that I'll consider the personal attacks to be past. --Sable232 (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that Sable232, thanks for taking that approach. I'm going to close this, but I hope that NW will be big enough to apologise for getting frustrated and insulting you. If it helps in any way, I was utterly daunted the first few times I tried to upload stuff on Commons - I can understand someone not knowing how to go about doing it properly, and getting frustrated when their stuff gets undone. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 20:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Undoing my close. I thought we were getting somewhere, but NW then decided to create a userpage which insulted Sable, and to continue haranguing Sable on their talk page. I've blocked for 31 hours, and deleted the userpage as G10. I won't reclose this myself, someone else can decide if this is over. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I was prepared to give a further explanation on NW's talk page about what I did and why, but I think in this case it would be more likely to fan the flames than extinguish them, at least at present. --Sable232 (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sable232: I think it might warrant mentioning that, for at least one of the images, it seems to be pretty obviously his own photo, so the accusation (or even implication) of deliberate copyright violation would be completely untrue. I'm not sure how to interpret your comment here; as far as I can tell, he felt quite insulted by this specific thing, so I don't see how offering an apology for it would put more fuel on the fire. jp×g 20:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 2601:C8:281:8BB0:98:6E19:E26E:D546

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.

---

2601:C8:281:8BB0:98:6E19:E26E:D546 (talk · contribs)

Keep adding unsourced content [151] [152] and also edit warring in the article Michigan Boy Boat [153] [154]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I just find out that the editor has a history of editing warring using range 2601:C8:281:8BB0:0:0:0:0/64, which was blocked six months ago. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably still allocated to the same person. Re-blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:30, 28 August 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:2804:D4B:9AEF:A700:F89B:BBDB:AD9E:F22B

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.

---

2804:D4B:9AEF:A700:F89B:BBDB:AD9E:F22B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Despite warnings on their talk page and a series of reverts of their edits, this user continues to make unsourced edits to Personnel sections at Beatles song articles. The edits make no sense – eg crediting drummer Ringo Starr as contributing on various saxophones or as a lead guitarist and string and brass player – and appear purely disruptive. I'd put this down to a case of WP:NOTHERE. JG66 (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:JG66 and thank them for reporting the issue here. This IP started on the 27th and has not made any constructive edits. What is also very concerning is they remove references. S0091 (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 17:17, 29 August 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.

Copyright violating external links by Ethanchandlershaw

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.

---

Ethanchandlershaw has been repeatedly, for months, adding links to external websites hosting what appears to be copyright-violating copies of film and television works. For example, from the several done today, this edit, which (in addition to several copy edits, including one incorrect introduction of fact) provided a link to an archive.org page that appears to have the full content of two Walt Disney theatrical releases, with the claim that they are "by Ethan Shaw, Walt Disney" and that they have been released under a Creative Commons license. It doesn't take much knowledge of the Walt Disney Corporation to assume that they are not actually releasing full theatrical animated films under such a license. He has been warned about this activity in February by VictorTorres2002, and in May, and June by myself. (I also posted a warning earlier today before realizing he'd had enough warnings in the past.) Other such examples from today on three articles on Sesame Street specials. I recommend a block. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 17:14, 29 August 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.

Uncooperative behavior and revert war of Pisarz12345 (talk · contribs)

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.

---

A while ago the juser created a page about a rare Slavic name Jaczemir. Apparently this person is a big fan of The Witcher. I (und user:Nikkimaria) cleaned the article of inappropriate content, but this person keeps reverting to the text of their liking, without responding neither in article talk, not in user talk pages. I didn't pay attention before, but today I noticed that the user was already warned about this kind of behavior multiple times and even blocked twice. IMO time to escalate the blocks. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. They also keep removing my warnings from their user talk, meaning they are aware of the issue, but prefer to disregard it. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Partial block. El_C 21:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, Witcher 3 was so much fun (gotta replay it one of these days), but I think it killed my video card at the time, which was a quite formidable card. So, had to get a new card midway through the game (of the same specs, but instead of 2 fans, it had 3). Anyway... El_C 22:08, 29 August 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:The Supermind

The above user falsely accuses me creating "Website spoofing" by saying used for deception to official website in here Talk:Oromia § Original researches while I am trying to explain the issue he/she raised. After user Above deliberately removed sources and content here[155],[156] by replaced by irrelevant source that doesn't reflect Oromia capital at all here [157]. I requested admin to protect Oromia page from Vandalism. Admin protect for a week, expires 12:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)). Now user threatening to vandalize again after protection of page expires here User talk:MfactDr § Oromia. MfactDr (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Again personal attack by Supermind in here User talk:MfactDr § Oromia by calling me "you're are so fool" MfactDr (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I have to say while I don't think it belongs at ANI in isolation the website spoofing accusation seems clearly false not to mention silly. Supermind is claiming the website was created recently by MfactDr. Except that the link in question is is a 2008 Internet Achive archive of a website. It's clearly not recent and frankly even ignoring the lack of evidence, the suggestion that MfactDr created that website on or before 2008 and for some reason is trying to use it on Wikipedia now is IMO silly enough we can almost dismiss it out of hand. This doesn't mean it's a good source or an official government website. Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The Supermind is so much Disrespectful and attack personally here [158] and other editor told supermind not accuse falsely here[159] after first accuse me creating sources that supermind have NO conclusive proof of my involvement with the web site coding[160]. After I let user aware of notice of incident the user response was discourteous here[161] This The archived Ethiopian Government website That Supermind claimed created by me and Newly designed Ethiopia Government portal website have same contents and both are Government Website. MfactDr (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Persistent self-citing at Amara Sulya Freedom Movement of 1837

• Amara Sulya Freedom Movement of 1837 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Anindith Gowda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2409:4071:4d88:535d:a21:814:52d:8832 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2409:4071:4d88:535d:90d1:150e:8ec8:476c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent WP:SELFCITEing, beginning with [162]; [163]. After receiving warnings, Anindith Gowda switched to IPs, [164], and restored the same links to his independent research, but learned to be more surreptitious in self promotion [165]; [166]; [167]; [168]; [169]. I'm dubious as to whether any of these are acceptable sources, but they all appear to represent a single purpose: a new user's determination to spam their research here. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The ES "‎Independent study by Anindith Gowda Kochi Baarike" doesn't inspire confidence, even if they've also made good minor improvements to ill-written English in other edits (along with the WP:SELFCITEs). Narky Blert (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The entire 'activism' section is composed of references to or events attended by Anindith Gowda. This was transparent in the earlier version, where he plastered his name on the heading as well as throughout the section. The same sources are still used; he's just made his presence more surreptitious. There are two dovetailing issues, COI and quality of the sources. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing after warnings and blocks

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.

---

Special:Contributions/2402:8100:3840:0:0:0:0:0/42 is continuously adding disruptive material. Most of their edits bear the Reverted tag. Many of them bear ClueBot NG's warnings on their pages. There is already a partial block in place. It is a huge IP range but some form of block is required here. 2405:201:4013:80F3:B98D:9B26:5DD9:CBBB (talk) 14:07, 30 August 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.

Dragovit violating topic ban

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

---

User:Dragovit was indefinitely topic banned by the Wikipedia community from editing "in the areas of flags, coats of arms, and other national symbols, broadly construed" back in May, and yet barely 5 months later (before they were even eligible to appeal the topic ban), Dragovit is back to combing through Wikipedia articles at will, editing coats of arms and flags as if this entire discussion had never taken place.

What's more, after being invited to do so, Dragovit is now voting in a new RfC on the status of what flag should be used in the infobox for Austria-Hungary, despite being topic banned from the issue at hand. White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 04:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for one month for obvious topic ban violations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: What about the editor that invited Dragovit to participate? Is that actionable? Mjroots (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, is there any evidence that editor knew about the topic ban, as opposed to knowing of their interest in flags? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: - I'm going to assume that there isn't. Maybe worth a general warning re canvassing though. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, the summary of the policy is When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions. In this case, the notification was complety neutral and it was sent to six editors. I do not know enough about flag controversies to conclude that these six were selected for biased reasons, so I am not going to warn this editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 29 August 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.

spooky 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.

---

Perhaps this is nothing, but I was spooked, so I wanted to get some guidance.

Today, 109.79.160.61 (talk · contribs) came to my talk page to discuss an edit I made (this isn't about our discussion per se). I rarely encounter IP editors who are so verbose, and after a couple of back-and-forth replies, I checked their contributions out of curiosity and saw a lot of purple links there. In the single day they've been editing, the IP editor hit a lot of the same pages I do. It weirded me out, and so I checked what our recommended process was for something like this. WP:HOUND pointed me towards this tool where I found that in a single day, that IP has overlapped at least six pages I've edited in the last two months (not including—for examine—where I edited WUKY and they then edited the talk page). Furthermore, this apparently experienced IP editor just appeared from the æther and began following my edits? In addition to the prima facie unsettling nature, I wonder if I've upset or annoyed an otherwise registered editor who's logged out to unnerve me and/or create a "second voice" to agree about their original grievance.

In the meantime, I'm going to stop interacting with the editor at my page because I don't want to introduce confusion by having two (albeit wholly different) discussions with/about them. I'd really appreciate any assistance offered. Thanks! (I'll drop the {{ANI-notice}} after saving this page.) — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. For what it's worth, given the IP editor's reply below, I just want to reiterate that I'm not here about our discussion regarding my edits; that has no need for an administrator that I can see. I'm just asking for input regarding the eerie confluence between pages I've edited and an IP editor with less than three hours of contributory history. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a banned evading editor. Otherwise, how could he/she learn so much about the project, in less the 24 hrs. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I have encountered Fourthords before, yes. I've also edited the Popeye (film) article before, and a lot of other film articles and recently Star Trek articles. He has made a mistake, one that could have been easily avoided if he had read the article before deleting.[170] There was also a previous note on his talk page that questioned his deletes. My comments were critical of his actions, his deletes. I can understand his frustration at text not being properly verified and his reluctance to use {{citation needed}} tags but asking him to read the article before deleting is not asking much. Maybe I could have handled it differently and let it go but the response from Fourthords was as if he did not see he had made any kind of a mistake, pointing to the specifics of the rules rather than the principle of trying to improve the article.

If you believe I'm a banned editor you should report me, but I am just a user who chooses to edit anonymously and I have done so for a long time. Sometimes I get annoyed by editors not following the rules, or in this case interpreting them in way that does not seem to be about making the articles better. I have tried to follow the rules and I have tried to be polite. Perhaps there are some rules I am not aware of or should reread but I don't think it was unreasonable to criticize a large delete that could have easily been avoided. I don't think there is an need to escalate this further. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay (talk · contribs) just made a huge revert to Popeye (film) without even an edit summary to explain why.[171] This reverted back to and repeated the big unnecessary deletes that Fourthords had made. Please explain. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Because your edits weren't necessary & you still haven't told us who you are or were. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I explained each of my edits with an edit summary I hope was clear enough. The edits seemed necessary to improve the sourcing and address the issues that prompted Fourthords to delete those paragraphs, rightly or wrongly.

I was not under the impression that there was any requirement to disclose who I am, and you did not ask. More importantly I cannot disprove a negative, if you believe I am a sock puppet and I point to one account it will not prove anything, you will just think I have some other hidden account. 109.79.160.61 (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You've only been on Wikipedia for less the 24 hrs. There's no possible way you would have learned the project's inner workings, so quickly. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: 109.79 has made it clear that they have not been on Wikipedia for less than 24 hours.^[172][173] In fact, I took a look at their range and saw hundreds of edits just from this month.
What we have here is a medium-term experienced anonymous user checking the contributions of a longer-term experienced user because the anonymous user saw the longer-term user made a few of the same mistakes.
@Fourthords: You're fine. This is just a case of an anonymous user acting just like a user with an account, and you probably aren't as used to that? They are on a dynamic range, so if you want to see what the rest of their contributions were (which go back at least a few months from what I can tell), you have to visit Special:Contributions/109.79.160.61/16 (it'd be /64 for an IPv6 address - to oversimplify things). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Something is amiss & it's only going to get worst, until it's corrected or the IP reveals his/her registered account. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I really doubt they have one. There's too much activity on their range that is obviously coming from a single individual (like somewhere near 500 edits in a single month.. that's quite a lot). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

My intuition about these things, are rarely wrong. Meanwhile, suggest somebody encourage the individual to create an account, if we're assuming he/she doesn't already have one. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Fourthords inserted a P.S. note above (after I made my reply) so I will try to explain further. I do not think you can separate the actions from the problem here. I was responding to the deleting the good faith work of other editors without due care.
I was looking at pages I had edited before and I looked at Popeye and noticed a big delete. The deleted text seemed to be probably correct but the was not a reference at the end of every paragraph but it could have been clearer and from even a brief skim read it seemed like the book references were the source.[174] Reading the article more again more carefully it was clear the books were the source.[175] I reverted and made improvements, I worked on the article for about an hour, improving other sources too. I considered if it was worth saying anything on Fourthords talk page. I edited some other things too. Then I looked at Fourthords recent edit history for other large deletes, there were a few, and I saw a complaint on his talk page about deletes. It looked like a pattern and it did not look like he was being careful. I decided that the editor was not taking a reasonable amount of care and that it was appropriate to point out that his delete was a mistake.
I had hoped I would not need to escalate this any further or accuse him of careless disruptive editing. I had hoped he might acknowledge that a mistake was made, people are tired, mistakes happen. I had hoped that in future he might read the text of an article and when the things on balance look like they are probably true, use a {{citation needed}} tag next time instead.
Deleting things is very easy, too easy probably. Improving articles is a lot harder. I don't think it is asking much for editors to take care before making large deletes. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. IP blocked for hounding using a suspect account. El_C 17:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/109.79.160.61

Moved from User talk:El C

I just commented at AN/I, but I only now just noticed you blocked 109.79. I think this was a misunderstanding because from what I can tell since 109.79 is actually an experienced user (not a sockpuppet) who had a pretty legitimate reason for doing what they did (certainly weren't ever warned against it at least). I really don't think blocking them was the right call here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say they were a sock. But if they are an experienced user, how do you justify their logged out editing that hounds another user? El_C 17:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

MJL, please feel free to refactor this exchange onto the ANI thread. Probably better we discuss it in that wider forum than split the discussion over here. El_C 17:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

(1) All of their experience is logged out editing. They've been editing Star Trek articles for at least more than a month (it's all on their range)

(2) editorinteract.py showed me two diffs: [176] and [177]. Besides the explicit mention of Talk:WUKY, those were the only examples I could find of following.

(3) All three show the same exact pattern of 109.79 simply trying to restore removed text, and I can't see in that as anything nefarious. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C:  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Unblocked with apologies. Again, sorry, IP, for having misread the situation. Thanks for being quick on the draw, MJL. El_C 17:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. But, it's in administrators hands, not mine. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, as I noted on my talk page, when in doubt, I'd rather err on the side of good faith (i.e. before going the WP:PACT route). El_C 18:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It may be worth having a brief read of these essays. There has been no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that the IP user is anything other than simply an IP user. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 18:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, this isn't the first time in the last few days that you've assumed an IP was a sock without any reason. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. But you've got no proof, as you're not a CU. This time, you reverted them and actually made the article worse. I'd strongly suggest you actually look at the edit you're actually making first, and not assume that an IP is automatically wrong - or perhaps, y'know, leave it to the administrators to sort out. This is even worse in this case because you don't appear to understand how IP ranges work. ("You've only been on Wikipedia for less the 24 hrs. There's no possible way you would have learned the project's inner workings, so quickly.") We have blocked editors in the past for such repeated displays of bad faith. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I've not repeated 'said' revert, since & sincerely hope I'm incorrect about the IP's identity. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Black Kite is referring to these reverts: [178][179] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I was/am aware of that. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to take the block personally, I expected that I'd have to pause until this was talked out. As an anon IP user I accept that I am frequently going to be judged with suspicion, but frankly named editors should be judged with skepticism too. After editing this way for years I prefer editing as anon and it think it helps put the focus on the edits and not a person. (You might note that I've an old comment on the Popeye article talk from 2017 as I have long standing concerns about Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic making it look like reviews for the film were mixed, but I've only recently managed to find decent source making it clear it was panned after I went reading more about Robert Altman instead of trying to directly find sources about the film.)
I accept I could have handled this better and done more to to avoid even the appearance of WP:HOUND but again I don't think you can separate my actions from the careless deletes that prompted them. I hope others will admit their mistakes and be more careful before deleting in future. If we weren't living in plague times I'd make more of an effort to go outside and do something else instead.
Note to user GoodDay, maybe you know this already but if you add /16 after an IP address Special:Contributions/109.79.160.61/16 you can see other edits from people in the same range, and quite a lot of them are mine, especially the one that attempt to provide clear edit summaries explaining what they are trying to do. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@109.79: I'm just glad you're in good enough spirits and have not let this deter you from continuing to contribute. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

People carelessly deleting the good faith efforts of other editors is more likely to discourage me than people calling me out for making a mistake or administrators trying to keep order and enforce the rules. I didn't quit the Wikipedia habit even after I quit having an account, it has been many years since then. I edit only sporadically anyway, it might be tomorrow, it might be next week. I will try to check this thread again tomorrow in case there are any follow-up questions from administrators, or any advice about how I might have better dealt with the disruptive deletes. We disagreed, we discussed, we go on. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Somebody should either close or archive this report. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 30 August 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.

Meddymarl and Never Say Never (Brandy album)

For a year now,[180] Meddyman has been changing the sales of the album Never Say Never (Brandy album). The most modern sources say 16 million[181][182] to 18 (but were deemed as unreliable), but Meddyman has been saying they are less, with sources published more than 15 to 20 years old.[183]

Every edit performed vary the total sales: 8.2,[184] 9,[185][186] 11,[187] or 14[188], Meddyman has inconsistently and individually determined the real sales figure. Meddyman tried to explain their point at Talk:Never Say Never (Brandy album)#Worldwide sales for the album, and the discussion never went beyond that. The last time they changed (from 16 to 11) I told them: "Furthermore, the text says: 'Since emerging with her 3x-platinum self-titled debut album in 1994, released when Brandy was only 15-years-old. The trail-blazing pioneer has sold more than 40 million albums worldwide (including the 5x-platinum selling “Never Say Never”) and is ranked one of the best-selling female artists in American music history by the RIAA, having sold over 11 million albums in the United States.' This is talking about Brandy herself. I think this is the point where you WP:DROP the stick." A month later, however, Meddyman returned and did it again, now saying it had sold 14 million copies (as of July 2004). I don't expect Meddyman to discuss as they edit inconsistently here, but this is beyond the WP:IDHT point. The user simply doesn't want to discuss the changes. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Beaverton IP range resumes disruption

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.

---

• 2601:1C0:6902:64D0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Can we re-block the Beaverton, Oregon, range Special:Contributions/2601:1C0:6902:64D0:0:0:0:0/64 which has been vandalizing music articles with wrong dates?[189][190] The previous lengthy blocks expired. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 30 August 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:USER19339393993

• USER19339393993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user really is up to no good if you ask me. I reported the user on AIAV, but I find their contribs highly suspect. Who is clearly bugging the hell out of Egghead06. Govvy (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• USER19339393995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has shifted to a diff username, really need an admin to sort this out. Govvy (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked by another admin, continued to troll via unblock requests which are, so far, being declined quickly. --Yamla (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Fanman01

• Fanman01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Closing Time (Semisonic song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Fanman01 has been introducing uncited information to Closing Time (Semisonic song) for some time now, most notably that it is Semisonic's signature song. I have left them multiple warnings on their talk page that they need to cite the information they introduce to the article, but this user is unwilling to respond and continues to make these disruptive edits. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 21:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

ResolutionsPerMinute, please take a look at List of signature songs which includes a reference to a source verifying this claim. A quick Google search produced half a dozen other sources as well. Verifiabilty says a claim must be verifiable (which it is), not verified now. Instead of placing those warnings and writing an ANI report, why not just add a reference and move on? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

After reading the editor's talk page, I see that you have accused them of vandalism. Adding correct but unreferenced content is not vandalism. Please do not make false accusations of vandalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Accusing them of vandalism was a mistake; I forgot to selected the appropriate field with Twinkle, which I just started using. At any rate, I see your point. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 18:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe ResolutionsPerMinute would have accepted the source in List: "You need to find a source that explicitly says "Closing Time" is the band's signature song." [191] Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

nm, that's wrong of course, I was reading the wrong source. Apologies, RPM. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, stalking and harassment

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

User is stalking my edits following an earlier exchange on my talk page. Granted, I should have used a softer tone in that discussion.

After a lengthy discussion at Talk:List of Jeopardy! contestants#Matt Amodio where two editors agreed to hide an existing section and only update it when the contestant loses, user then repeatedly created a duplicate, empty placeholder section. Later in the talk page discussion, the user WP:IDHT ignores requests not to create duplicate sections and to use cite templates per WP:REFB and WP:INTREF3.

During the edit issues at Talk:List of Jeopardy! contestants, the user engaged in another discussion on my talk page.

Now, with that backstory, following resolution of the Jeopardy! contestants article 13 August, the user has continued to stalk my edits, immediately editing an article the user has never touched following my previous edit. The user has continued to harass and threaten me on my talk page. The user has a lengthy block log, having been blocked four times for personal harassment. Wikipedia:Editing restrictions has three indefinite bans for user, one of which is harassment related for another user's talk page.[192] and [193] User is also indefinitely banned from AN and AN/I at WP:EDR.

User did not acknowledge my questions on his talk page about his stalking activity (1 and 2), instead simply archiving the discussion without acknowledging it. User again stalked my edits at RFD, replying as the next edit after mine. A fourth example is this edit to my talk page today, harassing me about my revert of content earlier added to The Mary Tyler Moore Show about dead actors, and again posting on my talk page after I've repeatedly asked to be left alone.

See also 174.244.243.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who may be a meat or sock of user, based upon three related edits user made.

At what point is action taken for an editor who has been given chance after chance following repeated blocks for stalking, and who continues that same behavior? AldezD (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Someone (with the knowledge to do so) will have to transclude BB's defence posts, here. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Not necessary. The editing restriction banning BB from AN and AN/I permits responding to a section posted about them. See resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Seems to me to be more "content dispute" more than anything; ... which should be resolved on the article talk page. I do however think the sock puppet accusation is without merit, and I think it should be struck through. I'll also note that the AN/ANI ban was after Bugs vowed to stay away from those pages voluntarily. I can also understand the "ownership concerns that have been expressed. As far as the bickering between the two of you, I suggest it would be better if you both just avoided each other. — Ched (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ched:, the content dispute was already resolved before the stalking and harassment began. I've already asked the user to stop harassing and stalking me me, but the behavior continues. Following the edits at Jeopardy, I have not interacted with the user outside of responding to his recent edits on my talk page, asking why he is stalking me and leaving threats, and then notifying him I opened this ANI. You can view these threats which are still on my talk page. This is a long-term evidenced pattern of behavior for this editor when he gets in a content dispute, and it will likely continue with out admin intervention. The AN and AN/I bans were after he vowed to stay away from them 06 May 2018—only later to go against that vow and get blocked again for it 9 July 2020. Who's to say if this user "vows" to stop stalking and harassing me that he won't turn around and do it again? AldezD (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
    • It looks very much to me as if you're trying to get him blocked for a block log that's mostly 6 or 7 years old. I'll also note that you're claiming stalking in regards to the RfD link - which seems a bit odd since he actually agreed with you on the deletion. When I read through the Jeopardy talk page, I get the impression that you are trying to force your preferred version through, often with "IDHT", which seems to be your go-to link when someone doesn't agree with you. You say 2 people agreed = consensus, and when one person shows up and doesn't agree you claim they're being disruptive. As far as the Mary Tyler Moore question, while I agree there wasn't a "ref" for that, I do recall several of the articles in the last couple days that would support the text, so I can't really see the need for deleting Since the deaths of Leachman, MacLeod, and Asner all in 2021, White is left as the only surviving member of the show's main cast. - which is actually verifiable. Maybe a tag at most. In the end (and IMO), there's nothing to sanction Bugs for here. In fact, I find your approach to be needlessly aggressive. So personally, no, I'm not going to sanction Bugs. — Ched (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC) (edit) and as far as "threats" .. I really don't see that in the slightest. — Ched (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I took a medium-depth look. IMO in exchanges there has been some two-way battleground fuel. And AldezD has a bit aggressive with deletes which could elicit "too far" responses from some editors. But IMO Baseball Bugs's responses have strayed a bit into that "too far" category including some component of stalking/hounding. IMO some significant "backing off" by Baseball Bugs from AldezD needs to be accomplished somehow. Some voluntary plan would be simplest. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

SPA troll/vandal repeatedly moving page against clear RM consensus

Literally the only thing Joshuastrode89 (talk · contribs) has done on Wikipedia is to try to get Dick Sweeney moved to Richard Sweeney, with no rationale except Dick is a "vulgar and sexist word". Has been moving the page anyway (twice), and deleted the entirety of his own RM. Was warned on his talkpage [194] but did the move again.

Could an admin please indef him and also move the page back to Dick Sweeney (99% of reliable sources refer to him as Dick [195], [196] and that is how he refers to himself [197], [198]) and move-protect it? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Censorship is getting further out of hand, on this project. Now, it's an editor wanting the article title changed, because he/she finds it offensive. Obviously, it should be changed back to Dick Sweeney. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Improper conduct of a user

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

---

The user @GoodDay: has just reverted an edit containing well-sourced content, see history here: [1]. This user has reverted the exact same changes multiple times (excepting one time) without providing explanation as to why well-sourced content is unacceptable here (there was no edit summary, bordering/adding vandalism).

Note: I was blocked due to a dispute with this user; where I wasn’t given a single warning notice for edit warring, and where they could’ve just informed me that they were entitled to clean their own talk pages. Even if not so, I was just being polite and asking them to retract their uncivil and offensive comments.

They also try to demean me by saying in article talk pages under sections I create by saying “the editor who made this proposal is blocked for edit warring/entertaining me” or so to paraphrase. See here: Talk:George_VI#Title_of_King , whilst also being uncivil and making the same offensive comments.

Also, they do not seem to be open for discussion without being uncivil as noted here (they were on the border of gravedancing) [2].

They are yet to retract their uncivil comments here: [3], and in other places too, such as my own talk page for example on both my IP and my registered user KosomPolskii. They do not respond to a polite message to retract their uncivil messages and cease their improper conduct.

I wish to seek a resolution which would result in their uncivil comments being retracted from all incidents, which I can provide if this path is being elected.

