Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Incivility between Autodidact1 and The Rambling Man

• User talk:Autodidact1#MOS=Manual_of_shitty_typography
• Autodidact1 (talk · contribs)
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

I am an uninvolved administrator but I note that TRM has had arbcom sanctions before (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man) and as I'm unfamiliar with this territory and whether any sanctions are presently applied to them or the other involved user, I would like input from other administrators about how to proceed here -- or if another administrator would like to take the reins, I would be totally fine with that.

Both editors seem to be engaging in incivility that crosses over the line into personal attacks, and the behavior I see from TRM (one example among many in this thread) in particular is exactly the behavior mentioned in the arbcom case ("[TRM] is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.") so it seems very likely that some action is needed here under WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but I'm unsure what may need to be logged at WP:AE as a result. --Chris (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

That restriction was vacated in January 2020. You can review any active restrictions against an editor at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Any violation of an Arbitration Committee-imposed restriction would normally need to be discussed at WP:AE rather than WP:ANI, but given that TRM's only active restrictions are interaction bans with people who aren't Autodidact1, you're probably in the right place after all. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe someone could give us a pointer as to what that two-monthlong bitchfest is even about? Just to provide context? —valereee (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The original cause appears to be Autodidact1's dissatisfaction with MOS:FRAC's advice to use {{frac}} for fractions. He or she is of the opinion that "1/2" is preferable to "1⁄2" and is willing to ignore the MOS to enforce that preference. Compounding the situation is Autodidact1's tendency to be sloppy in doing so, changing (for instance) "6+2⁄3" to just "2/3" and "210+2⁄3" to just "2/3". Not helping matters is TRM's letting his understandable frustration with the foregoing get the better of him. Both editors could certainly stand to be less confrontational in their attitudes. Deor (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Deor: I haven't paid attention to the squabble, but "MOS:FRAC's advice to use {{frac}} for fractions" is a somewhat inaccurate summary of our guidelines. In fact MOS:FRAC says that for science and mathematics articles {{frac}} is discouraged, and MOS:MATH agrees with that discouragement. One of Autodidact1's recent frac edits (although not one involving TRM) is Trisomy X, which could be reasonably interpreted to be a science article under this guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

As the writer of that last one, which is how this dispute got to my attention...I can't say I appreciated the edit to shrink the size of the fractions on a disability-related article (that is, one where poor accessibility to visually impaired readers is particularly ironic), nor have I generally been endeared to Autodidact1's odd, pushy style of copyediting articles that brush against the Main Page to his preferences. (I believe he drew the attention/ire of EEng recently for insisting Wikipedia:Contact us change 'via email' to 'by email', one of his particular bugbears.) I do not, to say the least, think TRM has made the worst moves of the pair here. Vaticidalprophet 11:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually I believe I displayed uncharacteristic restraint in that particulat interaction [1], but had I reviewed his contribution history he'd certainly have received a more severe correction. Nothing inspires me like pseudosophisticated stylistic pretension. EEng 02:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to move on, after all I have reached my limit on being called a liar there many, many times. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• It does seem very concerning that in refusing the adhere to MOS, Autodidact1 is also changing correct information to incorrect information. Autodidact1, I'm thinking you need a little more self-teaching? I'm wondering if maybe Autodidact1 needs to just stop "fixing" fractions.

Re: the incivility on both sides...ugh, TRM. Really? Your restriction was lifted less than six months ago. I get it that you're frustrated, but that discussion looks like you were just baiting him. You could have just provided the silly diff before the sixth time he asked. And AD1, instead of calling someone a lying SOB, maybe disengage and ask someone else to help you find the errors if you aren't sure how to find them yourself. For all TRM's faults, most of what he calls an error actually are. If he's reverting these kinds of edits, which are supposed to be changing only presentation rather than content, there's probably a reason. —valereee (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is there often so much heat over minor stylistic changes? I swear experienced users getting into spats over cosmetic issues is right up there with nationalistic disputes when it comes to heat generated. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Wait till you hear about cosmetic issues... by bots. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sayeth Ritchie333:

One area the hit and run editor gets involved in is the formatting ... The quality of work has increased in some areas, which makes it harder to contribute without good knowledge in the subject matter and sources. Fiddling with the formatting seems to be a suitable alternative passtime.