In addition, in light of their recent and even older questionable behaviour as evidenced in recent ANI topics and their almost-consistent battleground behaviour in that they reply with uncivil comments or warring behaviour when someone is mistaken in good faith, or makes edits which are well-sourced but may not be as recognised (one should consider the bold edits and break all rules policies too here, and editors who come under that category are not entertained politely by this user), and in light of this user’s assuming bad faith in other editors and casting aspersions, I would recommend more stricter or serious action. I would also recommend that WP:NOTHERE , not here to build an encyclopaedia be applied to them. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You had no consensus to make those additions to that article. But, I don't care anymore. Go ahead & re-add them. But don't complain to me, when one of the other editors revert you. GoodDay (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I’ve waited an entire week for consensus, and considering they are well-sourced, I added them. Your being normal and civil with these additions does not excuse you from your conduct issues.

Who are you that I would even think of coming to you if someone reverts me? Please don’t maintain such a high-handed behaviour. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Considering their edits here: Talk:List_of_titles_and_honours_of_George_VI#Proposal_to_add_German_titles, it might be rationale enough to conclude that instead of explaining policy or warning me, they are more interested in not recognising good content additions and more interested in getting action taken on other editors. They might not be here to build an encyclopaedia, @GoodDay:. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Ask @Peter Ormond: & @DeCausa: if they've changed their minds, about your additions. I don't want anything to do with it, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

They we’re only concerned with the article George V. Not on George VI’s titles article. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

What are your views @HighInBC:? -- GoodDay (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

If you want nothing to do with this, then RETRACT your uncivil comments, don’t think you can scare or intimidate me. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Ask @KosomPolskii: advice. I'm done with discussion. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I am KosomPolskii, I edit with IP as I prefer this more. If you’re done, then be normal, don’t behave like you were innocent and are being unfairly questioned. Respond, don’t react.@GoodDay:. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This, the manner of their interaction here on this thread, warrants battleground behaviour, I believe, refusing to retract their uncivil comments, high-handed behaviour and playing the victim card. @GoodDay:. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Please note their baseless allegation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography&diff=prev&oldid=1041545205 , I always said I am KosomPolskii, even to administrators during my unblock request, that I created an account to edit way before I got blocked. I was unaware of the person block theory and thought I could edit from my account. Stop your accusations, @GoodDay:, you should revert this too. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You were blocked as an IP. Then switched to your account so that you could evade the block (which you openly acknowledged on your talkpage). When you were unblocked, you blanked your user talkpage, announced you were "retired", and then immediately resumed your edit warring with the IP. After which you opened this thread. GoodDay probably isn't assuming good faith with you because you're not acting in good faith. Opening this complaint was a bad idea. Grandpallama (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think making uncivil comments and then getting objected to for that counts as reason enough to not assume good faith. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I think everyone is free to come back when they want, I am now semi-retired, and please, before I opened this thread. Me making an edit and GoodDay reverting means they are edit warring. I was blocked for edit warring on their talk page. And again, I was being polite in asking them to retract their comments, just that. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

TBH Grandpallama. I'm more bewildered then angry, at the moment. Also, I've lost count as to how many times I've been pinged here. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I only want those uncivil comments retracted, @Grandpallama:. I was unaware, but when I was told, I did not oppose that I violated policy. Please help. I only escalated due to the comments, nothing else. I want resolution, which is why I opened this thread. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I won’t ping/inform you, will do it just once, if I must. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Uncivil comments: Are you talkin' about "This is gonna shock the pants off of ya" comment, at the George V article? GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I think I mentioned what my objections are more than necessary for a lay man to find out. Please be constructive in bringing about your own version. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You've got me confused. Meanwhile, please indent your posts, properly. They're too difficult to read, when you don't. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I’ll try, but I’m using an iPad without the keyboard and pencil, and my objections are solely to you comments; and to when you, after I waited a week for consensus, added content that was well-sourced, you removed it, and without any edit summary, bordering/actually violating vandalism rules. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, there’s no vandalism and no incivility. Demands for retractions are going to go nowhere. Use your account, since you have one, even if it was created t o evade a previous block for the same kind of things that you’re doing now. Acroterion (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I created my account way before any block, not to evade block. I just prefer IP editing. “Shocking the pants off of ya” is not something someone says to make their point. It is uncivil. Reverting a well-sourced edit without edit summary does border vandalism. KosomPolskii (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll let @DrKay:, @DeCausa:, @Peter Ormond: & anyone else, who's got expertise in the British monarchy, to decide if your edits were constructive & required consensus. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, but your conduct issues will be pursued here. That is the point. This is not a content dispute, this is a conduct dispute, see the title of the thread. KosomPolskii (talk) 04:55, 31 August 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:Faster than Thunder and WP:CIR

I have some competency concerns about the user Faster than Thunder.

• Cartoon Network and CBS - - pretty obviously unlikely that the two entities would be confused with each other
• Sitar - [199] - this is the most common use of "sitar"
• Glossary of Carnatic music - [200] - unnecessary pronunciation guides; Wiktionary serves this purpose just fine

User has also created Template:Inappropriate and added it to Double penetration dildo ([201]) in violation of WP:NODISCLAIMERS.

I get that this user is trying to help, but sometimes editors have good intentions, but are not competent enough to edit in a net positive manner. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. Does this user's activity fall under WP:CIR? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 01:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

They've been here for 2 days, and have only made 15 edits. WP:Bite seems to apply here - I can't see anyone discussing these issues with the editor on their talk page but they've been dragged to ANI for a block? New editors are expected to make the occasional bad edit, it's when they don't listen to advice that it becomes problematic. As an aside their edit to Sitar looks completely correct to me, I don't understand why that was reverted. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

User:The Grand Delusion, did I miss where you discussed this with the editor? Drmies (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that WP:BITE is the relevant guideline here. It is currently way too premature to consider any kind of WP:CIR action, and I also agree there was nothing wrong with the edit to Sitar. As far as I can tell, this is a new editor making new editor mistakes. Mz7 (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd go further, and say that the edit to Sitar was excellent, and also showed advanced knowledge of guidelines. See MOS:HATNOTE#Linking to a disambiguation page (there isn't even a shortcut for that). Narky Blert (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

(there isn't even a shortcut for that) – just a note as to not make Narky Blert look silly: I've taken the liberty... AngryHarpy‍^talk 05:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This edit was obviously incorrect. There is something ineffably strange about this editor's pattern and relatively advanced knowledge of Wikipedia templates, etc. They're certainly worth keeping an eye on. Graham87 05:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. "Cutting" and "copying" are very different things in that context. Narky Blert (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean the template they made was a message box with some text in it, sorted into the incorrect category (which isn't noinclude'd out so the category will be added to articles too) which was a recreation of a template that has been repeatedly deleted over and over per WP:NODISCLAIMERS. I wouldn't exactly call that an "advanced knowledge of templates". Based on their userpage I assume that this is a younger editor making the common mistake of trying to move into technical and policy areas too quickly - it happens all the time. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That contributions list whiffs of dirty socks. Izno (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Really, there's no limit--personal attacks in Morse Code

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.

---

80.233.44.43 (talk · contribs) is reverting a series of edits by Roger 8 Roger (talk · contribs). Their edit summaries are all in Morse Code, and translate to vulgar attacks on the editor. In addition to the inevitable block, requesting rev/deletion of personal attacks in edit summaries. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Been taken care of--thanks, Primefac. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Though we still need to revoke editing privilege at their own talk page....2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:29, 30 August 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.

Coming soon, the semaphore version of purely disruptive material!. (And maybe afterwards, personal attacks on an Aldis lamp.) --MuZemike 02:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I prefer to make my personal attacks using IP over Avian Carriers. Those birds can carry up to 70 grams of cargo! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You're thinking of the African Swallow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Nehme 1499 and Dr Salvus - they make disruptive editing removing information, I restore it and they threatened to block me

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 that the users Nehme 1499 and Dr Salvus, who have threatened to block me and accused me of disruptive editing while I have restored information on the Italy national team page that they both removed without discussing it before on the talk page or providing any kind of reason or source for their removal of stable information. The information removed by these two users is concerning the injured players that have been recently called up; this kind of information has is normally reported on ALL the national football team pages on Wikipedia. Their behavior is not fair and acceptable.--Bergenoslo (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It's funny how, instead of actually addressing Dr Salvus and I's comments on Talk:Italy national football team, you decided to open an ANI discussion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bergenoslo, I must agree with Nehme1499. There's also a concensus who says that injuries should not be reported Dr Salvus 18:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I protected the page for two days to stop the revert/edit warring. If an un-involved admin feels this is settled sooner, feel free to unprotect without consulting me. This was simpler than blocks as folks were approaching 3RR Star Mississippi 19:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Closing - Bergenoslo, please explore other avenues of conversation before bringing this to AN. This seems like a simple content dispute, so you should assume good faith. If this isn't rectified on the talk / WT:FOOTY, then that would be a suitable time for a topic here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:50, 31 August 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.

Removal of well sourced Content

Need Administrator attention, there is a constant removal of well referenced content from Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi by User:Owais Al Qarni and User:TheAafi despite warnings on their talk page. After checking the edit history of the article it seems that they had also removed content from very same article previously which was reverted. Possible duck or meat puppetry case. please check this for evidence, where Aafi was reverted for mass content removal by @Faizhaider:. Pilotforfuture (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Well, this section was discussed a year ago. A discussion was imitated on Talk:Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi#Requesting a review by TheEagle107. The user who then reverted my edits, didn't respond at the end of discussion. I must ping Toddy1. If that content is made neutral, I would have no problems. For that, you have the article's talk page. Thanks. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 08:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  when the discussion didn't reach any consensus, it was kept as FaizHaider added it until Owais Al Qarni removed it on 2 February 2021‎.as "False Information". It was re-added again and TheEagle107 removed it again on 26 July 2021 saying "Removed POV section that was added by a topic-banned user..". I reverted Pilotforfuture twice on the article and asked them to discuss the matter on talk page. Instead of doing that, they have come here. Quite interesting. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 08:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is an already available lengthy discussion at the article's talk page where Aafi was suggested to not remove the well referenced content until they can have a better content but still they are removing the content. So I think it is better an admin should end this year long content dispute. Thanks. Pilotforfuture (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

the one who added this non-neutral content, ScholarM is blocked indefinite. FaizHaider couldn't answer doubts expressed by Toddy1 on the talk page. You must be reading half-comments. No? Read the whole discussion. He was asked to produce a correct version, which he didn't, neither did he clarify the doubts. Well, in that case, I support removal of this content until it is made neutral and doubts raised are clarified. If you can copyedit the section, propose a neutral prose on the talk page. That's it. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 09:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. It should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. Pilotforfuture has not contributed to the article talk page - though there was a discussion a year ago about an earlier version of the disputed section at Talk:Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi#Requesting a review.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Trypophobia Lead Image

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.

---

It was brought to my attention a few weeks ago that anonymous editors were vandalizing the page Trypophobia to remove its lead image. I went to the page with the intention of protecting it. The contention is, from one point of view, that the lead image has been used by scientist to stimulate a reaction that may induce panic attacks, and may cause similar reactions in visitors to the page. From the other point of view, the picture's presence in the lead is informative. In the time between my first visit, I saw posts by non-Wikipedia users suggesting that the page is indicative of ableist bias on Wikipedia. In response, I looked at other articles, and users had added images to leads which seem to graphically show the subject of phobias, contrary to some Wikipedia conventions (see WP:SHOCK and arachnophobia talk page, in the latter I mention that 'censoring' the article with a cartoon spider has been the practice on that page since 2007 when a picture was first added). I became suspicious and began investigating the Trypophobia talk page, and found that active users there were repeatedly referring an RfC that happened three years ago. Reading the RfC, a wikipedia user who wished to remove the image in the lead, because, they said, it caused them significant distress to see, called an RfC, which drew many opposesed users, 32 out of 33 of which agreed to keep the image in the lead, mostly because of concerns about censorship. However, some users, such as one editor called Tryptofish, took the time to mock the concept of the disorder, and tried to have the image enlarged. Some users seem to have been attracted to the RfC by 4chan, mentioning that website as if they were an active member and using its internal norms to inform discussion. I began thinking that a serious bias had occured in the proceeding. Talking to users in the page, they mostly tried to assure me that the Democratic processes of Wikipedia were sacrosanct, but, in my opinion, mostly did not address several paragraphs worth of points that I brought up, calling doing so "a waste of time." I reached out to the one user who disagreed with the RfC decision to keep the image, User:Pengo, and they seem to believe that the RfC decision was made out of bias and cruelty. I agree with that. I'd also note that this is not the first time the article has been the object of ableist bias, where in 2009 the page was deleted because users did not believe that the condition (the recent subject of a study) could exist.

I think users are inappropriately using the RfC as some sort of binding arbitration, seemingly telling one user not to discuss the subject because it was already settled in RfC. They seem to have implied in a talk page topic called 'Picture appropriate?' not to use arguments which had been used in the RfC by the single opposition vote or the non-consensus movement to collapse or blur the lead image. I was told I could use WP:CLOSECHALLENGE to reopen the RfC, which I don't think is an appropriate use of Close Challenge, and I think was an attempt to reinforce the binding nature of the original RfC. The same user emphasised that the number of people invovlved in the consensus is indicative of the RfC's "success", despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy. I also think there's a significant imbedded bias in the article's maintenance, with users actively maintaining and discussing the conclusion of the RfC years after it was closed. Indeed, the lead image is still controversial, yet I find it odd that users who came to the page from uninvolved editor emails are still actively maintaining and fiercely debating in favor of that RfC's consenus three years later. Maybe there's a lot of moving parts involved, but I think Wikipedia's mailing list is by its nature more likely to contact users who would either not believe this condition is real or who would see it as a sideshow type curiosity. In any case, I think the page needs to find a balanced point of view which takes more into account than concerns about perceptions of censorship.

I'm not sure what to do about this. I don't see a lot in Wikipedia resolutions that deal with inherent biases, which are harder to suss out, instead focusing on individual bias. I feel like some of the users involved don't realize that their maintaining the image leads to real harm among some readers. I think the suggestion that there are so few Trypophobia sufferers that their harm or avoidance of the page is justified because some people might become "educated" through seeing the picture, an argument which was a leading contention in the RfC for 'keep photo' supporters, seems inappropriate and downright barbaric. As the single 'remove' user said in the RfC, putting a picture in an article lead which is meant to induce the condition which the article describes is very similar to adding a flashing strobe gif to the wikipedia article on epilepsy. I would add that we avoid shocking material on Wikipedia very often as is, and have done so since the website's inception. I think removing the image would not constitute censorship as intended by WP:CENSOR. It's obvious to me that the photo should at least be moved out of the lead, if not removed entirely. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a lot of words to say "I'm involved in a content dispute on Trypophobia." I suggest you go through the normal route of dispute resolution, as this is not an incident that administrators need to resolve. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This situation has been going on between 3 and 12 years, how is it not a chronic problem? I don't think taking it to DRN would be appropriate, as there is no active dispute beyond users directing new members to the discussion to the RfC from 2018. Other conventions of dispute resolution seem untenable, as the most active user involved on the page said that they didn't want to discuss any of the points I brought up and directed me to administration. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have no doubt it's a chronic issue and one which must be immensely frustrating, but at the end of the day it is still a content dispute—admins in this regard carry no more weight than any other editor and so no admin intervention would be any different to an individual voice. I would suggest perhaps raising the concern at the Medicine wikiproject if you haven't already (WP:MED); it seems within the project's remit and from my experience their members are reasonable and well-read in both the field and wikipedia practices. No RFC is permanently binding, and consensus can change, but this is a community process and not an administrative one. Best of luck. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 13:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that referring people to an overwhelming consensus from a few years ago is really a situation, as much as common practice. If you believe that consensus has changed you can open another RFC, or continue with discussion. Without having another clear consensus to point to the RFC stands as a pretty solid guideline to how the article should be presented. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That's why I didn't want to try to open a DNR. But I think that consensus itself indicates underlying problems, which is why I thought describing my experience with the page in detail was appropriate. I think I'll try the avenues mentioned by Grapple and Masem, though. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I know I've participated at one point about that article's lede image, but in a general sense, if the last RFC was 3 years ago, consensus can change and a new RFC with substantially different arguments about why it should not be used there is fair. I think we as a community have matured to recognize a bit more sympathy for such type of content to argue for a new RFC. --Masem (t) 13:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I would hope a chance at fair review exists there, but many of the opposed users are still very active on the page. One of whom made the only comment to the dissenting opinion, saying with brevity and indignance, "So you consider a feeling of disgust to be equivalent to an epileptic seizure...." That the only discussion directed at the opposed was sarcasm, in my opinion, indicates a gross violation of good faith. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

"... article has been the object of ableist bias..." So you consider yourself disabled by this phobia? Had you ever considered removing the article from your watchlist and never looking at it again? Or am I just being ableist here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have this condition. Yes, you are being ableist. For one thing, it's not like users are asking for an offending image to be removed from a non-relate page. It's ridiculous that we even have to discuss whether users should be able to visit a page for something with which they identify without being physically repulsed, have a panic attack, or, according to three distinct users, vomit. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You believe that "the RfC decision was made out of bias and cruelty"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I think several of the editors had good intentions which did not fully take into account the welfare of Wikipedia's editors and readers. I think some of the users deliberately expressed their bias and showed a spirit of cruelty. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That quote was in response to someone saying We might as well have a flashing gif in the lead of the epilepsy article. It's hardly a sarcastic, bad faith reply. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The user who made the quote didn't directly respond to the to the comment but implicitly made a moralistic criticism of the user's judgment and feelings. If that's not in bad faith, I don't know what is. Frankly, I'm not sure it would be appropriate for you to continue weighing in on this because, and I'm sure you probably don't know this, but you and another involved Trypophobia editor, User:Soap, are also currently involved parties in an RfC on Talk:Caucasian race. You may know each other, and I think it's clear that you both share similar interests, and possibly cynicism for the subject. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow. I'm pretty sure they haven't taken part in the RFC on Talk:Caucasian race, nor do we really have any interactions[202]. You really need to lay off the bad faith accusations against pretty much everyone you've interacted with surrounding this topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

They were invited to participate because they've participated in that section before, making them an involved user in that RfC, as far as I understand. I'm sure you understand that your edits "haven't really" coincided doesn't explicitly tell me you don't know each other. You're in the same arbitration and you move in the same circles. That's enough to justify a conflict of interest. This is not meant to be a value judgement of faith. But, its fine, continue participating here if you would like. If you're disturbed by my calling the other administrator an ableist for assuming I have this condition and asking why I can't just -never visit the page-... Well, I think that one's justified in my understanding that an ableist within the realm of mental health includes people who deny scientifically understood conditions and disorders or their impact. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I linked you to a report showing we don't edit the same articles or talk pages, or interact. I'm not sure what you mean by "knowing them?" It's true, I do live in a treehouse in their back yard, stealing their wifi and subsisting solely on the leftover food they put in their compost, but they don't (I guess didn't, now) know that, so we don't know each other. I don't know what "arbitration" we're involved in together, or which "circles" you're talking about. Does this mean I'm in the WP:CABAL now? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, an RfC not an arbitration. More to my point, and sorry that I was hostile in presenting it, was that if this 'ANI' is just a discussion about what I can do, I'd like to hear some more varied perspectives than ones I've already heard. I do appreciate you chipping in here, but I hope we can get back to more constructive conversation if at all. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, what you can do is

• A) Continue discussion on the talk page
• B) Start a new RFC

This is a bog standard content dispute. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

What ScottishFinnishRadish doesn't know is that I actually live in the wheelie-bin in the alleyway behind their back yard, and I live off his food scraps.... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish. In addition, if you are still confused or unsure this isn't the right place to ask. There's nothing here that requires administrative action, unless you continue your comments bordering on personal attacks and accusations of bad faith and earn a boomerang. Try WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse if you can't work out from our existing guidelines how to resolve a WP:content dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Calling what I've said here 'borderline personal attacks' isn't really justified. User:Martinevans123 asked me if they were being ableist, and I replied relative to my knowledge of the subject. Administrators ScottishFinnishRadish and Soap do have hundreds of edits in common, are both administrators, were both called as involved users in an active RfC, and have hundreds of edits on the same pages this year alone. If we were in a dispute, I should think that would be enough to be considered a conflict of interest. I found the user's tone to be hostile from the first and didn't say anything until several replies into the discussion, so that if I respond in kind it may not be helpful but it is fair enough. I find it interesting that my tone and various sentiments of incredulity is the bulk of conversation here, besides the helpful comments by users Grapple and Masem. Can we just close this discussion? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, nor do I have "hundreds of edits in common" with Soap. Soap is also not active in any RFC I am active in, nor was I "called" to the RFC you're talking about. I answered an edit request on the page a while back. My first reply to you suggested you use the normal methods of dispute resolution. This is the kind of bad faith accusations and borderline personal attacks people are talking about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to distinguish an administrator. It looks from your talk page that you have helped block people in the past. I'm not sure calling attention to a possible conflict of interest is bad faith. Is that thing on the Caucasian race talk page not an RfC? It's a request for comment on a move that you were both(?) invited to. And, your first reply to me suggested that I was too wordy and that I should "pursue the normal means" when I had stated in my post that I wasn't sure how to continue pursuing the dispute. That's why I said what I did. Accusing me of bad faith in return doesn't make it better. I appreciate your edits, though. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

IronMaidenRocks, my advice is to call for a close to this discussion and proceed with the content dispute resolution methods recommended to you already. The users who have informed you that this venue is inappropriate for your issues are correct, and further discussion is more likely to hurt your cause than help it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @Firefangledfeathers: and everyone who weighed in. Whoever is able, please close the discussion. I suggest the reason for closure is that the nature of the problem isn't appropriate for ANI.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:58, 31 August 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:Sheredeccan and disruption

Sheredeccan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been here for about a month and nearly all of their contributions are disruptive usually involving original research and disregard for reliable sources. Despite multiple warnings and explanatory messages they have neither changed their behavior nor engaged in communication. They also seem to be solely dedicated to the topic area of Hyderabad State, maybe some form of Pakistani nationalist pov pushing? Some diffs are as follows but honestly if one clicks any of their edits it'd stand as an example, date and time are in IST.

• 00:48, 31 July 2021 Removal based on original research on the article of Mir Osman Ali Khan.
• 23:20, 16 August 2021 Plain disruption on Deccan. I think they were trying to create a fork of Deccan Plateau but gave up?
• 02:38, 17 August 2021 Same as first on Ravi Narayana Reddy. There are a lot of other similar ones.
• 01:47, 30 August 2021 Addition of Template:Pakistani cuisine on the page of Hyderabadi cuisine, an IP added the Hyderabadi cuisine to the template on 01:45, 30 August 2021. Pretty much original research, note that there is no reference of Pakistan on the page, the region is not even disputed territory.
• 02:05, 30 August 2021 Addition of three lines; one unsourced, one fails verification and a poorly sourced one on Telangana Rebellion. There are persistent with this one, I left multiple messages on their talk page but they didn't bother to respond.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of the edits might result from confusion between Hyderabad, Telangana (southeast India, pop. 6.8M) and Hyderabad, Sindh (south Pakistan, pop. 1.7M); both regional capitals, but 853 mi (1,373 km) apart. It's not an uncommon mistake, and I've made a note to check the WP:PTOPIC for bad bluelinks. Narky Blert (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I've corrected 29 links I was certain of. Narky Blert (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I see they have been blocked for sockpuppetry, anyways thank you for that cleanup. It does appear to be an issue though I don't think it could have explained the actions of Sheredeccan in particular. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem, thank you for bringing that PTOPIC to my attention; it needed looking at, regardless of this thread. 29 bad links to a PTOPIC is nowhere near the record, which to my knowledge is in the high three figures (see also WP:BPAT). Narky Blert (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

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.

---

ShitaMYS does not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it uses "shit" rather blatantly. This user has been blocked 2 times, once giving no reason, and another time not changing the username. It might be nessecary to do an indefinite block.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starship SN20 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This account has been blocked for nearly 11 years; no action is necessary here. Actionable username reports should go to WP:UAA or WP:RFC/NAME. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay. However, it does seem odd that this user would just stop editing, out of nowhere because of the fact that the username was inappropraite, rather than changing username to a different thing (Potiently Sockpupiting if it is also an inappropraite name). I get that this, in it of itself, is not enough evidence for a CheckUser, but I do think this should be further investigated. @PEIsquirrel: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starship SN20 (talk • contribs)

Your ping probably didn't work because you didn't sign your post when you made the ping. You can sign using ~~~~ at the end of your message. As far as checkuser, I imagine as they haven't edited in a decade the data is stale and unusable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Shita ( a variant of Sita) is a common name given to women from a Hindu background. I sincerely hope no contributor has been blocked just for using their own name... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Starship SN20: as others have said already, users are allowed to abandon an account and start editing with another, as long as they're not doing it to evade a block, and users who are blocked just because their username is inappropriate are told they can create a new account with a permissible username, so really, nothing against policy happened here. They tried to move their user and talk pages to the MYS77 account themselves, which isn't how account renames are done, but that was fixed back in 2010. There is no reason to suspect sockpuppetry here, but even if there were, checkusers cannot check an account that hasn't edited in a decade (the data retention window is 90 days). Your report is appreciated but there isn't anything for admins to do here. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Given the user's explanation that it was their nickname derived from their surname, and they are Brazilian, likely of Japanese descent (lots of Japanese-ethnicity people in Brazil, eg surnames like Matsushita), its likely they decided to just not bother given the anal jobsworths who have nothing better to do with their time than harrass other editors over usernames. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if they were editing as MYS77, who until early this year was a hard-working contributor to football articles. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Starship SN20:, Im glad to see that you want to help, but I think you're far too enthustiastic, and that's leading you to be trigger-happy. You need to slow down and look for alternate explanations before you come to a place like ANI looking for us to take action, or take action yourself. Personally I wouldve assumed Shita was a Japanese name, but whether it's Japanese or Indian or something else, it is clearly not an English-language obscenity, and as such, should not have been brought up at all. I think you have a potentially bright future ahead, and we appreciate your desire to help out, but I would recommend a step back from boards like this for the time being or else you will hear only criticism and not praise. —Soap— 16:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, on investigating further, Shita seems also to be a given name in Japan (presumably not having common derivation with Hindu usage). Either way, some Wikipedians evidently need to broaden their horizons a little before making assumptions about user names. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this user was renamed to User:MYS77 at some point. They had their user page and talk page moved to that name. [203] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

MYS77 has edited with that account since February 2021. I see nothing needing action here. GiantSnowman 17:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm reminded of the Scunthorpe problem (which article mentions a problem with shitake mushrooms). I could also mention the Burmese activist U Shit Maung (U is an honorific). A well-known soft drink, whose name used to be advertised in painted signs on the walls of houses in France, has never taken off in the Anglophone world for some reason. English isn't the only language on the planet. Narky Blert (talk) 18:06, 31 August 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.

Long term disruption, children's animation articles, WP:BLPs, etc

108.17.152.6 (talk · contribs) has earned long term sanctions before for disruptive editing and block evasion. Is there reason to think the most recent spate of edits are different? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

IP was previously block evasion of 98.179.157.211. That IP is no longer blocked, but this definitely seems to be block evasion of recently-blocked 100.6.157.91. Now reported at AIV. Magitroopa (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Andddd blocked. Magitroopa (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Magitroopa and Yamaguchi先生. This is whack-a mole territory, of the sort we've all seen. Now it looks like 45.162.178.54 (talk · contribs). may be the same. It could be that a bunch of articles just need to be locked. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Standard WP:COI damage: persistent addition of of promotional content, with at least some of it a copyright violation. Requesting a user block and rev/deletion as needed. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:98E1:991A:2540:23FA (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 In progress: ~TNT (she/they • talk) 03:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Hey IP - I've done a bit of tidying and revision deletion. The user hasn't edited again since your warning, so lets see what they do next ~TNT (she/they • talk) 04:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Terrific. Thank you and cheers. 2601:188:180:B8E0:98E1:991A:2540:23FA (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Firearms obsession

I don't know if this is LTA related, somebody with a Springfield firearms obsession, long term trolling, OCD, or otherwise, but there's an editor creating endless sock accounts over on the Smithfield rifle series of articles (far too many to list here, check my own recent contribs for the articles concerned). I've blocked most of the accounts, protected the pages... they don't seem to be able to help themselves from editing. This has been going on for almost 6 months now. I'd appreciate some more admin eyes on this as it seems the more I look the more I am finding. -- Longhair\^talk 20:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

A rangeblock may be effective here as a lot of their earlier edits appear to be coming from 2600:1000.x and similar. -- Longhair\^talk 20:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Someone has just plonked 30 requests for protection for Springfield firearms articles on WP:RFPP! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That "someone" is their latest sock. -- Longhair\^talk 22:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, I’ll clean up there shortly. On the ranges, I see a lot of rangeblocks in the block logs for the 2600.1000.x range, e.g. 2600:1000::/32, 2600:1000:b000::/39, 2600:1000:b000::/40, 2600:1000:b000::/41. It seems to have been a problematic range for a long time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

AFAICS the only way to stop it would be to ECP all of the affected articles, or reblock 2600:1000:b000::/40 without anon-only, which may have collateral implications. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• I’ve put down a /43 rangeblock, 2600:1000:B040:0:0:0:0:0/43, which covers most of the IPs I see used today for 31 hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I just anon-only reblocked the /40 range as it's been alternatively checkuser and LTA rangeblocked off and on since 2018. Any admin can unblock or amend my block as they see fit as it conflicts with Malcolmxl5's smaller rangeblock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That’s fine, Ponyo. My block was intended to curb some immediate disruption while a longer term solution was figured out but you’ve done that! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That may slow them down - for now... again, they've been at this over on the Springfield articles for almost 6 months now. Recently they've spilled over onto American Civil War related topics as well. -- Longhair\^talk 23:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Are the edits any good? 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Excessive plot descriptions from Western Pennsylvania IPs

• 2601:543:4404:94A0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Excessive plot descriptions from Western Pennsylvania IP range. The range has been blocked before, but they are still at it. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, as someone who currently lives near there, I feel it is my duty to inform you that there just isn't all that much to do in Greensburg, PA— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I looked at a couple of the plot descriptions and they seem fine to me. I'd leave them alone. They are not excessive. Excessive can't even start before there is more detail than we'd find in the plot summary section of a Cliff Notes book, and those summaries run to dozens of pages. We are theoretically aspiring to build every single one of our articles into a WP:FA, and those need details at least on a level of the ones you're complaining about. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

See MOS:PLOTLENGTH. Adding 897 bytes to an already overlong plot (3,137 bytes) is not a good idea. Narky Blert (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Systematic personal attacks by a registered users

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, I flag here these edits [204], [205] and [206] that are direct personal attacks against myself by an user that was already blocked on it.wiki due to edit-warring and personal attacks as well. I also point out that I took no actions at all against him and his edits here on en.wiki, and I am the administrator on it.wiki who blocked him. He's kind editing as stalking revenge.--L736E (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed for harassment. Acroterion (talk) 12:38, 1 September 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.

Newish user creating dubious pages in template space

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.

---

• Mgendy00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

...has been creating plenty of dubious pages where the sole content is their signature. They've already been warned by Fred Gandt about this nearly two months ago. Any admin here mind A) speedily nuking every page they've created B) giving them a very final warning if not a block? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:44, 1 September 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.

Revert against consensus

• [207]

User:ATS, is clearly not happy that their preferred version does not appear on the page. ATS posted about the close on my talk page. I responded on their talk page and they shifted through their comments to apparently try to create a straw man argument in order to justify reverting the close result.

If the community would like to examine the closure, I'm fine with that, but reverting a close for one's preferred version is simple WP:DE. - jc37 05:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Response by ATS

1: the claimed "consensus" is false—see article talk;

2: editor's change is an effective revert to the first unstable version that led to the discussion—article was stable with the exception of minor changes from 2 March to 13 March, well after attaining GA status, and the false assertion of a BLPLEAD vio by the editor who then insisted on further disruption.

As such, there was no straw man, only a complete error on the reporting editor's part that he appears unwilling to accept. —ATS (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment jc37 I can't actually see where there is a "weak consensus" to call her an actress. If there is a consensus, it's for "C", which is "actor and singer" (even more so, as one of the "B/D" voters was indeffed before the end of the discussion). Might you want to revisit this close? Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This was a bad close. Consensus clearly favors Option C. User:ATS probably should not have reverted, however, and taken it to WP:RFC or another venue, instead. We should probably bypass all of that nonsense and User:Jc37 should self revert their close and let someone else close. --Darth Mike^(talk) 16:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably; but, when a "sysop" tells you in so many words, "I don't believe you're acting in good faith, fight me", that means either fisticuffs, ten paces, or revert a bad edit—and only the latter was readily available. 🤪 —ATS (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Dogar514

Dogar514 is a WP:NOTHERE SPA, who is continuously adding British Raj-era sources at Dogar. All attempts to discuss issues with them failed, as they are just interested in edit warring: see here & here. Note that there is a longstanding consensus on this project to avoid the Raj-era sources for caste/history-related details and they have already been notified about the relevant sanctions. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I issued a strong warning. Let me know if there are ongoing problems. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Dogar514 (talk · contribs) as a normal administrative action after they continued edit warring with no discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

User:PoWaiFung

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

Hi admins, User:PoWaiFung has been continuously overciting on List of Running Man episodes (2021). I have previously informed user to not overcite in March 2021, April 2021 and lastly June 2021. User only replied to March 2021 thread and I assumed user already understand since they didn't reply after which but clearly not as user started doing the same thing in April 2021, June 2021, and most recently on 1 September 2021. Here are the diffs I have compiled: [208][209][210][211][212][213][214][215][216][217][218][219][220]. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Their response here is not very encouraging, given the many explanations they've already had. I've made another attempt at explaining this to them, but there might be a language barrier preventing them from understanding. --bonadea contributions talk 08:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea Hi, thanks you for the follow up. I'm not certain if there is language barrier preventing user from understanding the issues, user edits doesn't seem to have spelling and grammar issues on the article, other than overciting which is a big concern. I just saw the latest reply in user talkpage, where it is pretty much the same reason that was given in March 2021, which I have tried my best to explain to user. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Repetitive Editing re Claudia Sahm and Sahm Rule

These two pages (Claudia Sahm, Sahm Rule) have both had attempts to add material sourced from a non WP:RS (an anonymous messageboard). A single-purpose account, User:BernietheGGuy, has made several of these edits. Kwaks Mold (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

And so it was necessary to go here without attempting to discuss it on their talk page first? Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, but it's a BLP and maybe you could have take a few moments to look for yourself before commencing the scolding of the messenger? --Calton | Talk 12:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP range - possibly extended block needed

2601:201:4201:A4B0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP range in question was entirely disruptive on Raa Raa the Noisy Lion, mainly in adding entirely incorrect information regarding a series/season 4 of the show (upon searching, there isn't one). After being blocked from that article, they went ahead to try and continue the same disruptive edits on a new account, Joaqjoaq, who is now indefinitely blocked for block evasion.

However, even though the IP range is blocked from editing that article, they are still continuing with their bogus/disruptive edits elsewhere, such as Chapman Entertainment and even others' talk page comments. The IP range also recently added a whole bunch of disruptive empty edit requests on Talk:Rubbadubbers, which all had to be removed ([221] [222].

At this point, it seems further blocking is required, more than just blocked from editing one specific article, as they continue to be entirely disruptive, even now in some edits copying edit summaries of my own (such as, "Rvv.- clearly block evasion". Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Still at it. Any chance something could be done about this?... Magitroopa (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Now reported at AIV. Magitroopa (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

NOTBROKEN or NOTHERE

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.

---

Catchpoke (talk · contribs) appears to be playing by their own rules. At 2021-08-24T03:47:09, I reverted an edit and clearly pointed at WP:NOTBROKEN. Certes (talk · contribs) left a note at on the editor's talk page 2021-08-24 09:23:05 and explained the situation. Catchpoke's first edit back after the warning was not to acknowledge the error and seek clarifcation, but was to revert me. I reverted because of NOTBROKEN and left a second note on the editor's talk page. Catchpoke started Talk:Canadians#100, where it's clear the editor has no interest in acknowledging NOTBROKEN and believes that they are right in doing so. The editor then nominated the redirect for deletion and the rest of their edits have been to ignore NOTBROKEN and continue to remove the redirects. And now Meters (talk · contribs) has been drawn into the discussion because of Catchpoke's lack of civility toward me. The editor appears to be showing a general pattern of disruptive behaviour, treating editing as a battleground, has shown little or no interest in working collaboratively, and so is WP:NOTHERE to build an encylopedia. I'll let Meters address the incivility if they wish to comment.

I also see @Drmies: and others dealt with the editor in July. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It's time to show that fellow the door. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Several of us have attempted to collaborate politely with this editor, mainly in now-blanked revisions of User talk:Catchpoke. Sadly, we don't seem to be succeeding. Certes (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I see why this thread was started. There has been a few more posts at Talk:Canadians that I didn't realize appeared.

My first reversion of walter's edit had the edit summary "the canadian lists are the only ones that list 100 in the name. this is meant to match other lists.". He reverted me next with an edit summary starting with "Not the point. Please read WP:NOTBROKEN and stop fisx ing redirects." so naturally, he was not specific so i did not understand the reason for the revision. I started a talk page discussion where I reiterated "the canadian lists were the only series of lists that listed 100 in their titles." Further paraphrasing myself: "It is true not all links to redirects need to be fixed ... This isn't the case for these links. For example, it is ok to leave the link for the binomial name of dog in instances where the scientific name is discussed." I also made another comment stating: But hovering over the link will reveal the "true" target for the page... which was responded with Not the point. The link is NOTBROKEN. If you get that changed, you may change this link. so it did not help clear my confusion. On my talk page walter suggests that i take the redirect to WP:RFD. I think this is a case of miscommunication. Catchpoke (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's be practical here. So far you've been out-numbered on this topic & so it's unlikely you're going to get your own way. So what's the point of doing edits, that'll be repeatedly reverted by different editors? GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

And the reluctance to actually read NOTHERE? Possibly more correctly, not acknowledging any of the points in it. And arguing against complying with it? Or the action of nominating the redirect for deletion? Or "fixing" all of the redirects earlier today? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I don't really see the benefits to your edits either? NOTBROKEN isn't a blanket reason to revert. Let them know about it for the future but unless reverting actually makes things better, it's pointless and leads to unnecessary conflict.

From NOTBROKEN: It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading and Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect. - considering that the redirect is an inaccurate title for the page, it could arguably be bypassed under both of these. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course, the may be reasons, but when the link is piped and the reader cannot see it, there's no reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: did you read what I quoted you? A reader can hover over the link to see the page that is linked to - and if that is misleading, it can be appropriate to bypass the redirect. This has been written at WP:NOTBROKEN for a while, and this looks like one of those cases to me. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I did read it, but not valid here, because it is not misleading in any of the cases here. Feel free how the link is more accurate when changing from [[List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada|major urban centres]] to [[List of census metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada|major urban centres]] as was done here or changing [[List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population|12th]] to [[List of the largest municipalities in Canada by population|12th]] as was done here and other edits this over the past several hours? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

One title accurately describes the linked article, the other does not. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion. So to be clear, which is more accurate: list of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population or list of the largest municipalities in Canada by population? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned about Catchpoke's behaviour. This seems to be the same sort of WP:IDHT (or rather "I don't agree with that, so everyone else is wrong and I'm going to do what I want") behaviour that resulted in the restriction from any edits relating to etymology enacted at ANI on July 23 by user:Drmies in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073#User:Catchpoke. Since being made aware of other editor's concerns over his removal of redirects Catchpoke has attempted to get the redirect in question (List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada) deleted, and has made something like 70 additional removals of that redirect. That's WP:POINTY to the point of disruption.

My involvement in this was simply to warn Catchpoke for personal attacks made on Talk:Canadians [223] [224] [225] [226]. Catchpoke immediately blanked their talk page and asked me which comments I was referring to. Not much more I can say than I did on my talk page (Your last four edits to Talk:Canadians. You accused user:Walter Görlitz of being disingenuous and of WIKILAWYERING, and now you have progressed to calling him a troll and a hypocrite. You are well into personal attack territory now.) and on the article's talk page where Catchpoke's edits were being discussed (Already warned Catchpoke for personal attacks. User immediately deleted warning and showed up on my talk page to ask which comments... I would say there's some irony in calling someone else "disingenuous" too.) I find it very difficult to WP:AGF here. Meters (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you User:Elli for pointing out that "It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading" per WP:BRINT as I wasn't aware of this part of the WP:REDIRECT policy! Catchpoke (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I am honestly surprised that you still do not accept that your behaviour may just stray into the problematic, and instead cling to the word may in one editor's response to me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess the problem is my using "bypass redirect" instead of "WP:BRINT" in the edit summary. Catchpoke (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRINT certainly justifies the three template edits. I support them; they're the sort of change I make myself whilst editing a navbox for other reasons. A perfect editor might cite BRINT in the edit summary but most of us don't bother, and I would never criticise anyone for failing to do. However, most of this thread is about article edits, to which WP:BRINT doesn't apply. Certes (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I saw that Catchpoke made an change to a link in a see also section, and I did not revert because it was in-line with BRINT. We could eventually commission a bot to convert all links in see also sections to {{annotated link}}, and most redirects do not have a {{short description}} to list there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I should clarify my previous comment. BRINT presumably stands for "Bypass Redirects In Navigational Templates", a navbox-only exception. But the section to which WP:BRINT redirects also recommends bypassing certain redirects in articles, such as some "See also"s and those with misleading hover text. The latter could well cover the "100 largest" changes. However, it would have been helpful to cite this guideline earlier, rather than making terse replies such as "hypocrite". It's also fair to say that we usually seek consensus before making a bulk change verging on WP:COSMETICBOT. Certes (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I was unfortunately igrnorant of WP:BRINT. However, if Walter was aware of BRINT, why didn't he explain that to me instead of saying "Not the point. Please read WP:NOTBROKEN and stop fisx ing redirects."? Is this an attempt to decieve and feign ignorance? Catchpoke (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• My psychiatrist says Wikipedia might not be a project to which Catchpoke can effectively contribute at his or her current level of maturity. EEng 16:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  Not every Wikipedia task is accessible to all of us, but I've suggested a few activities which may be suited to editors who focus on link improvement. Certes (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't appreciate User:EEng's sarcasm. He's been reported before for condoning murder.Catchpoke (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  And that, dear friends, is everything you need to know about this situation. (Be sure to click on murder in Catchpoke's post -- good times! -- and see the definitions of the word rebuttle elsewhere on the linked page.) EEng 19:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  I kind of like the MOS: pseudo-namespace tho... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Describing that brouhaha as "condoning murder" is either egregious bad faith or a stunning lack of familiarity with commonplace idioms. Just for the record, it makes me doubt everything else such an editor might say. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Well murder and suicide are very serious. I find this banter between the 3 of you very selfish. Catchpoke (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You're doing an excellent job of convincing me that I don't need to care about your opinions. I don't say this to be mean or insulting; I think the fact that persuasion is how Wikipedia works often gets lost. You could have made your point without a mischaracterization like "condoning murder," which has now made everything you say seem suspect to me. Do you see what I mean? Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, you shouldn't be telling other editors to gets lost! But you're right, if he hadn't made a fool of himself on the question of whether I condone murder, we could instead be concentrating on the more important question of whether I should go see a psychiatrist. EEng 20:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I felt WP:HOUNDED and the vitriol you wrote and admitted by saying that you are inherently unforgiving and vicious exhausted my patience.Catchpoke (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I do vaguely remember saying that. Any chance you could provide a diff for context? EEng 05:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

-EEng (with thanks to Atsme)

@Catchpoke: Besides the fact that I take both of those things seriously (and don't appreciate the accusation that I don't), I also take the topic of mental health seriously. I was not impressed when I saw how you told EEng to "go see a psychiatrist" here. As someone who actually does see a psychiatrist, I found that very offensive. If you have a problem with EEng, that's fine (take a number there lol). Making this about the status his mental health is where I draw a line. If you had said that to me, then I guarantee you that I wouldn't be taking it as lightly as EEng has. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Well ya know, it's all a matter of what you're used to. If I had a buck for every time someone told me I should see a psychiatrist, I'd have a million dollars -- which would then go into the pocket of my psyciatrist. So you really just can't win. EEng 12:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

[227] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the argument that in some cases (such as an {{R from misnomer}}), a working redirect linked in articles should be replaced. As the target page here isn't a list of 100 things, having a better link could be better. There are also other working redirects which for various reasons should probably be fixed (I note the frequently-targeted Her Majesty's Government).
That said: YOU MUST FIND CONSENSUS BEFORE DOING MASS CHANGES. This is not negotiable. There's a good chance Catchpoke gets a block here, but this must be a final warning. Some form of bot request or WikiProject discussion or policy discussion regarding when redirects should be fixed is the way forward. Doing more of these mass-changes as WP:Fait accompli is unacceptable, and an immediate block is necessary if it continues without discussion or against the consensus of a discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: medium term block for Catchpoke

As a totally uninvolved non-admin user, I propose a medium term block for Catchpoke for WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:NPA as documented above. Length perhaps a week to a month? User has never been blocked before, but has been brought to ANI in the past (where he was given a restriction against editing the word "etymology"), and has committed many policy violations above despite warnings, in fact flagrantly in spite of warnings. This is despite having only been a registered user since March 2021 [228]. Interestingly, their second ever edit was to CSD another user's page [229]. That makes me suspect an SPI/CU may be in order... But I don't personally have the time or energy to file a case. If anyone else would like to, be my guest.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC) (edited 20:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC))

Thanks for the warning, and yes, I thought block evasion was a possibility. At the very least, it's an alternate account for this editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:NOTHERE applies. It seems to me that Catchpoke is making these edits in good faith, because they think they're improving the encyclopedia. And multiple editors have actually agreed with the edit under discussion (namely: Elli, above; Tavix, at the RfD; and me - I chimed in at Talk:Canadians#100). Their approach to dispute resolution has not been ideal, but I do think they're WP:HERE. Colin M (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

At that RfD, User:EurekaLott, an admin, states "but we should also tag it as a {{r from incorrect name}} and replace all incoming mainspace links". Catchpoke (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, the provinces had this link but someone removed the links in agreement. Catchpoke (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It's rare for a proposal like this (medium term block) to be enacted because we don't do punishment. Catchpoke needs to change to reduce the amount of disagreement with other editors (even if everyone else were wrong, you would still need to collaborate). If Catchpoke performs any further mass changes without prior consensus or violations of WP:NOTBROKEN, a number of admins including myself would be prepared to issue an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block that could be lifted after a convincing explanation is given about how they would avoid further problems. Debating whether NOTHERE is technically the correct term is not relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, It's rare for a proposal like this (medium term block) to be enacted because we don't do punishment. I guess I was hoping for it to be preventative so that they wouldn't be indef'd down the road. Because I would hate for Catchpoke not to get a chance to correct their behavior. But I do understand what you're saying (if there's gonna be a block for stuff like this, just indef), and I think El_C's indef with a theoretical unblock if/when firm and substantial assurances there will not be a repeat makes sense. It also matches the severity of the NPAs. I think in the future I'll just say "block" when it's clearly to the level of a block, and not propose any durations in situations like this. Thanks for the explanation. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I blocked indef. There are too many personal attacks coupled with little awareness (still) of there being too many personal attacks. Will need some major assurances that this behaviour will not be repeated. "Condoning murder" — wow. El_C 09:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Closure

Seeing as the subject of this report is now indef banned. Perhaps closure should be applied to this report. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 31 August 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.

Harrasment

Hi

continues. He is a banned user in fr:wiki.--Panam2014 (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the ip for a year, having taken previous blocks into account.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP on Doctor Seuss book

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

---

User:50.40.186.230 is blanking content he doesn't like on If I Ran the Zoo and making threats. I think action by an administrator is needed. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Reported now at AIV, which is the right noticeboard if anyone is watching there. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked by Ohnoitsjamie. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:56, 31 August 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.

Nationalist pov posh by 786wave

786wave is pushing for their nationalist pov on Zilan massacre and has been reverting at least twice now by different editors. This is their addition[230] which is simply an egregious attempt to change the narrative of the incident. Their talk-page is full of warnings from earlier this year to yesterday and I believe this is a clear case of Wikipedia:Not here. --Semsûrî (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider stopping POV editing yourself and stop blaming others. Assume good faith please. Thank you, 786wave (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: reported editor has a history of POV-pushing and edit warring, as well as ethnic targeting on other articles. I agree that he's WP:NOTHERE. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Agree - 786wave is WP:NOTHERE to contribute to an NPOV encyclopedia. Through a combination of edit warring and hostile behaviour across several articles, they are using Wikipedia to promote their POV on controversial issues. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Civility problems with EEng

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 am facing Wikipedia:civility problems with EEng (talk · contribs).

When reverting one of my edits, EEng referred to me as "pilgrim", in obvious ways invoking how John Wayne would use the term in his screen persona to refer to someone who he felt was lesser than him in some way. I can certainly see how some might not see that as offensive, although it bothered me. However, when I made it clear that I felt that calling me that was obnoxious, EEng seemed to follow the bullying logic that suggests that once you've found a sobriquet that someone is sensitive to, you repeatedly call them that. EEng did so in this comment and in this comment, and when I raised the issue on their talk page that this treatment was a problem that I'd be willing to raise on this forum, they responded by doing it again.

EEng's block log suggests that this is not their first dance with civility concerns. In the course of the Manual of Style discussion where we were interacting, EEng says to another editor You've taken on with characteristic rapidity your familiar role of overwrought scold ("offensive", "appalling", "impose phoneticism", "sully") staking out some eccentric position. Whether or not RGloucester finds that particular statement objectionable is up to him, but stuff like that makes the discussion atmosphere acidic.

I am not sure what the best action here is. EEng is a very experienced user, they should know better by now. I'd like a one-way interaction ban at the least, but I don't think that's sufficient for addressing the concerns regarding this productive but problematic editor. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Please do not include me in your crusade. That I am overwrought is a veritable fact, evident to anyone here with even the smallest shred of knowledge of my existence! While I may disagree with EEng's viewpoint on the purpose of written language, I have a great respect for his general capability for discourse. RGloucester — ☎ 18:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

RGloucester, you are a gentleman and a scholar. Also a curmudgeon and pain in the ass. EEng 23:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• @EEng: please stop calling Nat Gerler "pilgrim". However, feel free to call me "pilgrim" if you want to, as I cannot figure out why Nat Gerler is upset about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• That's nothing. He told me to get off my horse, and drink my milk!!! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Though I share the perplexity at the offense taken here, EEng, it is reasonable, should someone ask you to stop referring to them using some label, to cease doing so. That said, I also wish to protest on behalf of John Bunyan. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Lets be kind here. It obviously bothers Nat and it should be stopped. On the other hand, I, like Floquenbeam, don't mind being called "pilgrim" so you have two now, @EEng. A word of caution to you though, I might think you were kinda getting sweet on me by offering me a glass of milk like that after horse riding through the countryside, pilgrim. --ARoseWolf 19:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• EEng, whatever happened to "live and let live"?--WaltCip-(talk) 19:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• It sprouted wings. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action." Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Soon as I saw this open I thought the OP’s going to regret this. Nevertheless, I kinda get it. The way it was used it’s akin to “Whoa there, sonny” i.e. patronising, diminutive (Do Americans use “sonny”? That’s what it means in UK anyway). But, really…not something for ANI. DeCausa (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I might take issue with being called "sonny" but "sunshine" is okay. We should all practice a little more empathy and kindness towards each other. --ARoseWolf 20:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Who՜a big fella. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Next in line? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖

• Many have gazed into the future, but who among those who've made Predictions of the end of Wikipedia guessed that it would appear as John Wayne galloping a tall horse around the deck of the Mayflower. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This should be closed with "EEng should stop calling Nat a pilgrim." (Not going to join in with the others personally since I'd rather not be called a pilgrim tho ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)
Next person in line, please step up to the service desk to have your issue with EEng addressed. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• EEng, may have a quirky sense of humour in his posts & edit summaries. But, I wouldn't describe them as being a breach of WP:CIVIL. PS - It's always best to get a consensus before making additions to the MoS-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

In what way does repeatedly calling me a name that he knows I find offensive with the seeming goal of annoying me fit into "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect", the core of WP:CIVIL? And if you follow the talk page link done above, you'd see that there was indeed consensus after a week of discussion before I made that edit. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been attacked with much worst descriptions, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Naturally. You're a much worse person. EEng 23:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• To my mind, calling someone "pilgrim" does not even rise to the level of calling someone "bullying" or "problematic", as the OP did in their post here. Sure, if someone is inexplicably insulted by an everyday word, you might think about not continuing to needle them, but this did not need to be brought here. As for the posting's request for a one-way interaction ban (from and to whom unspecified): I support a self-imposed one-way interation ban on Nat Gertler, preventing Nat from interacting with EEng, but again, that did not necessitate coming to ANI; if you want to stop talking to someone, just do it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

In what way does intentionally, repeatedly "needling" someone comport with WP:CIVIL? Yes, I am free to stop participating in Wikipedia editing so that I don't remove EEng's freedom of get jollies at my expense, but does that help the project? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Nat, although you did not direct the comment to me, I did make a (trivial) comment below, and I'd like to try to reply to your concerns seriously. On the one hand, I'm a wiki-friend of EEng; on the other, I feel strongly that WP needs to do a better job of respecting the feelings of good-faith editors, including you. I acknowledge the fact that you object to what EEng called you, and that he further made it worse by repeating it. The response that you have been getting here comes from the fact that, in the context of personal attacks that occur at this website, "pilgrim" is pretty low on the list, and is very unlikely to be grounds for an administrator to take action against EEng. He isn't going to get blocked for saying it, and he isn't going to be placed under any kind of ban. The most that is going to happen is that people are going to say that he should not have called you that, and that he should not have repeated it. And that has already happened. You aren't going to get more. That does not invalidate your feelings, and I hope that it does not sour you on Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• To be fair (and I’m struggling on the OP’s behalf) the issue that was raised was not that EEng called him that in the first instance but that after he asked him not to, he did it three times more after being asked not to. I think BOOMERANG is a bit unnecessary. DeCausa (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  Called right from the beginning. It was requested of EEng to stop referring to Nat by that word. Other options were given. The case should be closed because there is just nothing else actionable including a BOOMERANG. --ARoseWolf 21:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Pilgrim (American English): 5. a newcomer to a region or place, esp. to the western U.S."[231]

"Pilgrim: Cowboy term for an easterner or novice cowhand."[232]

"Tenderfoot, Greenhorn: Usually a somewhat derogatory term: An Easterner who is unschooled in the ways of the West, also called a “greenhorn” or “pilgrim”. Some say the term possibly applied first to Eastern Cattle whose feet were more tender than the Longhorn cattle, then later it applied to people new to the West."[233]

"William Sayers of Cornell University traces gringo to the Andalusian word for pilgrim, peregrino, and the Romani word for foreigner."[234]

"Pilgrim in U.S. Western slang for "an original settler" is by 1841, later "a newcomer, 'tenderfoot,'" perhaps originally in reference to the Mormon migrations."[235] NebY (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

"Pilgrim's Choice", UK, 21st century, Extra Mature Cheddar cheese. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, "Pilgrim's Global" [236] makes lots of pork. They are based out of the UK too, I believe. I think we are getting off topic here though. --ARoseWolf 21:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Off topic?? "Makes lots of pork"?? I shudder to think. Not gammon, I hope. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Take your pick: "extra mature cheese" or "lots of pork". Two good ways to describe ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 2 September 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.

Pushing unreliable sources and removing content from reliable sources

[237][238][239][240]

TheMightyGeneral had previously expanded the Armeno-Georgian War article to be built almost entirely on citations from a self-published article written by Andrew Andersen and George Partskhaladze. Andersen formerly had a Wikipedia article that was deleted because he was deemed not to meet WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Partskhaladze apparently teaches "mashinery engineering" and is not a notable figure at all. The source also makes no mention at all of the persecution of Armenian civilians both before and during the war, despite having citations for sources that include this information. I brought this concern to the talk page, and Alaexis agreed that Andersen and Partskhaladze are not reliable sources. I also rewrote the article based on reliable sources and added the previously unmentioned information about civilian persecutions. Despite this, TheMightyGeneral continues to revert back to the Andersen-Partskhaladze. He also removed all the added information about Armenian civilian persecution and then re-added parts of it with MOS:ALLEGED language, such as: "According to Armenian accounts", "According to the Armenian side", and "The Armenian government claimed". Despite both Armenian and non-Armenian sources confirming the persecution of Armenian civilians, TheMightyGeneral continues to insist that this is a POV claim, although he hasn't been able to provide any reliable sources giving any reason to doubt the information, despite being asked to more than once. TheMightyGeneral has been warned on both the article talk page and his own talk page, but continues to restore the version with unreliable sources and delete reliable sources that confirm things he doesn't like. Other things TheMightyGeneral keeps removing include the cited part of Armenians being the majority of the population, and the account of C. E. Bechhofer Roberts, easily the most significant third party account of the war. --Steverci (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That is not true. The article was built with a score of academic sources, Andrew Andersen and George Partskhaladze being the only problematic ones. Those issues are currently being adressed in a proper manner, as Steverci kept reverting the WP:NPOV changes without any consensus and refuses compromise and participation in the ongoing discussion. Steverci accuses me yet again, the 2nd time this day, of using MOS:Alleged because I wrote "According to", despite it being not the case and in line with WP:WORDS. I use "According to" and "The Armenian government claimed" because that is what is factualy the case. Hovannisian is referencing the claim of a representative of the Armenian government at the time, namely Djamalian, who was the Armenian ambassador to Tbilisi. It is an Armenian position, wheter third party sources claim the opposite or not is not relevant. That complaint was already deemed a non-violation. I also didn't just revert the article back to the last consensus edit, but took the issue to heart, added your suggestions and made several improvements in an effort to remove Andrew Andersen and George Partskhaladze from the equation. The difference however is, that contrary to Steverci, I don't remove entire sections that do not suffer any of these issues, and are supported with a host of academic sources. Steverci removed important background information without consensus and anything that even remotely mentions or supports the Georgian position, which is exactly "removing things he doesn't like", see talk page. That is blatant POV editing. I added his suggestions, but reproduced both positions that are included in Hovannisian's book. Steverci on the other hand doesn't even deem it necessary to mention the Georgian positions that are supported in the very same sources he deemed the most reliable. By what logic is Bechhofer Roberts the most significant third party account compared to academicians, when his statements contradict even Hovannisian's conclusion about the war ? instead of returning to the discussion, Steverci kept reverting everything back to their POV edits even after improvemements were made and in accorance with NPOV policy, which is also disruptive editing TheMightyGeneral (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me this is a content issue and since discussion is ongoing on the articles talk page that is where it belongs. I briefly looked at it and I personally don't see anything actionable on either side. Perhaps someone else sees it differently. I would caution you both, as a fellow editor, to act with kindness and more understanding. If you feel you are doing that then carry on. We are all here trying to build a better encyclopedia. Sometimes the content can not be neutral because our sources present us with non-neutral results but we should always strive to be neutral when speaking with Wikipedia's voice. Hopefully you two can reach a consensus on the talk page but I donlt see behavioral issues here so long as you both keep the focus on the content and not the editor. --ARoseWolf 20:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I am all for settling this on the talk page. The issue is that NPOV is definitely provided in the sources, even with the more partial ones. Steverci uses an academic source that reproduces the positions of both conflict parties, yet they cherry pick only statements from one of the warring parties to support a one narrative partisan article, which they insist on. While my recent efforts adress both the issue of unreliable sources and quoting said academic source properly, they just keep reverting the whole article back to their initial POV version, with neither consensus nor any type of compromise. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I have undone TheMightyGeneral's latest revert and have explained (in detail) on the talk page my reasons for doing so. In effect, the "new version" relies heavily on a source that all seem to agree is unreliable. While that new version might be more neutral, the inclusion of - and reliance on - that source is problematic in terms of WP:RS and WP:V. In effect, bad-content-okay-sources vs. good-content-bad-sources. Content can be made good. Sources cannot. I would encourage editors to craft a "new-new version" (so to speak) that resolves neutrality concerns without reliance on that problematic source. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Tban enforcement and clarification

This TBAN of August 2020, subject editor Davidbena appears to prohibit: (a) any edits relating to post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics, broadly construed and (b) edits relating to geopolitical features such as borders, landmarks, or territories under dispute.

Background

• August 2018 – First TBAN imposed at ANI: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Davidbena
• February 2019 – Successful appeal of first TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306#Request to lift my topic ban issued against me in August 2018
• April 2019 – Second TBAN imposed: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308#Hounding and Deliberate Disruptive Editing
• November 2019 – Appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315#Request to lift topic ban – closed as unsuccessful
• May 2020 – Second appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#Kindly requesting admins to rescind my ARBPIA topic ban – archived without formal close
• June 2020 – Appeal of second TBAN at AE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive267#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Davidbena – declined as out of jurisdiction, and DB advised to reopen a request at WP:AN.
• August 2020 - Appeal of second TBAN at ANI :TBAN narrowed in scope
• August 2021 presently ongoing at AE

Beginning of engagement, Name at City of David. At this point, I was not aware of the tban. As recently as 29 August in response to a specific question about the tban the editor responded "Once again, I reiterate, I am free to make edits on all Wikipedia pages, including those with the I/P tag, and I can assure you that I have not breached any imposed topic ban. Be well."

The editor appears to be interpreting the tban to mean that he may edit any conflict related article and engage in formal discussions as long as there is some biblical/historic aspect, when in practice, as is very clear at the City of David article (and similarly, although less so, at the related Silwan/ King's Garden articles), the biblical/historical is completely bound up in the present. The tban close noted "The benefit is that the topic ban can be narrowed, but at the cost of a restriction that is in tension with itself."

I think any editor would find it difficult to easily separate the historical/biblical aspects from the present conflict on the pages I mentioned. At a minimum, I would like the tban to be clarified such that it expressly disallows editing of articles within the arbpia sphere where there is any doubt at all as to it's applicability. That is, the mere presence of a biblical/historical aspect to an article does not of itself mean freedom to edit, discretion should be the better part of valor. Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier:, you've already opened an ARE request concerning Davidbena. That seems to be moving towards the resolution you asked for. Why open another thread here about the same issues? Did I miss some point of difference here or does this not look like WP:FORUMSHOPPING? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Eggishorn, there is some commentary in the ArbE that the TBAN was community-imposed and that ArbE won't touch it. They explicitly recommended AN or ANI, so this isn't forum shopping. That said, Selfstudier, it may be prudent to wait until the other discussion closes. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, you should have explained about that, Selfstudier. Eggishorn, this is actually not forumshopping. The situation is that the AE admins don't want to address any T-ban violations, since the T-ban was community-imposed. Several admins have advised Self to take it to AN/ANI. At the same time, those admins (certainly including me) want to sanction Davidbena for a matter that's not related to the T-ban, namely canvassing with aggravating circumstances. Confusing, I know. But think of it like this: Self's AE report is in two parts, one T-ban-related, one not. On advice, Self has now moved the T-ban-related issue (=the T-ban violations) here. The other issue (=the canvassing) is being taken care of at AE, and Self does indeed not mention, or diff, it above. Bishonen | tålk 16:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC).

I apologize to Selfstudier for missing that and withdraw the comment. I obviously did miss the point of difference. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

My fault, I wrongly thought the "ongoing at AE" diff was enough, I should have explained clearly that it was two different things. I was originally going to wait to file this, however, I think the editor should be permitted a response prior to any outcome at AE.Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm unclear about: is davidbena editing disruptively at City of David (or elsewhere that's at least arguably within the tban), or just editing an area that's arguably within the tban? I haven't followed the canvassing issues at AE, so perhaps that is the example of disruptive editing? Because if City of David is considered to be a post-1948 topic, then everything is a post-1948 topic (including topics like all of Jerusalem, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Second Temple, etc.). This is the comment I made in last year's appeal discussion: it's hard to draw the line, but the community decided to draw it anyway, so it must mean something. There must be some topics that davidbena is allowed to edit, or else last year's appeal would become meaningless. But I don't care to wikilawyer over tban boundaries: I want to know if there's disruption or not. If there is, it should be dealt with, frankly irrespective of the boundaries of the topic ban; and if there isn't, then we needn't deal with the boundaries of the topic ban. Levivich 17:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  I sympathize with your position, I spent some amount of time picking apart the tban. Staying with the specific rather than the general just for the moment, if someone is not permitted to edit in an area and they do, then that is disruption, isn't it? Else tbans are pointless because breach of them can't be reported unless there is "disruption" as well? The problem here is the difficulty in practice of separating the conflict from the historical/biblical if both issues are important to a given article. A recent edit by Davidbena to Solomon's Pools, a West Bank area and therefore theoretically a conflict area, caused no concern (to me, at least) because there the bibilical/historical are much more the thing for that particular article. But that is certainly not the case at City of David where the conflict is inextricably intertwined with settlements/history/biblical and pretty much amounts to the conflict in miniature. My interpretation of the tban as written is that it was not intended to allow editing (and participation in formal discussions) for that sort of article. So what I am asking for is enforcement if my interpretation of the tban is correct or clarification of the tban if something other than my interpretation was actually intended and as Davidbena appears to be maintaining.

  Returning to the general question, I linked our initial engagement above, a talk page discussion after having tagged the article for non NPOV title. There then ensued a spirited defense of the title on the grounds that the article is about the historical/biblical "City of David" (for which there is no real evidence of existence) and not the Elad-run "City of David" tourism site (for which there is an abundance of evidence of existence). It is perfectly clear from reading even the article lead that it is not just about a historical/biblical CoD. Resulting in a ridiculous situation where I cannot speak about the actual situation on the ground because it is not about that, it is only about a biblical/historical matter. In hindsight, it seems to me that Davidbena knew well what the tban entailed and was tailoring his commentary and editing to fit what he thought would be permitted if challenged. Is that disruptive? I think it is/was, as was dancing around a direct question of whether or not a tban was in force.Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  I personally don't believe that every tban violation is inherently disruptive; if someone is tbanned and fixed a typo, who cares, it's a harmless improvement to encyclopedia. But in some situations, like coming straight off a block, it can be a problem. So it's always case by case.

  As for this case, participating in a discussion about whether "X" is "historic" or "modern" would seem to violate a post-1948 tban because at least half the discussion (the part about "modern") would obviously be about post-1948 stuff. Participating in a talk page discussion about something one is tbanned from is of course a violation. In my view if the participation was otherwise productive/non-disruptive (other than being prohibited by the tban), a warning should suffice. But if there are other aggravating circumstances, more than a warning may be needed. (Btw I'm assuming that Elad in some way relates to Arab-Israeli geopolitics and thus would be covered by the tban, but I'm not specifically familiar with it.) Levivich 19:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Davidbena's rejoinder: I beg most cordially your undivided attention as to the events that led up to this, and after I have fully explained myself, I submit myself to any judgment which you may deem fit concerning me. First, I, Davidbena, wish to stress the urgency of the situation. The seriousness of the situation presented before us precludes a more mild response that would have, otherwise, been given by me. I am urgently calling admins to consider the following pattern of behavior displayed by our fellow editor Selfstudier, and to see whether or not his actions warrant a censure. As big as Wikipedia is as an organization, with thousands of volunteer editors at its disposal, there are actually very few who have either the acumen, the expertise or the adeptness to know when good, educational articles about biblical sites are being challenged by one editor who pushes his own POV against the accepted consensus, and if left up to his devices, he would fain expunge those articles from the Wikipedia Main Space, as I shall shortly explain. In so doing, he wishes to diminish, as it were, any sign of ancient Israel in the historical land of Palestine. This is plainly wrong, and, thank God, there are other editors who can detect this cunning and what can rightly be termed a "dishonest display of editorship." My accuser, Selfstudier, has sought to bury the articles City of David and King's Garden (Jerusalem), well-known biblical sites and themes mentioned throughout biblical and scholarly literature, into the relatively little-known and obscure article Silwan, and as a mere side issue, because, in his own words, he doubts their authenticity. I will cite a few examples here to prove my point, first the ancient City of David:

• On 17 July, the archaeological sites currently being excavated there [and which even the archaeologists unanimously claim are in the ancient City of David], Selfstudier makes the assertion that they have nothing to do with the ancient City of David, as one can see in the diff here.
• On 19 July, Selfstudier asserts the outrageous claim that the City of David does not exist, as shown by the diff here.
• On 23 July, Selfstudier makes the claim that the City of David does not exist, so we need some re-name [of the article], as shown by the diff here.
• On 29 July, once again, according to Selfstudier, the City of David does not exist, as shown by the diff here.
• On 29 July, I duly warned Selfstudier not to engage in POV with respect to the article "City of David," as shown by the diff here.
• On 1 August, after submitting a request to merge the article "City of David" with Silwan, it was rejected, as shown by the link here.
• On 3 August, undaunted, Selfstudier tried again to have the article's name changed (as if there was no such thing as the "City of David"), as shown by the diff here, and, it too, was declined as one can see by the link here.

Even though Selfstudier was warned against promoting his own POV, he repeated his folly by, this time, trying to expunge the article treating on the biblical site, the King's Garden, from Wikipedia's Main Space, under the feigned attempt to have that article "innocently" merged with the article Silwan.

• On 17 August, Selfstudier submitted a merge request for the article King's Garden (Jerusalem), as shown by the link here.
• Earlier, on 29 July, Selfstudier made the outlandish claim that "the KG" (= King's Garden), although mentioned in several biblical texts, is only "part of a supposed historical / biblical City of David" (End Quote), as shown by the diff here.

While this last activity led me to request a broader feedback by editors on the feasibility of a merge, I admit that I went beyond my duty and was cited for canvassing. I accept responsibility for that and will correct my errant ways. Still, the conclusion to which this vast documented evidence irresistibly leads is that admins ought to take action to prevent future disruptions of this sort by Selfstudier. It not only hits smack in the face against Wikipedia:Gaming the system, but is also a furtive means of promoting one's POV and ignoring what Wikipedia's free online encyclopedia is here to do, namely, to disseminate knowledge.Davidbena (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Is the topic ban broadly construed? GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not broadly construed.Davidbena (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It is. Part (a) of your TBAN reads "any edits relating to post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics, broadly construed, and regardless of whether an ARBPIA template is on the talk page". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, so it is. It looks like it would be useful tell people here what the T-ban is, before we get further into the weeds. Here's the complete wording of the ban currently in place, as described at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community:

Davidbena is indefinitely banned from (a) any edits relating to post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics, broadly construed, and regardless of whether an ARBPIA template is on the talk page, (b) promoting fringe theories especially those that relate to post-1948 Arab-Israeli politics, and (c) casting aspersions or questioning the motives of other editors. These restriction should not be construed as prohibiting: (i) the uploading or addition of historical photos or multimedia of or about pre-1948 Levantine subjects, (ii) verifiable and reliably sourced information regarding Levantine archaeological research, (iii) edits relating to geographical features of the Levant (but not geopolitical features such as borders, landmarks, or territories under dispute).

Updated after appeal and posted by Wugapodes.[241] I believe (a) is the most relevant point for this discussion. As you can see, it is broadly construed. Bishonen | tålk 19:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC).

Correction: I thought the question was on the topics on which I am permitted to edit (historical, etc.); these ae not restricted, excluding the areas of I/P conflict after 1948. My mistake. Of course, I never meant to say that I would edit in those areas that directly involve the I/P conflict.Davidbena (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth (which may not be much) I think it's important to consider what's not part of the ban to understand what is. The two points that are most important here seem to be (ii) and (iii). W/r/t (ii) we allow edits relating to archaeological research as long as it is verifiable and reliably sourced. I haven't dug into this report but if the only aspect is a dispute over the archaeological record (at first glance that seems to be the case) I believe that is outside the scope of the TBAN. W/r/t (iii) the clarification defines "geopolitical features" as "borders, landmarks, or territories under dispute" which many aspects of the article at City of David fall within. If Davidbena's were unrelated to archaeology or were about archaeology as it relates to post-1948 geopolitics (e.g., use of archaeology to support territorial claims) then I believe that would be a TBAN violation. Like I said, I haven't done more than skim the article history edit summaries and it seems more the former than the later, but that's my understanding of the restriction as I wrote it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Wugapodes : this topics ae not inherently political. Some aspects of some of hem may intrude into present day politics, but a discussion relating only. to the archeology is not intrinsically one of them. It the controversy were over whether particular monuments "belong" to the islamic or the jewish concept of Jerusalem, they might be under the topic restriction, but this seems to be whether particular monuments or their sites are real or not--it's essentially about the veracity of this part of the OldTestament, a sacred book to both religions. I should mention I'm personally interested in the question of the historicity of these sites also, and I'm somewhat aware of the recent literature. My opinion of course is that what I wish to be true doesn't matter, the archeology will hopefully resolve things one way or another--or else if it remains unresolved, the question will never be settled and in the absence of good data people can believe what they like, but not insist its the only valid position). DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• David's selective list also ends prematurely, the actual end of our discussions on 10 August here when I reiterated my proposal for progressing matters:

"As regards your suggestion I would prefer "City of David (ancient Jerusalem)", no mention of Elad at all (a new article can be created, Ir David archaeological tourism site or something of that sort), Silwan as a bolded aka given that the majority of respectable sources recognize this aspect. The legal aspects, Israeli and International law, need to be comprehensively explained. Criticism of the archaeology unrelated to Elad needs to go in as well......Before I forget we also need an agreed definition for "the area"."

• The only part of this on which we agreed was to rename the article "City of David (ancient Jerusalem)" which seems quite an odd thing for me to agree with since I supposedly don't agree that it exists. I agree that there is evidence for an area (of uncertain extent) generally referred to as ancient Jerusalem but I digress, the point remains the same, the editor again refrains from commenting on the parts of the article that are not historical/biblical so how can any progress be made? And how can the editor participate in formal discussions that concern the whole article not just a part of it? Selfstudier (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• I was asked by Callanecc to explain my post on AN: ... good, educational articles about biblical sites are being challenged by one editor who pushes his own POV against the accepted consensus, and if left up to his devices, he would fain expunge those articles from the Wikipedia Main Space, as I shall shortly explain. In so doing, he wishes to diminish, as it were, any sign of ancient Israel in the historical land of Palestine. This is plainly wrong, and, thank God, there are other editors who can detect this cunning and what can rightly be termed a "dishonest display of editorship." [End Quote], who wanted to know whether the "one editor" I referred to was Selfstudier. My reply to him was this: "There, I was referring to statements made by Selfstudier who dismissed the academic consensus about the location of the ancient City of David (in Silwan), and threatened to push a POV that would, in effect, mislead our readership on Wikipedia about the ancient site. In fact, I warned him that this could lead to him being banned from editing articles relating to ancient history and archaeology" (End Quote). Callanecc then asked me how I am able to judge a person's motives, saying that we here are actually prohibited from doing so. To that I say, yes, we do not fully know a person's motives, and we can only judge a case on the merits and basis of information that are available to us. By removing documented evidence of an ancient site's existence and its location, despite requests not to do so, suggests to me that that person wishes to portray a "different" aspect of history. It goes without saying that, here, we are discussing Israel's ancient history. That was my intention. Other remarks made by my disputant enhance this view, which because of time constraints and other constraints I am not at liberty to speak about. I would hope, though, that admins will look into his history of edits and to question his deeper motives. But, for the record, let us take, as an example, Selfstudier's removal of the biblical site King's Garden (Jerusalem) from the list of places making-up the ancient City of David, in this diff here, made on 29 August, and which site has clear authoritative references telling of its location being connected with the City of David - albeit its precise location being a matter of dispute, although no one disputing the fact that it was still connected with the City of David, as shown by its mention in a primary source (Nehemiah 3:15 in the Hebrew Bible), and where it states matter-of-factly that the King's Garden is located near the Pool of Siloah (a place in Silwan), or where it is also mentioned in four secondary sources: the one by Gustaf Dalman in his magnum opus, Work and Customs in Palestine; and another source being that of PEF explorer Charles Warren, who wrote concerning the Kidron Valley and the intermediate section of that valley that passes through Silwan and called Wady Fer'aun. According to Warren, the name "signifies the valley of the king, and the region to which the name is applied is precisely that which the King's Garden of the Bible used to occupy."; and another by the Israeli historian and writer, Arieh Yitzhaki, who places the King's Garden near the Lower Pool of Siloam (known in Arabic as Birket al-Ḥamrah), besides the one mentioned in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, shown here in this link. Why then remove the reference of the King's Garden from a list of places associated with the City of David? If I were to give Selfstudier the benefit of the doubt, which I will try and do now in this particular case, it may indeed be that he simply overlooked the reliable sources. ---

References

--Davidbena (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Davidbena's participation in the two move requests at City of David should be seen as TBAN violations. The TBAN has provided a narrow avenue for participation in the PIA topic area, but RMs applying to whole PIA articles cannot possibly fit into that avenue. My preferred remedy here is to just clarify the TBAN, get some confirmation from Davidbena that they understand, and move on. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Just noting that I've blocked Davidbena for the canvassing as discussed at AE and breaches of the ban on questioning the motives of other editors in this thread. To clarify, the block wasn't the potential TBAN vio being reported here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• It would be useful if this could be formally closed rather than just archived.Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

My question was removed on Humanities Reference Desk

Hi I posted a question less than half an hour ago and I am not able to see that now. When I clicked the history tab, I find an entry that makes me suspect that somebody deliberately removed it. A friend suggested this page to complain about the removal. RD is mainly for posing questions. Am I right? My question was a query regarding academic discussion forums. Thanks.--2405:201:F00A:20C6:6995:6B37:559E:27A8 (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Your question was promptly removed as "unconstructive".[242] I've no idea why. You asked a perfectly good question AFAICS. I've restored it, and posted a query about it on the remover's talkpage.[243] Bishonen | tålk 06:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC).

That was prompt and great. Thank you!--2405:201:F00A:20C6:6995:6B37:559E:27A8 (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

One reason that has belatedly occurred to me is if Telegram, which you mentioned, might be blacklisted on Wikipedia, i. e. that we're not even supposed to mention it. See our article Telegram (software). Does anybody know? Though I still don't think that would be a good reason to remove your question without a proper explanation ("unconstructive" is not an explanation). Bishonen | tålk 06:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC).

PS, no, I see it wasn't anything to do with Telegram. The remover was simply confused about what the RD is for. Bishonen | tålk 07:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC).

Sorry for it , I got confused. Princepratap1234 (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I used to contribute occasionally to a local language version in the form of factual corrections, language edits etc. Very often, you find such corrections undone instantaneously by uneducated clueless editors. There is no reasoning with them. I no longer bother to, even at the sight of howlers. That version is a total mess now. Thanks again, Bishonen. --2405:201:F00A:20C6:6995:6B37:559E:27A8 (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. I understand your frustration with the local wikipedia, but you're not referring to Princepratap1234 with your epithets, are you? As you can see, there was reasoning with them. The thing is, we have a Reference desk for general questions, corresponding to the ref desk in a library, and then we have a Help desk, for questions to do with editing Wikipedia. I think Princepratap1234 got those two mixed up. We do have a lot of boards, so it happens. But I'm glad you found this one, WP:ANI. Bishonen | tålk 08:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC).

Does this userpage raises some concerns?

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.

---

Came upon Americhina userpage when reverting user non-constructive edit on iPhone. Does the userpage raises some concern pertaining to WP:UPNOT, WP:HOAX and possibly WP:SOAPBOX? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting, Paper9oll. I have deleted the userpage as a blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. Bishonen | tålk 08:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen No problem. Happy editing! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

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

I do not appreciate Wikipedia libelling me.

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.

---

When I add factual information to an article, I do not appreciate it being suggested that I am violating "BLP" or vandalising an article. Please remove this grossly inaccurate slur from my edit history. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreebleNeeble (talk • contribs) 11:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Where did this happen? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I assume you're referring to this [244]. I'm not familiar with the interaction of our WP:revdeletion policy with automatics tags, but removing an edit summary because of an automatic tag about "possible BLP issue or vandalism" seems completely unnecessary to me. If you're unwilling to except that automatic tagging about a possible issue will sometimes identify stuff that is not such an issue, then you only real choice is not to edit IMO. In this case as an autoconfirmed editor but one with very few edits and a fairly recent account (although I think the latter is irrelevant to any edit filters), you were adding something about sexual assault allegations and while the source is probably sufficient considering the people accused can't reasonably be identified and the victim decided to speak out about the issue, it's unrealistic to expect an automated system to be able to tell the difference between this, and a more serious issue were you're adding an accusation of sexual assault where the people accused can reasonable be identified and the sourcing is insufficient. Note that your comment itself is concerning. While this particular edit of yours was probably fine, something being "factual" does not mean it isn't a WP:BLP issue. If you believe that, you need to read WP:BLP before you edit BLPs any further. Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that I should accept having abusive comments in my edit history suggesting I am a vandal or someone who violates your policies is an "acceptable price" for the privilege of editing here? Is that how things work? GreebleNeeble (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I’ve tried to do this, just to test it, and it is not technically possible to remove the tag. I revdel’d the edit summary, but the tag remained visible. —Floquenbeam (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC) update: I'm wrong, there is a way to change the tags, as General Notabilty says below. It just doesn't involve revdel. Nevermind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) No one is saying that, because that accusation is not being made. Edits are frequently flagged automatically, even for the longest-tenured editors, as possible violations, because it's better to be cautious than to be cavalier when dealing with biographical articles. These edits are flagged on the basis of key words or phrases or the URLs of websites used, and it does not mean that there is necessarily anything wrong with your edit, only that it contains one of those key identifiers. It is not abuse to merely take cautious note of any edit of this nature; you are not being singled out for flagging, but the same token, no one will be singled out for exemption either. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 12:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I'm saying an automatic tag about a possible issue can never reasonably be consider abusive, and it's silly to say it is. As a long term ECP editor, I think most edit filters include tagging ones generally ignore me and they only came after I started to edit (which was long before ECP existed anyway) so I myself am rarely affected by such tags. But while I sympathetic to it being annoying if an edit you make is mistagged or otherwise affected by an edit filter when it's unnecessary; if I were affected my first concern would be if it's overly sensitive making the edit filter somewhat useless. And my second concern would be the over sensitivity may discourage other editors. However especially in a BLP case since BLP is very important, my concern about being "libelled" because an automatic system said something was a possible issue, when it wasn't such an issue as explicitly already acknowledged by the word possible, is almost non existent as IMO it should be. I feel that's the best attitude to have here. To concentrate on how we protect and improve our articles, especially the living people which can be affected. In this case, as I said I cannot reasonably see any way the system could understand your edit was fine, but the plenty of other similar edits are not fine. If you're unwilling to accept that automated systems cannot be perfect, I don't think you're life here is going to be happy since we use a lot of such systems and they can never reasonably be perfect, and it wastes everyone's time if people make a big deal over times when such systems misidentify stuff when it's clear they cannot be improved, but are necessary to help protect our articles. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

For the record - anyone with managechangetags (EFMs, sysops, bots) can change the tags applied to a revision. It's almost never used, though, and "possible BLP violation" is hardly defamatory - all it's saying is that the edit could be problematic and may need additional attention (and it's a quite useful filter). Nobody's going to go after the OP for having that tag on one of their edits as long as the edit itself wasn't problematic. I see no need to change the tags. GeneralNotability (talk) GeneralNotability (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel I should point that there nowhere does it say "violation". The word "issue" is carefully used instead. Even with the best edits about sexual allegations, there is still a possible BLP issue, which means it is a prime candidate for review - not necessarily undoing or condemnation, just review. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

(EC) Note also tags are only one issue. Editors or bots can revert your edit mistakenly or for editors simply because they have a different view from you. Editors can come to your talk page or the article talk page or WP:BLPN or plenty of other places including here at ANI and say something is some sort of issue. Even if the community consensus is that it's not such an issue, we don't generally even remove such discussions because of that if they're started in good faith (except for your talk page where you're free to do what you want), let alone rev-deletion. While we discourage people from using the term WP:Vandalism if it's not clear cut since the term has a specific meaning here, it's not possible to open a discussion about whether something is a BLP issue without implicitly raising the possibility it's a BLP issue and so the editor who added it violated BLP. Wikipedia would for apart if every time someone misidentifies something in good faith, we required it to be rev-deleted. Indeed, in the future, it would make it worse for people making similar edits or even the person who made the original edit since people could not reference or check out the conclusions of the previous discussions, so there may be continued such comments about how X is a BLP issue. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Not that it was asked for, but my inexpert opinion is yes, this is in fact a price one must pay for editing here. Adding factual information to a BLP can certainly be in violation of policy if it is contentious and not well-sourced. If this sort of mild, automated editing issue causes you this much distress, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the site for you. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Can only concur with those above, GreebleNeeble. Those are automated tags added to edits that contain particular words or links. They aren't conclusive, are often not accurate, and aren't the expression of any particular editor (in the form of libel or slur). They exist to allow other editors to quickly determine what needs to be reviewed and what is probably inconsequential. It could be a BLP issue (broadly, anything that might be contrary to WP:BLP policy) or it could be vandalism. Or it could be neither. In this case, for the record, it would seem to be neither, and a fairly routine edit. St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen this issue come up, and I think it's worth talking about. I could definitely see a new user noticing that label and being confused, embarrassed, etc. Figuring out how to remove or "resolve" tags would be a huge project, I think, but maybe there's a way we can just limit who can see those tags? It's not like someone with 20 edits is going to be doing recent changes patrolling (although I guess some IPs may). Updated: edit conflicted with someone pointing out I'm wrong about editing tags. Still, it seems like less work to limit who sees them maybe? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• I tried to remove the tag the OP was complaining about, and got a message "The changes could not be applied: The tag "possible libel or vandalism" is not allowed to be removed." —valereee (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Only tags that have been manually created via Special:Tags can be edited in that manner. Tags that are defined by the edit filter, or by the core MW software (mobile edits, visual edits, rollback, etc) cannot be edited at all except by a developer/sysadmin. The only way to remove tags applied by an edit filter is to first delete the filter, and then use the "revert all changes by this filter" feature, though that would remove tags from everything with no option to specify a particular user. 199.8.32.6 (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

To my understanding, the appropriate pre-defined Special:Tags (e.g., possible libel or vandalism) are added to the created edit filters with no possibility of changing them, but their description and appearance on change (e.g., possible BLP issue or vandalism) should be editable by the admins; though I'm not sure how practical this is (even if justified) since the change will affect all tagged edits and, in this instance, 3 edit filters. M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Selectively altering or removing tags would be counterproductive. Currently they're substantially value-free, signifying only that the content (and perhaps select editor and page metadata) matched a particular search expression. If some tags are altered or removed though then unaltered tags would suggest a dicey revision; no longer value-free. In that case this complaint would have merit, and a bazillion more like it. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• I can't believe this thread has gone more than three posts. EEng 03:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• This does seem to be a bit much. This user has already had it explained to them that this is not an attack, it is not really something reasonable to get upset about. Nobody is attacking them. Frankly I think they need to move on. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The amount of vitriol here is disturbing. I have been called silly, accused of wasting everyone's time, told not to edit, told that this isn't the site for me, told it's not something to get upset about and told I need to move on. All for not wanting to be mistakenly labelled as a violator or vandal which I don't think is unreasonable.

Also it's been said that the tag can't be edited, can be edited, can't be edited again, can but won't be edited, can't be edited, can but can't but can be edited to the point where I don't know what's correct or not. GreebleNeeble (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

You haven't been "mistakenly labelled as a violator or vandal". An automatic tag was placed to alert other editors that there may be a possible issue with your edit. You were confused about something and have since been educated on the matter. Now is the time to recognise you made a mistake and move along. – ².O.^Boxing 12:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, GreebleNeeble, you started out things in quite a vehement manner by claiming that you had been 'libeled.' Aside from skirting quite close to WP:NLT, that's not a recipe for calm and relaxed responses. I stand by what I said; if this is so bothersome, perhaps you should do something else. If someone were terribly bothered by cat pictures, for instance, I might advise them to avoid the internet as a whole. All that said, happy Friday to all. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Shall we end this thread? This has gone on for too long and has been weirdly aggressive to a newcomer because he misunderstood tags. — Czello 13:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

GreebleNeeble, I understand your frustration with seeing those words on an edit you made in good faith. I am empathetic towards how you feel and your concerns are valid because you are valid. No one should be made to feel as though they are not welcome here when they are acting in good faith. Despite all of the seemingly aggressive behavior of my fellow editors one can find sound advice in what they have offered and eventually the hope is that will put you at ease going forward. This was not a personal attack on you or your editing but a tag added by a bot due to some algorithm or code. It is automatic and not manually added and there is no actionable result of the tag other than perhaps a cursory look by a passing patroller to confirm there was nothing to it. I understand the initial concern. You bringing it here was valid. You are not silly. I can throw out dozens of things here that waste my time but this is not one of them. You should most definitely continue to edit and grow here as an editor. No other editor can decide whether this is the site for you or not, even if that is their opinion. I think we should all choose to take a kinder approach and a more understanding approach going forward while remembering that behind every account is a human being. We may not always agree but I respect all of you. That's a personal choice but one that, in my opinion, benefits the community which ultimately enriches the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf 13:57, 3 September 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:NOTWEBHOST drafts from user

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

---

GabrielCombs2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All this user has done since August is create/edit a whole bunch of draft articles, for made-up things. Not 100% sure, but based off of the credits being listed throughout the drafts (and the username), they seem to be fan creations of their own. Also things such as Draft:The LEGO Batman and Spider-Man Movie containing a link at the bottom to this. This seems to very clearly be against WP:NOTWEBHOST, and all these drafts should be deleted... possibly a block needed for WP:NOTHERE (specifically "Editing only in user space").

Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

And after adding an ANI notice to their talk page, noticed this warning for now-deleted Draft:Gabriel Combs. Magitroopa (talk) 18:25, 3 September 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.

Unconstructive and unproductive editor

Alexander Leone (talk · contribs) is not here to be constructive or productive on Wikipedia. Their talkpage is full of warnings from various users, they accuse me of being a 'Kurdish vandal' and reverts edits of mine which they are not involved in just for the sake of it. Clearly a case of NOTHERE. --Semsûrî (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

They appear to have stopped for now. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

IP vandal of cannabis-related articles has returned with an account

Hello. An editor who has been brought to the attention of administrators on three separate occasions recently is continuing to troll / vandalize wikipedia pages. Previous reports about this editor here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&oldid=1036844825#Legality_of_cannabis

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&oldid=1040078239#Template:Legality_of_cannabis_by_US_state

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1040252607#Persistent_vandal_on_cannabis-related_pages

As you can see from the above, the editor has vandalized wikipedia pages many times in the past as an editor of varying IP's from Tamil Nadu, India. The first report resulted in him being rangeblocked from the page Legality of cannabis for 3 months, the second report resulted in page protection for Template:Legality of cannabis by US state, and the third report resulted in page protection for Legality of cannabis and Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction. The editor has now created an account Steel pluto (talk · contribs) which he has used to vandalize the page Legality of cannabis again. I think this user has demonstrated repeatedly that his purpose here is to troll and not contribute anything of value and just create problems for other people, so I think the account should be blocked and some kind of IP ban should be enacted to prevent him from editing with future accounts. In the third report linked above I provided a list of IP's that he has edited with which would be helpful in deciding what range of IP's to block. Thank you for your time.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC) −

Jamesy0627144, What in their contributions would be considered vandalism? Where is the assumption of good faith for a new editor? We can't just go around accusing new editors of block evasion, vandalism or trolling without concrete evidence that has occurred. The way I see it from the contributions two editors had a discussion in which they disagreed. An editor boldly made an edit and it was reverted. Discussion is being had on the article talk page. In my opinion, I don't see anything actionable right now. --ARoseWolf 16:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: Take a look at the diffs linked in the third report and I think you will have to agree there is absolutely no way a person could have made those edits in good faith. The edits are diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7, diff8, and diff9. As to whether the new account is the same person as the IP vandal, that is rather obvious. Shortly after the page protections were enacted, a new user shows up to Legality of cannabis wanting to make changes to the map legend consistent with the fact that the IP vandal has been obsessed with making various changes to the map legend over the past month. The user then proceeds to make a different change to the map legend which again is completely nonsensical consistent with the diffs that I linked to above. Further confirming his identity is the fact that all of the diffs I linked above are from an IP editor located in Tamil Nadu, India. The very first edit that Steel pluto made upon signing up for an account is to a page about Tamil Nadu, India. So I don't know how anyone could argue that it is not completely obvious that it is the same person.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Jamesy0627144, The new account has followed guidelines and policies since joining. The dispute over the color of a map legend is not reason enough to have them banned or blocked from editing. All of the diffs you provided are from an IP address that is blocked. No diff you have provided shows vandalism from the new editor. Please stop calling them a vandal unless you can provide specific diffs to the contrary. Disruptive editing of the IP's warranted the article being semi-protected. If vandalism occurs it can be dealt with. It should be extremely uncomfortable to every editor at Wikipedia to have a new editor accused of being a vandal and troll when no policy and no guideline has been violated by that editor. You assume they are the same as the IP's. They may be the same person. But they haven't continued the disruptive editing to this point. They followed WP:BRD. We are encouraged not to bite the newcomers too hard unless we have definitive evidence they are not here for the right reasons. This is not to say you won't ultimately be proven correct. This is to say that we need to assume good faith and actually show they have violated some rule before we start accusing them of guilt. --ARoseWolf 18:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I have applied a partial block to Legality of cannabis to match with Ohnoitsjamie's rangeblock. Sro23 (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sro23: Not sure I agree with the block. User requested unblocking at UTRS. I advised them to discuss the matter here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I completely disagree that the evidence, as it stands, warrants a block. --ARoseWolf 19:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, if people are objecting, I will not fight this, and a partial block to one article will not be the hill I die on. Anyone may feel free to remove the user's block. There's always WP:ROPE so no big deal. But it would be nice if those who disagree or are "not sure" if they agree with my block could please explain why, because I don't understand. I blocked the user because it was clear they were evading this rangeblock. Jamesy0627144's evidence was persuasive in that regard. Unless the blocking policy has changed without my knowledge, we don't simply block the IP address or user account, we block the person behind the IP or account. The person making the same disruptive edits to Legality of cannabis is blocked from that page, be it from IP or account. Hence the block for block evasion using the Steel pluto account. Sro23 (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sro23: Did you perform an IP check or did I not follow the proper procedure for that? I'm sure it's the same person regardless of what an IP check says, but that would pretty much settle it once-and-for-all if the IP does indeed match.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not a CU, and CU won't publicly connect a named user with an IP address. Though you could probably email a CheckUser explaining the situation and that might help. Sro23 (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I think I made my position quite clear above. I don't feel the evidence clearly shows the two are the same. There is nothing clear about the diffs above or how they tie to the new editor other than they come from the same article. That makes it an assumption. The new account has not violated any guideline or policy since joining. They followed WP:BRD instead of engaging in an edit war and discussion was being had on the article talk page. A fellow editors opinion shouldn't be automatically called trolling or vandalism based on an assumption. There are other ways of dealing with disputes. --ARoseWolf 20:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• Damn, this has turned out to be more complicated than I thought it would be, lol. I just assumed all admins had the ability to check IP addresses, but I guess I'll look into contacting a checkuser if this doesn't get resolved in the near future from a checkuser that is following this page. Thanks for the info @Sro23.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

edit: I guess it is already is sort of resolved due the block on Legality of cannabis applied, thank you for that @Sro23. There is still some dispute about whether the ban is appropriate though, and I was additionally going to suggest at least blocking the user from Template:Legality of cannabis by US state and Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction because he has also vandalized those pages in the past. Like you said though, we can always deal with that in the future if it occurs.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Attacks and BLP violations by Chilean IP range

I'd just like to bring to attention of administrators an IP range I ran into today. I first reverted them at Wikipedia:Featured article review and, after checking their other contributions, ran into this page history, which contains other, revdel'ed edits by a nearby IP, which I assume contains similar content. This user appears to be in the 186.11.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) range, which contain lots of similar edits, going back to 2019. Considering how broad the range seems to be (and there are good edits in there), maybe a partial block from certain spaces would be worth? Or maybe an edit filter? Isabelle ^🔔 23:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Allegations of disruptive behaviour

Disruptive behaviour by User:Luidje

Disruptive editing and behaviour by User:Luidje, removing maintenance templates on the artile Emanuel Araújo and warnings on his discussion page. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by Rui Gabriel Correia

User Rui Gabriel Correia is removing a valid source from an article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emanuel_Ara%C3%BAjo&diff=1042051315&oldid=1041381002 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emanuel_Ara%C3%BAjo&diff=1042063664&oldid=1042061752 Luidje (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not removing a source, I am reinstating a maintenance tag removed with no explation. If the editor does agree with the tag, he must discuss it in the appropriate place or indicate that he has adequately addressed the reason that led to the placing of the tag. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a lie. The tag was removed after improvements were made to the article. I included the source. And you removed the source. It is registered. Just check out the diffs. There is a valid source being removed. Luidje (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Luidje did cite a source when the "unsourced" tag was removed [245]. It was a mistake to rollback that revision [246]. It removed a useful citation without explanation, and it restored the proposed deletion template that was removed along with the "unsourced" tag in that same revision. Correia, please look again and consider withdrawing this complaint. Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Please note that Luidje did not remove an unsourced tag. What he removed — and without offering any explanation/ edit summary — was a delete tag, which presented three elements of justification: (a) No sources since 2007; (2) Article doesn't explain how notable he is; (3) It's looks more like a curriculum and not a biography. It is not by citing a one-liner library catalogue that merely confirms that the subject is indeed who the text says he is that the situation is resolved. There are other issues at play here, but this is not the right place to go into those, so I will matters stand as they are for now. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I did wonder if you meant the PROD. Anyway, he doesn't have to explain why he removed the PROD. Once he did you shouldn't have replaced it. Yappy2bhere (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

If the PROD was contested and you still feel like the sources are not adequate to prove notability the next step is to take it to AfD. Restoring the PROD and removing the source(s) is disruptive to the process. No explanation has to be given when contesting a PROD. --ARoseWolf 12:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yappy2bhere and ARoseWolf: Thank you very much for your clarifications and help. I had the same understanding of the situation that you had. And I was having trouble dealing with the behavior of this other user. I hope he understands. Luidje (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hahnxj

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 seems to be mass creating (or at least rapidly creating) stubs of biographies of living persons related to European cricket and similar sports. Almost all of these articles (which are BLPs, despite being stubs) are unsourced, many of them seem to be duplicates of each other and/or preexisting articles, and many of them all have similar titles to the point where keeping track of them is impossible. I've tried to clean up some of this mess with BLPPRODs and CSD A10s, but the author is now inappropriately removing the BLPPROD tags (for which they have been warned) and it's all getting out of hand. Help! Taking Out The Trash (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Harrias: who now also seems to be monitoring this user and trying to clean up some of this (thank you!) Taking Out The Trash (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've stuck A10s on Robert Woodman (English allrounder) and Craig Lewis (Irish allrounder) as duplicates of Robert Woodman and Craig Lewis (cricketer). Hahnxj retaliated with A10s on these original articles, but Lugnuts has reverted those. It's all getting a bit messy, and I'm involved now, so can't really admin here. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both - it's a long-term sock. More at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vallabharebel. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged and SPI updated.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Legal threats against another user

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

---

• RK777713 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see [247][248][249]. These are from a few days ago but they are pretty blatant and targeted at a specific editor, and should be retracted before any further edits are made. DanCherek (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems clear. In accordance with WP:NLT, the user should be blocked until any legal discussions are resolved. --ARoseWolf 20:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me adjust my statement by saying an admin can definitely discuss the intentions with the editor in question which is also part of NLT should they deem it necessary. I don't see any urgency at any rate. But it is quite clear that this editor has stated they plan to add another editor, and possibly more, to an outstanding lawsuit that has already been filed against outside parties. --ARoseWolf 20:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean, why tiptoe across the WP:NLT line when you can instead pole vault across it? Dumuzid (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• This comment[250] is instructive. It appears from their editing history, they are referring to our article on Ryan Kavanaugh. Notwithstanding the legal threats (which are a few days old), we should check out the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Which I see is full protected and being discussed at WP:BLPN. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah that was the morning I woke up to 31 notifications on my talk. I left a comment at BLPN last week and am not super interested in getting more involved with the article but more thoughts there would be helpful. DanCherek (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I have indefinitely blocked this editor, who claimed in their first edit to be Ryan Kavanaugh. The legal threats are not acceptable. This is a complex situation. Kavanaugh presided over the collapse of a very significant Holllywood production company and that affected many Hollywood studios. It is unsurprising that there are negative allegations against him, and that his career suffered, but we must be very cautious and careful about reporting unproven allegations. On the other hand, such a major business failure should be reported neutrally in the article. We do not present whitewashed hagiographies. It seems that there is at least one editor who is determined to make Kavanaugh look as bad as possible and another editor determined to make him look as good as possible. Page bans against those editors may be necessary if that type of behavior continues. I encourage experienced uninvolved editors to delve into the content issues to help develop a neutral version of this BLP. In particular, I want to commend DanCherek who tried to do the right thing and was subjected to a torrent of abuse. Sorry that happened, Dan. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the action, Cullen328, I appreciate it. DanCherek (talk) 01:45, 4 September 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.

Reporting possible Vandal/POV-Pusher

• Aquinasthomes1 ‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –

User is reverting and editing many Articles regarding/mentioning the countries of Serbia and Kosovo.1 2 3 User seems to have his own POV on the issues of those countries, which are not based on neutral thoughts as it should be on wikipedia. User has been warned ones.4 The warning has been deleted immediatly and has been called a act of Vandalism.5 As such, more warnings would be just inefficient, because the results would be most likely the same. User has a history of possible Vandalising, in form of POV-Pushing, prior to the recently made edits.6

Requesting a review of the activities of the User by a Administrator.

--InNeed95 (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@InNeed95: you are supposed to notify Aquinasthomes1 per the edit notice displayed whenever this page is edited. At the time you posted, the editor in question was blocked, and is likely remain blocked until 5 September. I will remind that editor that removing a warning is taken to mean that it has been read and understood. If the behaviour resumes post-block, then another block can be imposed. It is likely to be an indefinite one next time. Mjroots (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Aquinasthomes1 notified of this discussion and advised re removal of warnings. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is vandalism. It might be POV-pushing. I'm a little concerned about what appears to be changing reference titles from English to Cyrillic? —valereee (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots:

-I am sorry. I forgot to notify the User. I will remember this for the next time.

-As the User removed the Warning with the expaination "Vandlism", he doesnt seem to have been given care about the warning.He continued his questionable behaviour in editing afterwards too.

-Alright. Lets hope he understood, after his current block, that his way of editing is not acceptable on Wikipedia.

Thanks.

@Valereee:

It "might" not be POV-Pushing. It is POV-Pushing. His POV seems to be connected to serbian nationalism. Some edits can be considered Vandalism in my opinion. Or at least, close to being Vandalism. But in the end, the problem has to be viewed more closely.

--InNeed95 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've interacted with Aquinas for a while now via AfC and NPP, both with his current account and previously when he was IP editing. Definitely not a vandal, and I'm sure he's not intentionally a POV pusher, but there seems to be at least a tendency to engage in at least biased editing. I think they've learned their lesson at this point; if issues re-arise, then a topic ban may be in order. Curbon7 (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks.

--InNeed95 (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Curbon7: @Valereee: @Mjroots:

Greetings again. Sorry if I am disturbing you.

Normally this discussion was supposed to be finished, but I have noticed on one edit of the User, that he insulted me. On the Article List of Serbian Orthodox monasteries, he used as a explaination, not only the falsely made accusation of "Vandalism", but he aswell wrote, "analbanian", which seems to be a fusing of the words "anal" and "Albanian".1

Such a misbehavior (false accusations and Insulting) and the additional POV-Pushing...

I am not sure if he should receive a `second chance´ as suggested.

--InNeed95 (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@InNeed95: - final warning issued. Banhammer case unlocked, my patience is running thin here. Mjroots (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Troubling edits by Bullhuss5

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.

---

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely

Bullhuss5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't use the word racism lightly but there seems to be a tinge of racism in the constant edits to Kim Johnson (politician) by Bullhuss5, eg [251] with the edit summary yeah, those are sources are unreliable. one is her maiden speech written by her and both merely state she is black. there's no proof, and unless she's Melanasian its not genetically possible her hair could be blonde. or [252] with the edit summary she isnt black?. The edits seem to be at best WP:OR based on her appearance in the publicity picture on the page with her hair died blonde. They are also proving problematic at British Empire and Hong Kong trying to argue that the British Empire still exists. Bringing it to ANI as this seems more than a simple content dispute. WCM_email 11:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Certainly OR, and contradicted by sources that described her as "Liverpool's first black MP" (BBC, Guardian).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bullhuss55, who unaccountably exists in a parallel universe where hydrogen peroxide was never discovered, has declared that they are now retired from Wikipedia. ◦ Trey Maturin 16:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

My spidy sense is tell me there is sock puppetry involved but not sure who the master is. WCM_email 16:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Retired or not they were not here for constructive purposes based on their past contributions. Just taking a stab at it but they made 41 edits outside of talk pages. Of that 41, roughly 28 were directly reverted. The other 13 edits were mostly minor in nature and were seemingly constructive and almost all of them occurred before engaging in the disruptive editing. The other four were either insignificant or were possibly caught up in the reverts indirectly. I normally loathe the idea of blocking but in this case they are blatantly not here to build an encyclopedia through honest and open discussion while honoring consensus. Though their contribs might not be considered direct vandalism they were, none-the-less, pushing a non-NPOV. Heavily I might add. I would say that @WCM's spidy senses are spot on. A block is warranted in my opinion. --ARoseWolf 19:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done just to make sure they don't return. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 2 September 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.

Page hacking and move vandalism by SarayuGujja2004

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.

---

SarayuGujja2004 (talk · contribs) has hacked the page of politician R. Krishnaiah and replaced it with a another (likely non-notable) politician Sathyam Gujja. They then picked up a random film page Okkadu Migiladu, moved that page to R. Krishnaiyya and cut pasted the content they previous replaced. Requesting an administrator intervention to clean up this mess. Thank you -- Ab207 (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I am really amazed that nobody reacted in four hours. I have now restored the original articles. I see that SarayuGujja2004 edited after being notified of this discussion; I also see that they have never edited talk pages (not counting the bad moves today) and that they lave less than 50 contributions in total, most of which are the above moves and pastes. I am afraid we are deep into WP:CIR territory, and the user, in addition, presumably performed all this to create an article about themselves (which, after a brief look, did not like notable to me, but I might be wrong). As a conclusion, probably a block is needed here, but I would like to give a user a chance to respond and for fellow Wikipedia editors to provide their opinions.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: based on editing overlap on the hijacked article and Draft:Sathyam Gujja I'm fairly sure they're also socking as MortalCombat1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Knowledgeindia123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The account SarayuGujja2004 was blocked by Deepfriedokra earlier today and then globally locked for cross-wiki abuse. I have now blocked MortalCombat1982 as it is apparently operated by the same person (at best, a meatpuppet). I am not so sure about Knowledgeindia123--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I'm certain. Blocked. I think Knowledgeindia123 is the master? oldest?. maybe not. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, not a good idea to scare a Steward that way. FWIW, i declined rename request from SarayuGujja2004 (talk · contribs). So much nerve. Do we need a checkuser check? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Checkusers would not check since all three accounts are already blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 5 September 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 beyond the pale

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.

---

ProtectYourFamily, by the looks of it, is WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia. Instead they are treating Wikipedia as a free for all forum, using quite the selection of pejoratives in order to get their point across. I have issued a level 2 warning for personal attacks, but I don't think this will actually remedy the situation.

• "Welcome to Wikipedia, where they bash supported medical treatments from respected institutions like the Cleveland Clinic but then want illegal opiates legalized to deal with their medical and pain issues."
• "Why don’t you go away, you illiterate lowlife? (...) some random moron like you"
• "the uninformed opinion on the Wikipedia of unemployed losers who failed out of community college and live with their parents begging for another stimulus check?"

Kleuske (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• The response to my level2 warning on their talkpage, further illustrates the issue. Kleuske (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Already blocked. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I noticed too late you were already on the case. Kleuske (talk) 13:39, 4 September 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.

Preciousoderowho21 (UPE)

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.

---

• Preciousoderowho21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Precious was created on July 26, 2021, and has made a total of 324 edits, of which 134 are deleted. They have created 41 pages, of which 15 have been deleted. AFAIK, all of the articles/drafts are about Nigerian subjects.

Recently, Chinmark Group‎ was tagged as WP:G11 by another user and was deleted. It was immediately recreated by Precious and is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinmark Group. I tagged the owner of Chinmark Group, Marksman Chinedu Ijomah, as G11. It was deleted and then recreated as Amb. Marksman Chinedu Ijomah.

In addition, Precious is uploading images without proof of license (claiming they are their own work), many of which have been deleted, and others tagged for deletion on Commons, e.g., the picture of Ijomah.

I believe it's clear that Precious is an undisclosed paid editor whose articles are promotional and who is otherwise disruptive to the project. They should be indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support All of the work is indicative of a UPE and an examination of the work shows they are promotional. scope_creep^Talk 16:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I completely agree. It would be interesting to see what they have to say for themselves. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• I am not paid to edit or create content on Wikipedia. I am a student of UNIBEN, International Relations and write as a hobby and for development as it relates to my field of career. If I were paid to edit, I would do the right thing and disclose it. I would not attract harassment or a wrong impression when I can do the right thing. (said here).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support - agreed. MER-C 18:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely for undisclosed paid editing. See We were not born yesterday. Bishonen | tålk 21:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC).

• I can't speak for you, Bish, but I was...at 2:00 a.m. PT. I'm very precocious.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 4 September 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.

3Kingdoms

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.

---

• 3Kingdoms (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• I. F. Stone
• Black genocide

I was edit-warring against 3Kingdoms, I admit it, but I will stop now. 3Kingdoms came into my view when they made some misrepresentations at Black genocide. I looked at other contributions and the same pattern emerged: removing text supporting legal abortion and adding text against abortion, to push the article out of balance. 3Kingdoms is very active in Catholic topics, and appears to use Wikipedia to push the Catholic viewpoint against abortion.

Outside of the abortion issue, at the biography page I. F. Stone, 3Kingdoms cited a primary source PDF from marxist.org which does not mention Stone at all. 3Kingdoms also cited the prize-winning book A Conspiracy So Immense by David Oshinsky who lists the name of Stone one time in passing, offering no in-depth discussion of Stone's knowledge or motivation. With these two very thin sources, 3Kingdoms pinned on Stone the false accusation that Stone knew about the Great Purge and other Soviet crimes before Stone signed a letter of support for better relations between USA–USSR.

We're both over the line of 3RR. I will stop reverting to restore peace. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

While I was reporting 3Kingdoms here, they were reporting me at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Binksternet_reported_by_User:3Kingdoms_(Result:_). FYI. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of violating 3RR, when you were warned on multiple occasion to stop and I reverted your disruptive edits. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms: you clearly violated 3RR [253][254][255][256]. Binksternet’s edits don’t appear to be disruptive, although taken as a whole the same would be hard to say about your own edits... I think you need to do some soul searching here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Binksternet decided to just follow 3Kingdoms around and revert them on several pages. From what I can tell both broke 3RR on that one page which is not ideal to be sure. No one looks great. PackMecEng (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, I’m seeing just one page that it looks like they followed 3Kingdoms to. What do you see? Neither is an innocent party, I was expecting them both to earn a block from their little edit war but a merciful admin decided to protect the page instead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

So Black genocide, John Krol, We Charge Genocide, and I. F. Stone. PackMecEng (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You would appear to be right, from the subject matter this would however appear to fall under the correct uses of another editor’s edit history per WP:FOLLOWING specifically "correcting related problems on multiple articles.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking through the edits of 3Kingdoms to see whether they were pushing the same POV elsewhere, which turned out to be the case. WP:Hounding is the intent to cause "irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor." My intent is to keep Wikipedia neutral by removing POV. The hounding guideline says, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." That's what I was doing. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Your POV is not necessary Wikipedia's POV. It is a stretch to say your views, that their POV is a problem, is an unambiguous violation of policy. So yes, you meet the definition of hounding it appears. PackMecEng (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng, WP:HOUNDING carves out exemptions for noticing a single editor has firm policy violations and noticing where else they violate that policy. That is, to my understanding, completely permitted, as long as the community agrees they were actual policy violations. In fact it's exactly what we do when an editor gets blocked for something like this: we go through their edits and figure out where else they violated that policy. I;'ve done it with plenty of SPAs. Not saying this user is an SPA, just saying it's not necessarily WP:HOUNDING. To be HOUNDING, it needs to involve harassment.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, That is correct. My comment was explaining why it was not a firm policy violation and thus grossly inappropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

3Kingdoms, I'm baffled that you would make four reverts at I. F. Stone in the space of 20 minutes and then proceed to report your opponent (also at four reverts) at the edit warring noticeboard. I did consider blocking you only, and not Binksternet, since you are the one with substantial form for edit warring. You have four blocks for it in the past nine months, while Binksternet has not been blocked, for anything, since 2015. In the event, I protected the article and blocked nobody. But what were you thinking? Another admin could easily have made a different call. Bishonen | tålk 16:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC).

I thought that reverting edits is not breaking 3rr, clearly not the case, my bad. Regarding the other statement, Horse eye, what you think is legit comes across to me as "hounding" [257], maybe not the case, but that is what it comes across to me. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:39, 28 August 202

@Bishonen: ok, I was coming here to note their block records also. I probably would have made a different call. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms:, consider yourself very lucky. I'd have reached for this. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

3Kingdoms please could you explain what you mean by I thought that reverting edits is not breaking 3rr - I'm scratching my head a bit. What did you think 3RR was? Girth Summit _(blether) 16:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I remember either reading or someone telling saying that restoring content that had been up for a while did not count, although likely they meant that more in the context of vandalism, so that was my bad. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Reverting clear cutobvious vandalism is indeed an exemption as explained in the policy page. This is why by now you need to actually read the policy and not just rely on something you half remember from what someone told you who might not even be right. Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

(EC) 3Kingdoms, we give some latitude to new editors not understanding the rules but as mentioned by Bishonen you've already been blocked four times (well I'd say 3 since one was a modification) for it. Ignorance is no longer an acceptable excuse, you need to take responsibility for learning the rules especially around edit warring.

While there's clearly no excuse for Binksternet violating 3RR, they at least acknowledged they were wrong without any 'but' or whatever above. By comparison, instead of acknowleding you too were at fault above, you just said Binksternet shouldn't complain about you. As mentioned by Bishonen you even went as far as to complain about Binksternet to ANEW, and didn't mention you'd done the same thing.

At ANEW you've offered the silly excuse "I thought that reverting someone who broke 3rr did not count as myself breaking 3rr" [258]. This is coming about 3 days after someone warned you because you'd reached 3 reverts and you said "my latest edit that removed a part of the sentence for a different reason, with my previous revert. I do not consider that to be doing the same thing." [259]. I assume you didn't cross the bright-line after that, but it's still very concerning comment especially considering 3 reverts is not an entitlement.

The big red box in WP:3RR clearly says 'An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.' It makes it clear there are only some specific exemptions and none of these are for reverting someone who broke 3RR. If for some reason reading that still leads you to think that "removed a part of the sentence for a different reason" does not count as another revert or that "reverting someone who broke 3rr" is okay, seek clarification somewhere beforehand.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Well in that case I'm just gonna stop reverting all together. Clearly I've been headstrong and in the wrong even when others have been, no point in me getting into anymore and wasting people's time. My bad to all. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for 3Kingdoms: 0RR restriction for 6 months

3Kingdoms has offered to just stop reverting all together. I think that should be a formalized restriction. In this series of comments from last December, 3Kingdom was unblocked after committing not to edit war and confirming that they read and understood the edit warring policy. Since then, they were indef TBANned in March from the Arab–Israeli conflict area for edit warring, and blocked for a month in June for edit warring an American politics article. Their ArbE appeal of their TBAN in July failed because they had been edit warring in other areas and making comments that demonstrated further misunderstanding of the edit-warring policy. I have no reason to doubt their voluntary self-restriction, but I think it's important that the community hold this editor accountable for that commitment. I am hopeful to see more collaborative editing when reversion is off the table. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support 0RR. Yes, accountability is important here. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Honestly, I don't think that this gets to the roots of 3K's problems. They aren't particularly adept at handling controversial topic areas (which I mean, fair, there is a reason they get like that). If 3K focused their efforts on improving coverage of the nuts-and-bolts regarding theology and liturgy (stuff like this), rather than the intersection of Faith and politics, they certainly would have an easier time here. I know Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity could use the help! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • MJL, I don't know what the roots of the problems are, but edit warring does seem to be the stand out symptom. I am neutral for now on the idea of a more restrictive remedy, if that's what you're implying. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Firefangledfeathers: More like I want to see 3Kingdoms to voluntarily step out of such controversial areas. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clarifying. I would advise the same. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
        • If allowed to edit, regardless of the decision that is my intention. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: 3Kingdom's just reverted again at Black genocide with this edit, re-adding content that is disputed by other editors. There is ongoing discussion and it is clear that 3Kingdom's does not have consensus for inclusion. Part of me is thinking that ArbE would be a better venue for this discussion, but the problematic editing is happening across multiple DS topic areas. I would appreciate some guidance. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  My assumption is that 3Kingdom’s will once again claim not to realize that their edit counted as a revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  3Kingdom's recently self-reverted the above-mentioned edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: block 3Kingdoms

Proposal: block 3Kingdoms for the following:

• December 2020, Chetsford, in discussing unblocking 3Kingdoms, said: would you be willing to absolutely refrain from edit warring in the future if unblocked, as opposed to just trying to refrain? 3K responded: Yes I would refraim entirely. Chetsford then asked: can you verify your familiarity with the edit warring policy by linking to the applicable page in reply to this message? 3K responded: Yes here is the link. [260] I understand the three reverts rule applies in general. I thought it only applied if you were warned before.

• 3Kingdoms has said the following above:

• Do not accuse me of violating 3RR, when you were warned on multiple occasion to stop and I reverted your disruptive edits
• [261] I thought that reverting someone who broke 3rr did not count as myself breaking 3rr
• I remember either reading or someone telling saying that restoring content that had been up for a while did not count, although likely they meant that more in the context of vandalism, so that was my bad
• and finally on 28 August I'm just gonna stop reverting all together. Clearly I've been headstrong and in the wrong even when others have been, no point in me getting into anymore and wasting people's time. My bad to all.

• As Firefangledfeathers notes above, on 30 August, after saying all of the above, 3Kingdoms reverted again in this edit, re-adding content that is still disputed by other editors.

I feel as though the community is being taken for a ride here. And has been taken for a ride in the past by this user. User has edit warred/violated 1RR rules in multiple content areas (American Politics [262] (1RR-violation), Arab-Israeli area [263] (topic-banned), Evangelical religious figures [264], US-USSR relations (I. F. Stone) [265], likely more areas, including this most recent stint edit warring at Black genocide). User has also been blocked 3 times in the past year for this behavior [266]. If WP:NOTHERE does not apply (gaming the system), and the user really does have these broad and numerous misunderstandings of WP:3RR, WP:1RR, and WP:EW, even after repeatedly being notified about these policies and even asked to link to it to verify they have read WP:EW, then I believe WP:CIR applies.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: I prefer my proposal but do not oppose this one. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It was never my intention to lead the community "through a ride", but I see why you think that. While I would rather it not happen, I get why you think I should be blocked, actions speak louder than words and while I find the objection to the addition, which is "one sentence, with no POV in its wording, from a source published by Oxford" to be wrong, it still looked bad on my part which is why I reverted on second thought. I doubt this will convince you and I don't blame it for not, that is what I thought. I intend to just stick to "nuts and bolts" as one editor mentioned because it is far less likely to cause problems and is simply more enjoyable to do. Thanks and have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked. I agree with Shibbolethink. After making all the promises Shibbolethink has enumerated just above, 3Kingdoms reverted again, re-adding disputed content. I'm not too impressed by the fact that they self-reverted after some hours, because this was only after Firefangledfeathers had complained above about 3K's new revert, and with the edit summary that "On second thought, I think people will take this as a revert", etc. Mhm. I'm starting to feel a bit responsible for wasting the community's time by not blocking 3K right after their AN3 report.[267] I was admittedly not then aware of their undertakings to Chetsford, which Shibbolethink describes above. Those were undertakings for the purpose of being unblocked, and they look pretty silly in relation to 3K's various excuses and professions of ignorance even in this very thread. It seems that either the user is too incompetent to edit in controversial areas, or we are indeed being taken for a ride. I have belatedly blocked them indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC).
• Support - Based on what Shibbolethink lays out above, this editor violated the agreement of their un-block discussion by continuing to break 3RR and then claim ignorance. When you agree that you understand the rules, as indicated above, you can not, then, claim ignorance of them. The time to ask questions and make sure you understand what you were reading was then. It is unfortunate that I have to support blocking but I see it as the only recourse due to violation of community trust. --ARoseWolf 16:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I don't know if editors can give opinions here or if this is only for administrators, but I have edited on Wikipedia for 11 years and I believe this editor's claim of ignorance offends the Wikipedia community. I was unfamiliar with this editor's work, but the proof offered of bad faith supports the recommendation that they be blocked. The editor could have responded here in a number of ways and strangely chose a claim of ignorance when they had to know evidence to the contrary existed. It occurs to me that prior blockings of this editor have not served the Wikipedia community well, and I must point out that the adage "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result" seems to apply, but in the absence of other recommendations I believe blocking is right if it is the strongest way to communicate to this editor without a permanent ban. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 01:14, 3 September 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 edting by User:Nickoustic at Bother (song)

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.

---

Initially an IP user, who was persistently making disruptive edits at Bother (song), specifically changing the genre and release date without sources or consensus[268], ended up getting blocked for doing so for 24 hours for extensive edit warring. The user then created a new account to continue making the same disruptive edits. The main issue here is that there seems to be no way of telling this person to stop, or that their edits violate Wikipedia's guidelines on original research, WP:USERG, and WP:ALBUMAVOID, as dispute resolution doesn't seem to be helping. Upon creating the account and making the edits, temporary semi protection was requested, but suggested by an admin that we try content dispute instead, which I intiated by starting a discussion on the article's talk page. From there, I discussed that their edits were not properly sourced, and the sources they were going by were sources that fail WP:USERG and are listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID. (The sources were Discogs, Apple Music, and the Allmusic genre sidebar). Despite stating this explicity a few times, the user insisted on keeping the edits and failed to propely cite their sources to back their claims. The source in question, Allmusic, which WP:ALBUMAVOID states that in certain cases can be used as a reliable source if it's a staff review (they used the genre sidebar, which isn't considered reliable). At most, they stated where they got the info from in the edit summary box,[269] instead of properly citing it in the article and it has become very evident that they indent to keep reverting it back to the way the want it if it's reverted again. They also insist the single was released the same date as the album, which didn't match the sources I provided in the discussion, and I tried to explain that in discussion[270], but they don't seem to want to pay attention, or even read the official guidelines, despite being informed about them many times. Magatta (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I changed the release to reflect the proper date of the official album release which is linked inside the page itself. I also changed the genre to reflect what is listed in Apple Music and backed up by All Music. Sources are all available on the page already….

If we can’t agree on the genre, oh well.. it’s quite easy to see that the release date is August 27, 2002 (Which is the date the stone sour album was released and the date that’s already sourced on the Stone Sour album Wiki page. The other possible initial release date is April 30, 2002 which is when the Spider-Man soundtrack was released. The Wiki page for that is already linked on the page for bother so there wasn’t really a need to add sources and I’m not super familiar with how to do that. That doesn’t change the fact though that it was released in 2002 and that’s all I’m trying to get across. Genres can be up for debate but a release date is pretty set in stone Nickoustic (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Nickoustic: it's almost unheard of for all of the singles to be released at the same time as an album. Generally, a lead single is released before the album, essentially a teaser to promote the release, and then more singles are released in the months or years following. When the next album is ready, a lead single is released ahead of that album and the cycle continues. It might be done differently today—I mean, plenty of artists/bands don't even release albums now—but that was certainly the default for record label releases in the early 2000s.

But that's all beside the point. On Wikipedia, we should follow what reliable, third-party published sources say. For articles about modern music, that usually means professional music journalism, like reviews/criticism and news. That applies to release dates and genres. Woodroar (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

So then it would be April 30, 2002 when it was released as a single before the album was released August 27, 2002. Not March of 2003Nickoustic (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Nickoustic, for an album's second single? Unlikely. Find a reliable source and stop edit warring. Woodroar (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m not edit warring… the source for the spider man soundtrack is already there and same with the album release date which are both before March of 2003 lol it’s not complicated dude. They re released the single in March of 2003 but the song was released twice before that in 2002 Nickoustic (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I was preparing to give Nickoustic a firm warning but they have been indeffed by Bbb23 in the interim. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I tried to partially block the user indefinitely, but, as far as I can tell, I failed. I gave up because I've never partially blocked anyone. I don't see anything in the block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Nickoustic has now been indeffed by Paul Erik for continuously blanking ANI and their TPA was revoked for threats of sockpuppeting. Isabelle ^🔔 01:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Block Evasion

Nickoustic is now block evading and edit warring as 420Nickf420 (talk · contribs). Woodroar (talk) 14:44, 6 September 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.

(Non-administrator comment) Shortly after Nickoustic420 got indeffed for exactly the same thing. There's a pattern here... Narky Blert (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked editor invoking racial motives; Booker T. Washington Senior High School (Miami, Florida)

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 reverted blatantly promotional edits by 71.206.67.22 (talk · contribs) twice [271]; [272], and asked admin El_C for assistance. They blocked the IP, who seems to be claiming racism as the motive for reverting their content [273]; [274]. Requesting more eyes on this, given the nature of the claim. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Fun times. Thanks, as always, for the words of wisdom Daniel. El_C 04:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

And... talk page access revoked. Didn't work, but not due to a lack of effort. Oh well. El_C 05:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. Some of the unsourced and out of date content can go, but there are much newer academic stats that we can source that aren't very good, either. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:04, 7 September 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.

Chaniyana & gaming autoconfirmed

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.

---

• Chaniyana (talk · contribs)

User has almost exclusively been editing nonsense on their userpage in an attempt to GAME autoconfirmed. Like, I don't think they are even trying to hid it.[275]

A bit of background: Three days ago they posted please let me edit and then requested a page protection decrease for an unspecified page. When that didn't work, they started ranting on their user page about "injustice".[276][277]

I posted to their talk page, and they just edited the word "ok" into their userpage. I leave it to you fine folks as to how to handle it from here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

For the record, we're talking on their user talkpage now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I heard about this on Discord. This looks like a clear competence violation to me. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • And now they are complaining that "Amanda" is repeatedly blocking them. In fact of course they weren't blocked, but they are now for lack of competence and although I didn't mention it in the block log failure to be able to sensibly discuss the issue. Doug Weller talk 07:55, 7 September 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:Deep5911

Deep5911 is a new user who is indulging in disruptive behaviour in caste-related stuff and has again blanked the sourced content even after the final warning. If that wasn't enough, they copy-pasted the whole article from this blog in the main space today: [278]. So revdel is also required at Jadaun rajput. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I revision-deleted the copyvio and warned the user. Let me know if there are ongoing problems. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, they have added an unsourced caste-related claim after your warning: [279]. So I have posted a relevant comment on their talk page. But I will let you know if they will continue this disruption. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

OK. I'll wait for something more substantive than that single edit. Johnuniq (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, today they have again added the same unsourced caste-related claim: [280]. The caste-related SPAs are practically always WP:NOTHERE. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@NitinMlk: I understand but it's only one edit (and one semi-reasonable comment on their talk) since my warning so I would prefer to wait. I had already looked at that edit at about the same time I indeffed User:Dogar514 per the report immediately after this. I know it's frustrating but action will occur. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, today they have again added unsourced detail and blanked sourced content. So, after your warning on 1 September, they have added unsourced caste-related details twice times (see here & here) and have blanked sourced content once: [281]. And these are the only edits made by them in the mainspace after your warning. But, yes, they are disrupting at a very slow pace. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks

• TunaLover3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

TunaLover3 was asked to refrain from making personal attacks on others (in reference to this comment). See their response. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked them indefinitely after reviewing their other edits. This isn't an incident, it's a pattern. Lets see if they present an unblock request, that will be interesting to read. Canterbury Tail talk 00:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP hopper

2605:AD80:FFF0:14EF:C9E6:A2A:64D3:9325/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone please do something about the disruptive IP hopper who's clearly on a mission that started on the 25th of August. M.Bitton (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

What's the "mission" I'm on? 2605:AD80:FFF0:14EF:BD2B:5F60:7B8B:EBAF (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The nationalist, POV pushing kind[282][283][284] (and more), coupled with a serious battleground approach that's pushing you to make 8 reverts in less than an hour. M.Bitton (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The IP hopping is more aggravating than the reverts. Jerm (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I'm reporting the IP range. M.Bitton (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Not IP hopping. That range represents just one routable prefix, equivalent to a single IPv4 address [285]. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Polychain Capital - Conflict of Interest

Polychain Capital

Hi. I'm reaching out to the admins here because I seem to have difficulty solving this issue.

An article of mine has been tagged as conflict of interest even though I'm not affiliated with the firm.

Not only has the editor failed to provide explanation but hasn't even responded when I asked for an explanation on the talk page. As per wiki policy, such a tag can be removed in this case but editors keep putting it back.

Frankly I consider this some form of defamation especially when no attempt to justify it is made.

-Imcdc (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Imcdc you asked about this at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Polychain Capital and were advised to "ask your question on the article's talk page - Talk:Polychain Capital - and invite MrsSnoozyTurtle to explain why she added the tag." You posted at Talk:Polychain Capital at 14:59 on 2 September 2021, but then reversed it at 09:46 on 3 September 2021. I would recommend allowing more than 24 hours for your question to be answered as Wikipedia editors are volunteers and cannot work 24 hours a day. TSventon (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

COI tag has been removed. Issue is now closed. -Imcdc (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

A rather tricky situation to follow, with the revertings & the reversing of the revertings. Glad to see, it's settled :) GoodDay (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Possibly tendentious editing at Talk:Krasnovodsk

Hyperx1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Could I get some more eyes at Talk:Krasnovodsk? I think there's some tendentious editing going on, and I'm a bit too involved. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not see how contribution of Hyperx1000 is constructive. I may not act an administrator in this topic, but I do not think they should proceed like this.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Hyperx1000 must be removed from the topic area (possibly with a block, otherwise a topic ban). I don't think Turkmenistan falls under discretionary sanctions, but their POV-pushing is blatantly disruptive. This edit alone would justify a final warning, and they have been tendentious ever since. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

To be more clear: Hyperx1000 is engaging in blatant vandalism and must be indeffed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree this edit is blatant POV pushing to the degree it could be called vandalism. What do they mean "no evidence the city was renamed in 1993"? Let them go to a bookstore, buy a world atlas and check.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Content dispute and possible slow edit war

• Mr. Oreki Sama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Apologies if this isn't the right place to put this. Since he joined at the beginning of September, user Mr. Oreki Sama has attempted to remove a list of Miraculous movies from the show's list of episodes, against consensus for their inclusion on lists of episodes (e.g. List of Sid the Science Kid episodes#Movie and List of Steven Universe episodes#Film (2019)). His reasoning: It's a place to add episodes not movies and Movies are part of Miraculous not part of Episodes, so logically no need to add them here (I believe he means that because they're "movies" and not "episodes", they shouldn't belong on a "List of episodes") But as I pointed out, other TV show episode lists add specials and movies (using the aforementioned Sid the Science Kid as an example) but he only reverted me again (his fifth revert in four days) with the summary Don't compare to others (sic) pages, films aren't episodes Don't add them here. I and another editor have restored the movies several times, but he keeps removing them. I don't know what to do anymore. Please help.

His reverts, for the interested:

• [286]
• [287]
• [288]
• [289]

Miracusaurs (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Miracusaurs: Requests for admin intervention in ongoing edit-warring should be submitted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Hope this helps. Musashi1600 (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Reported there. Miracusaurs (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Persistent POV editing and attacks on other users by IP

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

72.73.29.18 has shown a persistent history of POV edits to pages and attacks on other editors which has accumulated large amount of warnings on their talk page that they ignored or blanked. For this this behaviour, they were given a suspension but have continued making POV edits after it expired. 2001:8003:38C0:900:3CF1:6173:CC2D:8285 (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for 6 months, given that they have already been blocked for a month earlier this year.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Unconstructive and unproductive editor

HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) is doing vandalism and reverts edits of mine in Zangana (tribe). --Namaka (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG: Namaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using a book from 1856 in a bizarre attempt to push a Romani origin on a Kurdish tribe, completely ignoring WP:AGE MATTERS as well as WP:UNDUE. Looking at his other edits makes it even more clear that he is pov-pushing, attempting to add anything about the Romanis anywhere, whether it makes any sense or not, using random websites as well; [290] [291] [292] [293] [294]. At last but not least, he hasn't reached any form of WP:CONSENSUS, let alone take his concerns to the talk page. The only form of 'conversation' he has had with me, is randomly accusing me of 'vandalism' [295] [296] [297] --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• Namaka's contribution history is extremely problematic; some form of BOOMERANG block or warning is necessary. A topic area expert also needs to assess all their page creations to determine if they are Content Forks of existing articles. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran is not engaging in vandalism. I agree with their reverts of your contributions; a source from 1900 isn't sufficient to support that material you're attempting to add. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Namaka when you get reverted, it's probably best to take your concerns to the talk page and achieve consensus for your changes, especially when your changes seem to be disruptive. Instead, you choose to edit-war, which creates an unconstructive environment for everyone. On top of that, you made this baseless report on HistoryofIran, citing “vandalism”. Please see what vandalism is not. Given all the above, I agree that some sort of block or warning is necessary as a preventative measure. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• In my experience, new users jumping in to create ethnicity and descent categories and edit related content rarely ends well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not new user but I didn't have any activities for a long time. I didn't know, there is date limitation for sources.HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) only reverted my sources, instead he could say I must reach consensus before adding new materials.Regards--Namaka (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

You're new in that you have just over 100 edits to the project over a span of 6 years, not nearly enough to understand all of the specific policies and guidelines concerning the topic area you are editing, and obviously not enough to avoid mischaracterize another editor's concerns regarding your edits as "vandalism".-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

力 (talk · contribs) What do u mean by problematic contribution? I added enough sources for Gudar people, is it problematic?I as a user must have enough time to find valid sources.Thanks--Namaka (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I think there must not be date limitation for disputed ethnic groups articles, this rule will be misused.I hope dear admins modify this one.Thanks--Namaka (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe this comment says more than enough. There are clear WP:COMPETENCE issues at play here. Not to mention I did in fact tell him about WP:AGE MATTERS ([298]), yet now he claims that he didn't know? Also, user has now resorted to spamming the Zangana talk page using more bizarre sources [299] --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Consensus? --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Black Kite's 3rd law - anyone who reports User:HistoryofIran at a dramaboard is 99% likely to be a net negative. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Advance of the Islamic Courts Union

Apologies if this isn't the right place to put this, but I don't know where to report.

The article's scope was originally the advance of the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia occurred between May and December 2006. However, as of September 2020, several strange and confusing editions disfigured the text and the scope was changed to an offensive that took place between May and July 2006 against the Union of Islamic Courts by an alliance of warlords.

On 19 December 2020 the title was also changed (without consensus) to "The rise of the Islamic Courts Union", a title totally absurd and incompatible with our policies and practices.

Due to unfamiliarity with the editions, in June 2021, there was a requested move and the title was changed to "2006 Somali warlord offensive".

There was no debate regarding this scope change on the talk page. This was done without consensus. It is obvious that the previous version of the article had several parts without sources, but nothing justifies the mass removal of sourced content for confusing reasons to change the scope.

Please request the restoration of the original article.--Fontaine347 (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any meaningful change in scope between the actual original version and the current 2006 Somali warlord offensive. Both the original version and the version you mentioned had a great deal of unsourced commentary that needed to get pruned or cited—and it got pruned. The article is still about the Islamic Courts Union's advance through Somalia, only that it's now sourced through June 2006. If you think the article should extend to December 2006, the onus is on you to find sources and expand the article. Woodroar (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Not only were the excerpts without sources removed, but also excerpts with sources with confusing justifications (how were the guidelines violated?). The scope was about the advance of the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia, now it's about a offensive against the Union of Islamic Courts.--Fontaine347 (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The editor in question did the same type of editing on Battle of Jilib, a good article. These edits have been reversed.Fontaine347 (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The lead says an offensive took place against the Islamic Courts Union by an alliance of warlords because that's how reliable sources tend to characterize the events, at least according to the comments at the move request. That's based on our Neutral Point of View policy. The bulk of the article does detail the ICU advancing through Somalia, and it's cited to reliable sources like Reuters, the AP, the BBC, the NYT, etc. That's based on our Verifiability policy. The previous version contained large sections based on original research and analysis of sources, which needed to be removed. That's based on our No Original Research policy.

Yes, the article is incomplete now because there aren't many details and it doesn't include events past June 2006. But it was incomplete before because it violated our three core content policies. As I see it, the path forward is to expand the article based on reliable sources and to accurately summarize what those sources say.

Maybe I'm wrong. But look, we don't decide content issues here at ANI and we don't censure editors unless they've violated our policies/guidelines or some previous consensus. You haven't tried starting a discussion at Talk:2006 Somali warlord offensive. You also haven't tried discussing this with the "editor in question" or pointed to any policies/guidelines they've violated. (You also haven't notified the editor about this discussion as the big red box at the top of this page requires.) There's nothing we can do here until one or all of those things happen. Woodroar (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

User D.P Talukdar's disruptive edits

D.P Talukdar has been constantly creating then recreating articles that get tagged for CSD A7 and G11. I don't think they have made any articles that still exist, or at least aren't marked for deletion, most of them are just unreferenced promotional stubs that are subject to speedy deletion then tagged for salting. They also have not engaged in any discussion regarding them (that I know of) and have ignored all of their talk page messages. It's just disruptive at this point and is abusive of their editing privileges. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

They sure have a habit of adding redlinks to lists of people, contrary to WP:LISTBIO and WP:LISTPEOPLE; see e.g. the edit history of List of Kathak exponents. Whatever else, this needs to stop. Narky Blert (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, WaddlesJP13. But, although the user has received lots of notifications about their articles being prodded or nominated for speedy, they have never yet been warned about their general practice of creating and recreating articles on non-notable subjects straight into article space. I have warned them now, and told them to go via Articles for creation in the future, or they will soon be blocked for wasting the time of other volunteers. (I didn't notice the redlink issue, Narky Blert; feel free to warn them separately about that, if you like.) Bishonen | tålk 17:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC).

 Done, see User talk:D.P Talukdar#Links to people who have no articles. Narky Blert (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Thank you for warning them, though unfortunately they'll likely persist as they have not noted any of their previous notices (won't make any accusations, just general assumptions based on their past talk page messages). If they do persist after your warning, that might be the best time to actions such as a block since this is the first time they've actually been warned. I have their talk page in my watchlist as it was added when I marked on of their articles for deletion using Twinkle and it has remained in there since, so I guess I'll keep on the lookout for the time being to see if they either continue with their article creations, acknowledge the messages and refrain from making more, or start making articles that actually adhere to the guidelines. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not too optimistic about the effect of my warning either, WaddlesJP13, and I fully intend to (try to) keep an eye on the user, and block if they persist in their timewasting ways. But it's not right to block out of a clear blue sky, and so I warned. Please feel free to let me know if you should notice further creation/recreation of weak articles. Bishonen | tålk 17:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC).

Advocacy/disruption by a new editor

FOP2021 (talk · contribs), with a particular interest in Phil Valentine. Lengthy discussions that amount to WP:BLUDGEON, multiple reversions and prolonged explanations at Talk:Phil Valentine and User talk:FOP2021. The tone was set early, with WP:OR edits at Tullahoma, Tennessee, and this response [300]. Since then, MarydaleEd and Llll5032 have spent a lot of time riding herd on them. Little indication that FOP (possibly referring to 'Friend of Phil" [301]) understands that I am a reliable source. Everything I wrote is accurate. How can I edit and add things I know to be true if I can't find someone who wrote an article? Note, the newspaper is right about 50% of the time about anything, doesn't work here. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I would like to contribute here. I am exhausted from having to edit the contributions by FOP2021 to the Phil Valentine article. This person, by their contributions and even their very username (FOP2021 = "Friend of Phil 2021"), has proven that they have some vested interest in this article. On the article's Talk page, the editor accused Cullen328, who properly reverted FOP2021's content to accurately reflect the source, of calling people "Nazis." FOP2021 has been argumentative on the article's Talk page and I had to warn them when they posted a comment that was rude to editor Llll5032. Materialscientist received a lashing when they properly edited FOP2021's content on Tullahoma, Tennessee, and FOP2021 stated that they should, personally, be an acceptable source because they lived in Tullahoma. FOP2021 was provided resources to learn how to edit on Wikipedia by myself and Llll5032, but FOP2021 shows no interest in learning proper Wikipedia editing and behavior. I believe editor FOP2021 should be blocked until they can prove an understanding of how Wikipedia works, how to properly edit and how to treat other editors. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• I don't find support for all of MarydaleEd's statements, but I do believe that FOP2021 has done nothing but disruptively edit in their brief time here, so I have blocked them indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I do not think that the indeffed editor was accusing me personally of calling people Nazis. I think they were speaking about their imagined cabal of liberal Wikipedia editors. That said, I support the block because this is a POV pushing editor who seems incapable of even feigning neutrality. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I suggest a time limit to this block, if FOP2021 agrees to avoid WP:TEND, abide by WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:PSTS, learn the rules of Wikipedia, and respect the advice of experienced editors. Llll5032 (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Cullen328 and Bbb23. Llll5032, I'm only being slightly arch when I say that there's little incentive for the user to return with all those provisos in place. They're here to post their POV. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Supermann repeated incivility issues and wikilawyering

Yesterday, Supermann posted this message describing somebody's block as "Justice!". I reverted then warned them for gravedancing and civility issues, and their response was to claim that their actions were fine. Additionally, they have tried to argue that clearly promotional edits are not promotional, again wikilawyering, and seemingly do not understand what consensus means. Since their warning on 16 August and final warning on 21 August, their wikilawyering, personal attacks and repeated insistence that they are right has continued, and I am of the opinion that they are incompatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia CiphriusKane (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Given he had publicly thanked me for Kenji Goto: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia subsequent to filing this, I don't want to cite Wikipedia:Harassment. I am a big man with a big heart and can handle the distress he and others caused. All I ask of him/them is to be more collaborative and make the guidelines less erratic/double-standard instead of adopting a battleground mindset and being condescending as evidenced here Talk:Nikita (TV series) - Wikipedia. Supermann (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The thanks was because I thought the edit and referencing was good and improved the article (given the negative nature of the edit, I thought it best to have strong sourcing for the group, which was provided), because even though yer communication skills seem to be to attack and relentlessly push a point until ye win, some of yer edits are actually decent (even if the edit summaries are rather biased. As for the Nikita business, I was trying to engage you in conversation with the aim of improving the article(s). The only way that I've possibly been condescending was asking that ye stop referencing China's population, because that's just one of a series of fallacies ye've used to support yer arguments, along with hyperbole as seen here and here, hyperfixation on specific wording of policy and essay such as here, here and here (which is Wikilaywering), and claims of victimhood as seen here. I have tried to explain why yer editing is flawed and engage in sorting it. As for the allegations of battleground mindsets and being condescending, take a look in the mirror. Ye allege that I'm nae being collaborative and have a battleground mindset, but it seems every time somebody has an issue with yer editing it seems to be yerself attacking others with the aim of winning. Explaining why somebody has issues with an edit is not an attempt to win a battle; declaring "Justice!" over somebody ye had a disagreement with being blocked, then declaring that it's "fairness" is CiphriusKane (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

CiphriusKane, I actually don't believe that it was particularly problematic gravedancing. If they had gone over to the blocked user's talk page and put a similar message, that would be a lot more serious; in this case, a sock placed a user warning template on their page, and Supermann noted that they had been blocked as a sock underneath it. The 'justice' comment wasn't very stylish - a neutrally-worded notice to the effect that the account had been blocked would have looked a lot more mature - but it's not the kind of thing I would have bothered reverting and/or warning them about. I've had long discussions with Supermann in the past, and I generally agree that they have a lot to learn about the editing environment here, but I'm not ready to block as being incompatible with the project.

As an aside by the way - I'm (also?) Scottish, but I have to tell you that I find all the 'ye's, 'yer's and 'nae's rather distracting. I read Oor Wullie as a child, so I can cope with such language variations, but it might make it more difficult for non-Scottish contributors to understand the point you're trying to get across. Just a thought. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I'm agreeing that they have a lot to learn, but my concern is at what point is enough enough? It seems that nearly every interaction with Supermann leads to some form of offensive and failure to understand issues with edits. They're hardly a newbie; their edit history shows they've been here since 2006 with over 2000 edits. And I've had discussions with them in the past. I've tried to explain to them why certain edits and comments are inappropriate, but seeing bad faith accusations being flung about (see above, accusing me of being condescending and adopting battleground mindsets just for explaining why I have issues with their edits) and attaching ill intent to others' actions (again see above, calling thanking them for providing a decent source as "harassment") gets frustrating. (As for why our paths crossed there, I was watching to see their reply, saw an opportunity to improve a decent edit they'd made, then saw their further improvement, that was all.) The reason why I filed the report was because of their reaction to the warning, which is indicative of a pattern of behaviour that has been occurring for at least 4 years. (They've also called me a deletionist for removing potentially deceptive and potentially low quality content. Given my recent efforts to save BLPPROD articles, I resent the labelling, but hardly in the mood to be told "We agree to disagree")

As for the Scots, force of habit and bad code switching. It's nae ower easy tae be unlairnin habits CiphriusKane (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

CiphriusKane, I'll leave this open for other admins to comment on - I'm certainly not claiming to hold authority over the community's patience. All I'm saying is that on balance, I'm not seeing the levels of serious disruption that would make me reach for the indef button - they may still be able to improve given the right guidance.

Ah'm fae Glaesga. Whin ah try tae write the way ah might talk if ah wiz a' hame wi' ma pals fae school, it jist comes oot lookin' weird. Tae be honest but, ah dinnae really talk like tha' any mair, since I went doon tae England and hid to speak to folk who didnae unnerston me talkin Glaswegian. An' ah hid tae teach English children how tae talk the way their folk did an' aw. So, aye - proabably best tae stick tae the auld RP when ye're aboot here, if ye know whit ah mean. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

For further information on the above, see https://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Elemimele (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I apologise, think the stress of dealing with shite over the past few months (including offwiki stuff) is getting to me. Probably little point in keeping this open as any action will probably be excessive at this time CiphriusKane (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Abusive member

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'm in the midst of a discussion with Hulio87 here, explaining that live updates of statistics are useless without sources, and the user calls me an "arrogant prick". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I have given the user a warning. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy resolution. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:38, 6 September 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.

South Carolina BLP violations – rangeblock requested

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.

---

• 2600:1700:8440:ADD0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Somebody using IPs in South Carolina has been violating BLPs for months. They changed gender terms regarding the transsexual offspring of singer Sade, even changing the gender terms in the cited sources. They changed gender terms at the Jesse James Keitel biography. They made a non-neutral change to the article Trans man. They added an unreferenced paragraph of controversial accusations to the Warren Beatty bio. They changed to contradictory wording at the Barry Manilow bio. They added defamatory accusations to the bio of Benjamin Chavis. It goes on and on the deeper you look. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• I only had to look at two diffs, both of which were severe BLP violations, before blocking the range for 3 months. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you muchly. I'll report back if the person resumes after December 6. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 6 September 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, attacks based on ethnicity and accusations by User:பெரும்பாண்டியன்2

ரும்பெபாண்டியன்2 has carried out disruptive editing of Wikipedia articles largely relating to Sri Lanka and LTTE for considerable time.

• Removing references and changing the casualty count from First Battle of Elephant Pass he would later come back and again try to make uncited changes to casualties
• Editing Chelvy Thiyagarajah page in a way close to vandalism by removing references and then editing it without sources blaming a different organization.
• Unsourced changing of casualty count of [Battle of Mullativu|https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Mullaitivu_(1996)&diff=prev&oldid=984871531]
• Randomly removing the expulsion of muslims and reff from Jaffna page with no edit summary
• Uncited change of casualties of Operation Jayasikurui
• Unexplained removal of Massacre of policemen
• Taking out zeroes to make the number smaller without explanation.
• Goes on uncited editing spree on Battle of Weli Oya which when reverted by Cossde the user instead of taking the burden for defending the content goes on offensive on ethnicity of the editors
• He has also gone on to rant about his views and insult ethnic Sinhalese editors
• When warned on this behaviour his response was to accuse my ethnicity and then go further by accusing me of being a propagandist and edited it further calling the ethnicity as "your people"

I believe he is WP:NOTHERE due to the continuous disruptive editing and not talking about the content edits but rather going on to attack the ethnicity of other editors when other editors have remained civil. Thank you.

- UmdP 03:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Since I'm already here, might as well expedite this obvious case. El_C 04:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see there was also some ethno-national attacks. Oh well. I'm tired. El_C 04:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

El_C ரும்பெபாண்டியன்2 was not sufficiently warned and has been good editing for over an year and has received only one warning just now which was disputed by another editor.Hence I humbly request to reduce the block to say 48 hours or so.2405:201:E012:5A93:90CD:21B9:F926:C51D (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe you are the same account in a IP address due to the sudden appearance and similarity of making a "humble request". If it is you then avoid using IP addresses to come around blocks and try appealing the block. The account has been advised before to avoid making such edits but continued carrying out such edits for over a year. The reaction to being warned itself is "I don't need your warning and you look at your faking behaviour. As you are Sinhalese, you are supporting the government propaganda and using Wikipedia pages for your propaganda works. I don't your warning." Attacking users based on ethnicity itself is WP:NOPA and the same goes for calling editors "propagandists". The account pretty much claimed it will not accept any warnings entirely on ethnic grounds so further warnings are pointless. - UmdP 08:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Self-report possible virtual block evasion

• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following circumstances and thoughts following recent RFA question that was perhaps unwise but essentially accepted I have had reflection and felt need to clean sweep to another matter. This relates to an overwrite circa late 27 August 2021 early 28 August 2021 UTC as discussion discussed a Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luaswelcom.jpg where it was challenged the copyvio clear via image non-transparent overlay. Handled by admin there speedy there (I'd offered G7 on an XOR basis but F3 taken on a both - outcome of derivations of [Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spencer Dock Luas stop.jpg] might be a precedent to challenge the F3, but that might go to pot on the basis of the grass), and at 09:33, 29 August 2021‎ UTC removed by finkerbot here. These matters might be adjudged a block evasion from some angles. While I more associate this with the craic, the rocky road to Dublin, the Royal, now from Spencer Dock rather than Newcomen, to Mullingar, which I should be trying to get back onto the RPSI, (Indeed alluded to in the RPSI newsletter I just got emailed!). Possibly more seriously I've been having a dalliance with certain Luas matters, that subset of which are certainly a COI .. maybe into Paid, but that is perhaps pretentious. Appreciate any enforcement now, needless wont do again that overwrite again, not even 1 April 2022. As for Overwriting (prose), well I wrote the article and was preping to write the book if it got transwiki'd off the AfD. Thankyou. (via Djm-mobile for Djm-leighpark on enforced editing WikiBreak: Djm-mobile/Bigdelboy covering discussions and desperate vandalism on an urgentish basis). Djm-mobile (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Is this even in English? I can't understand a single sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the clue is go to pot on the basis of the grass. Thincat (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably something to do with this and the filer's indef block from RSPI. They may be thinking their involvement on Commons constitutes a block evasion on here CiphriusKane (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

imo the word salad is a medication issue, not a self-medication issue. I think the gist of the message is that he edited a deletion request [302] while blocked [303], then yesterday drew attention to himself with a question at the current RfA [304] which was removed as canvassing [305] for an active AfD discussion [306]). Worried that will draw attention to his accounts, he now wants to make a clean breast of it lest he lose his editing privileges permanently. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Can someone explain (out-of-band) why the deletion request revisions aren't in Global Contributions [307], and how to wiki-link that deletion discussion? Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Yappy2bhere You are right I am trying to make a clean breast of it. The key matter relates to the matter of the overwrite in the discussion at c:Deletion requests/File:Luaswelcom.jpg. As I have developed a COI on a matter I am trying not to bring the content relating to of that to high visibility. The GUP tool only shows the last 20 edits in each Wiki ... obviously I have been active in commons. This URL gives a relatively manageable list of my deletion activity on Commons: the O'Dea collection matters is contentious but not relevant here. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Photos of posters in Ireland has some background context as to how some deletion discussions arose. Yappy2bhere & myself have had interactions in the past: notably at Stop Funding Fake News including image related. It is likely I will choose to re-intervene in PROIV related matters at some future point. It may therefore be people need to bring these matter here but I see the overwrite as the particularly key matter. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Saturation of bios with military infoboxes by User:Ldavid1985

User:Ldavid1985 has added a massive number of military infoboxes to bios. About 99% of those bios have little or no commentary about military service, and usually without citations when they do. The editor has unilaterally with no support created additional careers for people when they had no such career. This military infobox saturation campaign happened a few years ago (see RfC,) and there was a consensus to remove them all, which had been done. Now they're back. I would consider all those a form of vandalism.

A few examples:

• Gig Young, "Young took a hiatus from his movie career and enlisted in the United States Coast Guard in 1941 where he served as a pharmacist's mate...", shown with a Career infobox;
• Oliver Stone, served for 1 year after enlisting, shown as Career.
• Sidney Lumet, "World War II interrupted his early acting career and he spent four years in the U.S. Army," shown as Career;
• Others: Eli Wallach, Clark Gable and Haskell Wexler. --Light show (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Light show is topic banned from "any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed". This looks suspiciously like an edit about a biography. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That may be true, but whatever the community does about potentially breaching a topic ban (although note that Light show has not edited the articles in question), User:Light show does seem to have a point here. The examples presented do seem undue although I probably wouldn't cause them vandalism.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a point here, just a tban violation. It's definitely not vandalism; the RfC only dealt with one article; some of the examples seem clearly due (e.g. Oliver Stone received a bronze star, Clark Gable was a major); this is for sure a content dispute. Levivich 13:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Are topic bans really so broadly construed that raising a concern that you believe requires administrator attention can be considered a breach, if the subject is covered by your topic ban? Isn't this exactly what we want a topic-banned editor to do, rather than editing the articles in question (or even the talk pages)? St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes to the first question, no the second. A person topic banned from X should not be raising ANI threads about how other editors edit X. Levivich 17:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Levivich. "Broadly construed" means exactly what it says. I would add one gloss: if an editor under a TBAN sees a problem in their forbidden area, they should be allowed privately, impartially, and only once to communicate their concern to the banning admin, without expecting a reply. Narky Blert (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, seems a bit bloody-minded, but it makes sense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Since you brought up that vague term, "broadly construed", would you mind defining it more precisely? While most of the articles I've worked on before the ban were biographies, some were offshoots. For the future, I would like some clarification about where you draw the line. For instance, would an article about a legal case against a person be allowed, such New York v. Strauss-Kahn, as there is a bio of him? Then there are bio-relevant articles such as Concert for Linda, who also has her own biography. Or the list of Celebrities who have received the COVID-19 vaccine. As it is, the term "broadly construed" seems to be vague and leaves it open to personal discretion as to how an edit is "construed." I would appreciate any feedback on this. If you say that the ban refers only to biographies, for example, that would help. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I was not the first to mention "broadly construed" in this thread. That was NRP, quoting a community decision.

As for its meaning, it is a straightforward example of purposive construction. In my book, attempts to test its boundaries verge on WP:WIKILAWYERING.

((a) Piping usernames in discussion threads makes them difficult to find. (b) There is no need to {{ping}} an editor who has recently participated in a discussion; they can be assumed to be watching the page.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, but I already did that a few month ago, and actually got a reply. --Light show (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

BTW, since I'm here, now A Yankee in King Arthur's Court (defiantly holding an umbrella,) and as yet after 4 years no one has attempted to explain why I was ever banned, can I request finally having the ban lifted? I posted on AN the assumed rationale for the ban here. All of the ban-related issues since that time were related to somehow violating the ban, ie. via Banex. --Light show (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You're seriously claiming no one ever said why you were topic banned? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Correct. It was always done through innuendo or implication, as the link makes pretty clear. Example: simply suggesting that even an American citizen whose career notability was primarily achieved in the U.S., should be included in the lead paragraph, is considered disruptive. Or posting an RfC relevant to leads is also disruptive, as it was with Chaplin. In fact, some yankee even mentioning the word "American" for notable British-born movie makers or actors whose notability was made in America, is met with this. That's not to imply you consider all yanks equally disruptive, however.. --Light show (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, so with that out of the way, I have to assume you're pulling our collective leg. Because you were topic-banned for refusing to listen & accept you were wrong. And now you're doing it again, in this very discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Not leg pulling. I'm simply one of those who don't believe that might makes right. Just tell me what I did "wrong." Fair enough?--Light show (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It was explained to you perfectly clearly when you were banned from this area what you did wrong, and it had nothing to do with might meaning right. Since you are so cloth-eared as to not be able to understand that then I think that the ban should be extended to all editing of Wikipedia. Then if there is any issue raised with User:Ldavid1985's editing by a more competent person it can be addressed without these distractions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It was never explained. In fact I had to interpret the ban myself, with my own explanation, which has never been disputed. In fact I've mentioned those rationales on my talk page a number of times, and on AN. As now, never a reply.--Light show (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me explain it to you, since I just read the history linked above: after being topic banned from multiple individual biography subjects for disruptive editing, including introducing false information and then tendentiously arguing for its inclusion requiring multiple pointless RFCs (such as disputing that Charlie Chaplin should be described as American because he wasn't born in America even though he was a naturalized citizen who lived there for 40 years), the community decided to tban you from all biographies to save editors time. Levivich 20:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

While I don't like digressing, considering this entire thread was supposed to be about someone adding about 500 military career infoboxes to actors, that link to Chaplin you mentioned was no longer good. So FWIW this is it. BTW, it was a talk page topic, related to MOS guidelines. Even Loeba had to admit, "The line you quoted from the MOS is dumb and should be removed." The reason I got banned from it was because someone else claimed it was simply a repeat of a previous RfC, which you can see it was not. But they banned me nonetheless for being "disruptive." Having successfully removed the disruptor, the Chaplin article, now with over 15,000 words, has kept out any mention of him being an American actor, producer, filmmaker, composer, or director. If we want to get back to the infobox issue, that would be nice.--Light show (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Telling me why you got banned demonstrates that you understand why you got banned. Levivich 00:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to unban Light show

• Support: In my neutral and unbiased opinion, I'm willing to give the umbrella man another chance. --Light show (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) At the risk of unnecessary feeding here, on what grounds? Even the very act of opening this ANI header shows you haven't been able to abide by the terms of the topic ban, and ignoring a tban doesn't just make it go away. If you earnestly want to turn this around, constructive editing in other fields and a continued ability to work with and not against consensus is necessary, go prove you can thrive with other subjects and revisit the issue. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 19:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, but I also don't think this raises to the level of doing anything else (e.g. indef) to Light show. I don't see sufficient reason to undo the TBAN, but I also don't see an editor violating their TBAN. If I were a TBAN'd user who could not edit lollipops, I'd probably think if I saw a huge disruption of lollipop articles (subjective) that I should bring it up at ANI. I wasn't aware ANI threads were covered in the TBAN policy. If that is the case, then I'd hope we'd feel it appropriate to give this user a warning and a slap on the wrist and close this thread as unactionable. As an aside, this user had an unban request similarly fail in March of 2018. Particularly this and this. The user is also topic banned from image-related uploads. Any editors commenting here should probably give those threads a read before voting on this. The more I read, the less inclined I am to unblock. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Removing infobox military modules

In keeping with the determination at Talk:Mel_Brooks/Archive_1#RfC:_Is_a_military_infobox_appropriate?, Ldavid1985 should start removing all the infobox modules that were added, unless the person gained notability from their military career. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Deleting comments by another editor from an article’s talk page

Good advice from B. Kliban
One apple every 8 hours will keep 3 doctors away -EEng

Zefr edited improperly and violated Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines when three times he edited to deleted parts of a discussion and an entire section from an article’s talk page: [308], [309], and [310]. I attempted to restore at least part of the missing content to the talk page, but that was deleted. The talk page as it stands now (Talk:An apple a day keeps the doctor away) has been edited by Zefr to delete comments of another editor (me) and to retain his own comments. This misrepresents the discussion. - Bitwixen (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Bitwixen. Are you familiar with WP:NOTAFORUM? Did you really cite Larry Sanger in support of your point of view? Are you aware that Sanger has been consistently incorrect on every aspect of online encyclopedias for the past 19 years? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cullen, yes, of course, and thanks for noticing my wondering about Sanger, which certainly was not meant to support my point-of-view here, it actually has to do with a different topic, and I think an important topic worth discussing sometime. You may know more about Sanger than I do. - Bitwixen (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't noticed about 19 years. Is there any event or observance planned for next year, to commemorate Sanger being wrong for 20 years? More srsly, it's generally counterproductive to delete other people's talkpage comments unless they're way over the top. If they're just slightly inappropriate (i.e. drifting towards FORUM, which is quite common and usually innocent) and persist, it's better to leave the comments intact but maybe hat or archive the section, and ask the commenters to cut it out. If they don't persist then don't worry about it. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, User talk:2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99, I see you’re a very new editor, and only began editing in late July. Welcome. (If you don't mind, I’ll refer to you as “2601”?) You’re very tolerant on this particular issue, 2601, when you suggest that there are couple of ways an editor can “delete other people's talkpage comments”, first: If they’re “way over the top”, then it’s okay — just delete. The second way to delete content (according to you) is to weather the objections from other editors, but to “persist”, and if you’re persistent the others should not be bothered. That advice would certainly give editors another tool they can use. However, it doesn’t accord with the policy (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines), which is not so tolerant. - Bitwixen (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually Bitwixen, I see contributions from this user on their /64 range going back to May, and if you widen it out to the /48 you'll see they've been active since at least January 2020 (I stopped looking at that point). Now, more importantly, what do you want to happen here? Zefr explained that they were removing content that they believed was not on-topic for the subject of the article. On the face of it, that seems like a sensible thing to do - there was no need for you to clutter up an article talk page with warning templates, for example. Was there anything that was directly related to the content of the article and its sourcing that was removed? Girth Summit _(blether) 13:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Girth Summit — I think the policy question is whether or not deleting comments by another editor from an article’s talk page is acceptable. Perhaps we need a consensus here on that question? It’s been suggested [above] by fellow editor 2601 that it’s okay to delete the comments of another editor if those comments are “way over the top”, and you, Girth, suggest that it might be sensible to delete comments by others if they’re not “on topic”. I personally think the policy that I linked to above should be followed, and the content should be restored, but I’ve restored the content, and it’s been deleted each time. If there’s not a word spoken here to stop it from being deleted again, it’s not just a question of restoring, but of voicing support for the Wikipedia policy. If on this notice board, we support disregarding the Wikipedia policy, and we accept that deleting others’ comments is a useful tool (in order to win consensus, for example), that makes a very strong statement. To respond specifically, Girth, to your point, when you said, “Zefr explained that they were removing content that they believed was not on-topic for the subject of the article. On the face of it, that seems like a sensible thing to do.” In fact, Zefr deleted comments that were on-topic, but claimed they were off-topic. Here’s one example: Zefr deleted this comment: “It is not a bad idea to ask if there is any truth to the saying ‘an apple a day keeps the doctor away,’ the article could then point out what various reliable sources say, whether it’s good or bad or whatever. There are a number of reliable sources out there that weigh in on the topic.” And this regarding a source that Zefr deleted from the article: “In removing contentious, unsourced, unverifiable, derogatory comments (in the section just above this one) about Bahram H. Arjmandi — comments made by fellow editor Zefr, I believe I am following the policy found in the article Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons” - Bitwixen (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, WP:TALKOFFTOPIC allows for off-topic content to be moved to a more appropriate location, which I imagine is what Zefr was attempting to do. If a few on-topic comments got moved at the same time, you could just add them back on their own, it's not so big a deal that it needs reporting here. I've just read through the history of that talk page more thoroughly however, and I see you edit warring to remove part of Zefr's statement before any of that happened. You shouldn't have done that. If you have a concern that a statement by another editor is in violation of BLP policies, you should ask them to strike it themselves; if they refuse to do so, your recourse is to report it to WP:BLPN and ask someone else to review.

I also see you edit warring to add content to the article. You added material, based on what appear to be highly dubious sources (do I really see a 'wellness' blog there supporting content covered by MEDRS?); Zefr removed it and explained their concerns about the sourcing. You reinstated it, despite Zefr's explanation on the talk page, and you both then went back and forth a few times. If I'm honest, having read through the whole thing, I think you were the one whose editing led to the problems there.

The disruption has stopped, and I don't think there's anything that admins need to do here, but you should read back through the whole thing and reflect on what you could have done better. You're pretty new here, and you need to learn the ropes - you could learn a lot from an experienced editor like Zefr, if you were willing to listen to them. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Whatever the policies say about it being permissible to clerk other users' comments, Zefr is quite significantly in the wrong here. First, Bitwixen edited a portion of a comment by Zefr as a BLP violation, which they were not (BLP allows discussion of what may be contentious material when it is in the interest of article improvement, within reason) and Zefr reverted, but did so claiming that BLP doesn't apply to talk pages (it does). Bitwixen then tried to start a discussion about that issue, which was definitely related to that page (the incident occurred on that page, and started with a question about the article associated with that talk page), and Zefr just blanked the whole thing, declaring that it didn't belong there, right after having warned Bitwixen (on the talk page, again) not to edit other users' comments. After restoring Bitwixen's discussion on Bitwixen's user talk, Zefr replied to that discussion on the article talk page. Bitwixen tried again to start a discussion and Zefr did the same thing a second time. For one thing, Zefr needs to decide whether users are allowed to modify or relocate other users' comments or not; they can't get upset about a user modifying their comment and then turn around and modify someone else's comment. For what it's worth, I would treat this as BRD: Zefr attempted to redirect a discussion to Bitwixen's talk page, Bitwixen reverted and tried to start a discussion, and everything that happened from that point on very much should not have. I don't think either user behaved spectacularly here but it was Zefr throwing fuel on the fire. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit: the way I read the history, Bitwixen's initial query was about whether or not to include specific information on medical plausibility to the article on the "apple a day" proverb, and that is certainly on-topic. There was no reason to move that off the talk page and Zefr shouldn't have tried. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  PEIsquirrel, fair enough - I came away with the impression that Bitwixen was being the more disruptive, but maybe I got lost in the back-and-forth editing of one another's posts. Edit warring is bad on both sides though, so you're right, Zefr wasn't blameless here. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit — you misrepresent the policy found on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which in truth does not allow editors to move content that is pertinent to the article being discussed. You mischaracterize certain comments as "off-topic" — even though the "on-topic" comments were directly quoted in the post just above yours. In your recent post you invent guidelines about how to handle a violation of WP:BLP, which do not agree with the actually guidelines–which in fact say "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." [The bold letters are from the WP:BLP guidelines.] Why have we gone so far off topic, anyway? (I ask that and include your free-ranging and uncalled for personal comments about myself, Girth.) This notification is about policy regarding editors deleting comments from an article's talk page, a practice that appears to have considerable support in this discussion–though not in the actual guidelines or WP policy. Your suggestion that anyone would follow the example of the particular editor you mentioned is, forgive me, way off. If you only knew. Girth, you are mistaken too often. To load up this discussion with a lot of extraneous issues has the effect of bloating and expanding potentially endlessly, and those editors who want to wander off in that way, have the advantage over anyone who would prefer to confine the discussion to the topic at hand. Giving support to rogue practices by editors, and mischaracterizing WP policy, does not support Wikipedia itself. - Bitwixen (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, you surely don't deny that some of the material was off-topic? Like a user page warning template? And commentary about Billy Goat Gruff? I have acknowledged that some of it may have been on-topic, and suggested that that could simply have been reinstated (without needing to come here).

Regarding the BLP policy, you are overlooking this part: Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. In other words - you need to be careful if you're going to get into an edit war citing BLP as an exemption. In my opinion, and that of Ivanvector above, that was not a BLP violation - Zefr was not writing defamatory material about the author of the source, he was criticising the source itself, and explaining why he felt it wasn't reliable. That's allowed. In borderline cases, you should get other opinions at BLPN, rather than refactoring other people's comments and edit warring about it. You were in the wrong there, and I can understand why Zefr appears to have become exasperated with you (while I do not think that entirely excuses their own edit warring afterwards).

I have made no personal comments about you yourself. I have criticised what you have done, and given you advice on how to do better. You were edit warring, and you were using unsuitable sources for the content you were adding, both of which you should not do.

So, if you want to get the discussion back on topic, I'll ask again: what is it that you want to happen here? What outcome are you looking for? You and Zefr engaged in a brief edit war, in which you both improperly refactored one another's talk page comments. It was over nearly two weeks ago. Neither of you are blocked, the talk page isn't protected from editing. What would you like us to do about it? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The topic here is stated by the section heading: “Deleting comments by another editor from an article’s talk page”. The examples I offered include repeated deletions of material that contains comments that are very pertinent to the topic of that article. (No one’s denied that.) I’ve said that I thought it might be good to get some consensus on that practice (of “deleting…” etc) . It appears that some editors here are in favor of the practice and some are not. And no one else seems to want to join in to tip the balance. So, I would say that we’ve gone as far as we can go. Unfortunately this discussion has become so filled with comments that are off-topic and that meander every which way, I think it has the unfortunate effect of discourage a proper discussion. Because it would be reasonable for an editor that might have something to say to look at this mountain of off-topic stuff and say: I’d rather not. It also might be discouraging for an editor to find that this Administrators' Noticeboard has become such a personal back-and-forth. I would not blame anyone for not wanting to step into the middle of something like that. The prior post is been nothing but off-topic rehashing. I know I have been very critical of Girth, and to specifically answer his latest question (which has already been asked and answered), I would say: Let it go — please don’t expect me to encourage any more. Anyone who wants to go off-topic, or have a personal, one-on-one, is welcome to do so on my talk page. - Bitwixen (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, I think that we can all agree that removing on-topic stuff is bad, and that removing off-topic stuff is sometimes permissible, but that people shouldn't edit war about it. I hope that we can all agree that you both did some things that weren't ideal, but that it hasn't risen to the level of needing any administrative intervention, particularly since it was two weeks ago. So yes, I think that letting it go and moving on is the best thing to do.

I'm sorry if you think I derailed whatever you were hoping would happen when you started this thread. As I read back through the discussion, I see myself attempting to answer your question by directing you to TALKOFFTOPIC, and advising you that if any on-topic material was removed, it could be reinstated. I then pointed out to you that edit warring over content in the article and stuff on the talk page was bad, commented on the sourcing you were using, and gave you some advice on how to handle borderline BLP issues better. All of that, while perhaps not directly addressing the question you asked, is relevant in the context of what happened. When users come to ANI with a complaint about another editor (which is what you seemed to be doing), we don't just look at the reported editor - we look at the whole situation. I then see you criticising me for saying what I did, which you're entitled to do, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect me not to respond to that criticism.

So, yeah - happy to let this go. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Girth, you have said said [above]: that you understood that Zefr was deleting and moving what was [in his view] off-topic content, and you thought that was a “sensible thing to do”. It was pointed out [above more than once] that he in fact deleted on-topic content. [As I said above: “You [Girth] mischaracterize certain comments as "off-topic" — even though the "on-topic" comments were directly quoted in the post just above yours.”]. Here’s only one example: This comment was deleted and moved: “It is not a bad idea to ask if there is any truth to the saying ‘an apple a day keeps the doctor away,’ the article could then point out what various reliable sources say, whether it’s good or bad or whatever. There are a number of reliable sources out there that weigh in on the topic.” You have had many opportunities to correct your opinion, and it sounds as if you are finally trying to walk it back with your last post. I also cannot agree with you when you say: “I hope that we can all agree that you both did some things that weren't ideal.” etc. If I may speak on behalf of Zefr, you are wrong [again, Garth] to be disparaging a person, when you have not had the opportunity to hear what Zefr has to say in his own defense. It is especially egregious on this particular page, which is a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. It is not only disparaging, but it is off-topic. Girth you are “Mr. Off-Topic” — trying to keep you on-topic is like pulling teeth. You are goofy in that way. You degrade this page with your random poorly thought out rehashings and misunderstandings. Let it go. Take a hint. We [you and me] are both trashing this poor section. It could be so much better. Instead it’s become a mountain of repetitive verbiage, disparagement, personal comments, Girth. - Bitwixen (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, I feel that we're going over the same ground again. Yes - I said that removing off-topic stuff like user warning templates from an article's talk page was sensible, and a good idea - that stuff had no business being on the page. You are repeatedly ignoring the fact that I have also said that there was nothing stopping on-topic material being reinstated. So, I don't know why you're bringing that up again instead of just reinstating it (if that's what you want), or moving on if you no longer care.

I don't think that you can speak on behalf of Zefr, since you are the one who brought this here to complain about Zefr's actions. Zefr thanked for me the post above in which I said that edit warring is bad and that they weren't blameless, which tells me that they are aware the I've said that, and I interpret it as meaning that they accept the point I made there. Zefr is at liberty to speak up if I have misinterpreted them.

Now, above you have accused me of making personal comments about you - if you can identify any comment in which I am making personal commentary about you (as opposed to commenting on occasions where your conduct has not been compliant with policy), I would be grateful for you pointing it out. You, on the other hand, have directed two childish insults at me in your last post. I have a reasonably thick skin and do not plan on making a big deal of this, but you should be aware that calling people names will lead to your account being blocked. You are not allowed to call people 'goofy' or 'Mr. Off-Topic' any more than you are allowed to call them a 'fucking asshole'. You need to be a lot more careful in how you address people.

Here's some advice for future reference: you don't get to define what the topic should be here. If you come here complaining about someone else's conduct, you need to be prepared for your own conduct to be scrutinised. I strongly suggest that you move on to something productive before anyone starts talking about boomerangs. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Girth, I’m sorry for the things I said that bothered you. I don’t know what got into me. And I’m very glad you and Zefr have your ex parte communications. You didn’t reveal exactly what he said, but if you honestly feel he gave all that support to your side in all this, I’m glad — I’m sure a little appreciation must feel good, especially on a day when I was giving you grief. To respond to your comment about what topic we should be discussing: this is the Administrators' noticeboard, and the topic of a section here should be determined by the section heading, and though editors are of course free to discuss whatever comes to their minds, the Administrator’s Notice Board itself pays a price in terms of diminished purpose and diluting whatever good might be accomplished by not being sharp and on-point. Editors here are welcome to go into anybody’s past, everyone has access to everything anybody’s contributed, you can always find fault if that’s what you’re looking for. You can bring all kinds of things into this wide-ranging conversation, but it gives the impression that the Administrator’s Notice Board is not a place inhabited by policy wonks. Also (responding to you): I don’t think it’s right — especially on this page — to criticize an editor (Zefr, me or anybody) for doing “things”, when the mysterious “things” are not even named. I brought here an example of what I thought was a violation of policy. You and others (not everybody) in this section then justified (under certain vague circumstances) the deleting of talk page content. Girth, you say I accuse you of “making personal comments” about me. It’s not an accusation — it’s the only thing you and I do here. You make comments about me, and I make comments about you. If you want specific examples, as you say you do, consider the last sentence you posted, and the one before that (etc). Instead of personal comments, it would be better to stay “on topic” and talk policy, and not address each other directly at all. It can be done. Girth, you say I can restore the deleted content, and of course it can then be deleted again and again. But regarding why we’re all here: I saw editing that I thought was unacceptable (though that’s not for me to determine), I brought it here as an example. I appreciate all the discussion — which is causing me to reconsider. Perhaps Zefr is right. He's a strong, assertive, two-fisted, warrior-editor, having a big impact on Wikipedia and the articles he edits. And if he steps on a few toes, or bends a few guidelines — he gets the job done. He throws fireballs. Perhaps we should all aspire to be more like him. He seems not to give a darn about the fretting that’s going on in this section — no, he stands apart from the fray and lets the dogs bark. (I’m a bit disappointed though that he stooped to weigh in on your side — though I’m not sure he wanted to be outed for doing that. But never mind.) He may have a few unconventional editorial tools he likes to use. (I actually saw his latest weapon battle-tested, and by coming here — it seems I got it the Administrators' noticeboard’s seal of approval. Sort of.) Zefr, you go girl. Girth, you say that I shouldn’t speak for another editor, but any discussion of policy is an attempt to speak not only for other editors, but for all editors. We should consider the primary business of the Administrator’s Notice Board is to consider policy with a view for how it affects one and all of us. I hope I’ve answered all of your questions. And again, I’m sincerely sorry for the things I said that bothered you. - Bitwixen (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, briefly: There were no ex parte conversations, the 'thank' log is a public record. You haven't said anything that bothered me, you just need to be aware that addressing people like that is prohibited. No, the topic is not determined by the title, admins looking at an issue have broad latitude to comment on whatever problematic conduct they see. I have already been specific about what I think you did wrong, and what I think Zefr did wrong, I shouldn't have to repeat it in every post.

It seems that you still think that Zefr was the one edit warring and throwing fireballs, and you somehow weren't? I do not think that you will succeed here as an editor if you persist in your apparent belief that the problems in that thread were all down to Zefr, and the problems in this one are all down to me, and your own attitude, which strikes me as belligerent in this discussion, has nothing to do with it. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

No, no, no, Girth, I’m afraid you’ve completely misunderstood. I do not in any way consider that Zefr “did wrong” or was “edit warring”. In fact, it’s just the opposite, I think he may have been right about all this all along. And I was wrong to be concerned. Zefr is a good strong and active editor, and I only want to encourage him. I wasn’t sure of all this at first, but my experience here has helped me “see the light” so to speak. That’s what I was trying to tell you before. Plus — I had a prof. of English lit. not that long ago, and his way of complimenting people who made a comment in class was to say: I like the fireballs you’re throwing. He didn’t say it often, but it was always a compliment. And I didn’t mean anything awful when I used it. I don’t think Zefr would be bothered by it. Please don’t think I’m being “belligerent”, I thought I was very civil with my last post. I’m not sure why you said that. I’m being sincere. I would like to withdraw this whole post if I could. Because I see things like the deletions we were talking about in a new light. I’ve gone over to the other side. I don’t consider such things unacceptable anymore. All the very best, and thanks to all who contributed their thoughts. - Bitwixen (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

"...And I didn’t mean anything awful when I used it. I don’t think Zefr would be bothered by it." Should Zefr be bothered with someone saying he steps on toes, "bends a few guidelines", but he gets the job done? I don't think Girth misunderstood at all. Antagonizing people is not thought of as an effective editing skill. In fact, it becomes detrimental to the editor that employs it ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The Administrator’s Notice board functions like the comments sections of other social media platforms. Misunderstandings tend to seem intentional, and administrators are free to use the foulest possible language ("f**ing a**hole"). Whether using that kind of language is meant to ratchet up the drama in a troll-like manner, or meant to trash the dialogue — it does demonstrate that Wikipedia policy is not going to get much respect. The topic in the heading of this section is largely ignored, while relationships between editors are discussed (ironically by the same foul-mouthed administrator) — as though this board is a couples therapy session.— Bitwixen (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, you know perfectly well that I used the phrase 'fucking asshole' as an example of an extreme personal attack, which is prohibited. I did it to highlight the fact that, while your insults were not profane, they were no more permitted than calling someone a 'fucking asshole'. You are again coming very close to being insulting in your language above, and need to be more careful in how you speak about people. It is insulting someone, rather than profanity, which is forbidden by policy Girth Summit _(blether) 17:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, you use gutter language, even after it has been objected to, perhaps because you can’t help yourself, and you have some kind of incontinence problem. Or perhaps you deliberately befoul here because you want to. Perhaps you want to goad or provoke. Your use of such language is a violation of Wikipedia policy, it’s a violation of the five pillars. Editors who come here to make an appeal on this page care about how things are done, and hope that they might find others who also care. You’re an administrator. People make an effort to become an administrator. Some people campaign for it, and try to demonstrate that they’re worthy. Cease and desist. - Bitwixen (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, I have violated no policy. I have directed no abusive language towards anyone. All of your edits for the last week have been to this thread, despite your assertion that you think we should move on. Go and do something useful. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit: WP:Vulgarity Bitwixen (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no verbiage in that policy that prohibits the use of rude words as illustrative examples, as I did. It prohibits the direction of such language towards other editors, which I have not done. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, I highly suggest you drop this. The initial issue you raised has been resolved, and Girth has not violated any policies here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

But is the initial issue resolved, HandThatFeeds? No editor here has answered the question posed by the section heading and by the examples, which is: Is it acceptable to delete pertinent content from the talk page of articles? This is not being asked of all editors, but specifically to editors who happen by this Administrators notice board. So “acceptability” is limited to those here. “Acceptance” is not very a high-bar, so if the question goes unanswered and there’s no objection, that’s a degree of acceptance. Editors here have had thoughtful things to say, but to say the practice is not a “good idea” but that it’s “okay under certain circumstances” — when the circumstances don’t fit the examples — is appreciated, but it’s not responding specifically to the examples. Based on the comments here, including I suppose even your own “not weighing in on the particular question”, HandThatFeeds, it appears that deleting content in such a way is in fact acceptable, at least here. It’s still not acceptable to the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. But guidelines are made to be broken, apparently. That’s the resolution? - Bitwixen (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen my goodness, teh question *has* been resolved: reading WP:TPO (the page you linked) explains everything: nowhere in that guideline does it say that deleting other people's comments is forbidden. In other words: removing talk page posts is allowed *under certain circumstances*. e.g. I quote Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed or It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject (as opposed to the treatment of the subject in the article). or Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban. So, the guideline in fact says that deleting content in such a way is in fact acceptable under certain circumstances - you should re-read WP:TPO. Mvbaron (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is resolved. As Mvbaron points out, the issue has been explained to you. Zefr was removing off-topic commentary, and may have accidentally taken some on-topic commentary out at the same time, which was fixed. I get that it wasn't the response you wanted, but the matter has been handled. The guidelines are not broken, you simply dispute that your posts were "pertinent," when no one else agrees. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk page suggestions about what reliable sources may be used is not the kind of content that should be deleted according to WP:TPO, and it is certainly not “gibberish or a test edit” as Mvbaron seems to suggest. A discussion about using contentious material about living persons (per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) should not be deleted, it should be discussed. In fact, such discussions are recommend on WP:BLP. Bitwixen (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Ifidont and alternative medicine

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

The user has a block from the page Ayurveda and its talk page for edit warring and disruptive editing against ARBCOM sanctions on the page. The user has continued writing about alternate and complementary medicine at Traditional medicine and the edits were reverted. The user has now created a new page Glossary of Ayurveda. I believe the user will continue adding disruptive material, often unsourced and a POV push (contemplating from the user's contribution history). [Unfortunately the user wasn't given a DS/alert in ACU, and thus I couldn't ask for AE sanctions?] — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Where you say "... has not created ...", I think you intended to say "... has now created ..."? - David Biddulph (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Haha yes! — DaxServer (talk to me) 15:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

FYI, now alerted to DS in Complementary/Alt. Medicine and Pseudoscience. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)