EEng 05:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

These stylistic changes were apparently also introducing factual errors by changing correct information to incorrect information. —valereee (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, have you noticed the series of personal attacks levelled at me, being accused multiple times of being a liar? I corrected factual errors and asked the other user multiple times to stop and they responded with personal attacks and attacks on the MOS. Having said that, this is a storm in a teacup, neither me or the other user appear to have considered this a "civility" issue, it's just someone else trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Now the other user has stopped reintroducing the errors, that's me done. And no, the restriction was not lifted six months ago, that was explicitly related to DYK. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As well as the outright errors TRM (rightfully!) complained about, the edit to trisomy X served to replace the fractions with yet another form of fraction (not sure what Autodidact1's preference is, then, aside from "not the kind the MoS requests" -- is this just trolling?) that not only is outright deprecated for all articles (contra the "mathematics articles can use another form") but causes accessibility problems on account of how tiny the text renders. Broadly speaking, I am not in undying love with the MoS, but I think it rises above "shitty typography". The only edits more frustrating than copyediting to make an article worse because-MoS are copyediting to make an article worse in contravention of the MoS. They weren't even consistent throughout the article, he left the one in History untouched... Vaticidalprophet 12:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and he introduced errors there too -- rendered 164cm/5'4" as 172cm/5'7.5". Vaticidalprophet 12:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Going to bed, but I think there might be further issues with Autodidact1's conduct regarding copyediting, in addition to these repeated cases of anti-MoS fractions introducing errors. A warning on his talk demonstrates an incident of not only edit-warring to change BC/AD to BCE/CE in contravention of MOS:ERA (pretty much one of the most uncritically great parts of the MoS because of its role in stemming this kind of warring) but making grotesque personal attacks against people and their religions when called out for it. Vaticidalprophet 14:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I've dropped a warning on their talk page for personal attacks. I am also of the opinion that MOS wars are largely pointless and have no opinion on the underlying matter, but repeatedly calling another user a lying son of a bitch (even if you use "SOB") is just not ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox, there's a second and probably more important issue w/re: introducing errors in aid of "fixing" things that aren't actually broken. —valereee (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I just saw those comments on his talk page and that was clearly not ok. I don't consider the matter closed or anything, I just haven't dug that deeply into the rest of it. I'm also hoping they will find a moment to comment here to address some of this before doing anything else. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Copy-editing as a battleground

While The Rambling Man was clearly being an ass on Autodidact1's talk page, trying (successfully) to provoke a reaction, Autodidact1 has editing problems of their own, as a skim through their contributions shows:

According to Autodidact1:

• Using "via" instead of "using" is "vulgar": "Replaced the vulgar preposition 'via [sic]' with a descriptive verb, 'using'."
• Using "...he singled off Welch" instead of "...he singled against Welch" is "vulgar": "Replaced vulgar 'off [sic]' with appropriate, 'against'.
• "as well as" are vulgar words in Fargo, North Dakota: "In two paragraphs, replaced three vulgar words, 'as well as [sic]' with the correct one."
• They are an ornithological expert, and their knowledge is vital to the accuracy of I, Tonya: "That's not a 'parakeet [sic]'. Sloppy journalism. Looks more like a conure." and "An obviously careless description; not a parakeet. Do your research.", as well as this elaborate rationale for their edits.

Copy-editing is not a crusade against the vulgar forces of darkness, Autodidact1, it's a way to clarify communication and presentation of ideas.

(I know it's not within this noticeboard's remit, but I wish it were possible to ban Autodidact1 from constantly misusing "[sic]".) --Calton | Talk 01:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyone of common sense who is not part of a conspiracy to revert my edits would agree with me -- well, ain't that a fantastic line. Vaticidalprophet 02:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

He certainly knows a lot about vulgarity. EEng 02:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I was not being an ass (good personal attack though!). I was repeatedly asking the user to show some level competence by being able to recognise their own error-strewn contributions. I was asking the user to recognise we have a MOS and that, where possible, we should follow it. WP:CIR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I was not being an ass

Spare me. Hell, spare all of us the act. How many times did Autodidact1 ask you an extremely simple question that you point-blank refused to answer? Five times? Six times?

I was asking the user to recognise we have a MOS and that, where possible, we should follow it

It's kind of hard to say that you're trying to teach someone something when you refuse to tell them what it is that they're supposedly doing wrong. You were trying to provoke him, and, frankly, you two deserve each other.

(good personal attack though!)

Descriptive language. Describing your behavior. --Calton | Talk 06:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

AKA Personal attack. Sure, but I couldn't care less. And if an editor who refuses to acknowledge MOS (which I told them about) and can't find their own errors, that's a lack of competence. Frankly, this, like that user's edits, is a gross waste of my time. As usual this place is full of people who think they're making a difference but who really aren't. Get to a conclusion and people can get on with their lives. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

IMO, there's no problem-in-the-ANI sense with your conduct here -- I would call it suboptimal, certainly, but I don't think it demands any sanctions. I think it's more just the general frustration many writers feel when people come around and tinker with articles for the worse, and that any good admin should be able to recognize it (and in turn that this is why so many people demand high-level content creation from admin candidates). I think Autodidact1's conduct is the important one here, and that there seems to be a sustained pattern of conduct problems stemming from copyediting. Vaticidalprophet 11:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Well only one of the two people who were dragged here was detrimentally editing Wikipedia, causing damage and disruption to our content and readers, and that individual has carried on doing it during this ANI. Meanwhile, some users feel obliged to take the chance to level personal attacks at me: instead of at the disruptive user's talk page where he personally attacked me half a dozen times, do it here instead! Anyway, as I said, unless someone wants to actually do something about the ongoing disruption to the encyclopedia, this thread is now a proper dramaboardz timesink. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

AKA Personal attack. So you think an accurate description of you is a personal attack. huh? Sounds like you could use a little self-perspective. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a personal attack. Obviously. Bye now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a strange new meaning of "obviously" I was previously unaware of. Your eccentric definition might explain your blathering on about "obvious" errors on User talk:Autodidact1. --Calton | Talk 10:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you still here? Deary me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Now look, let's not get into it here. Everyone knows that TRM is one of the biggest ass-ets we have around here, and does a lot of good work. And speaking as one ass-et to another, TRM, you could have handled the situation better. But the only actual problem right now is that Mr. Autod is going around pissing on everything, hardly if ever improving things and frequently screwing them up. EEng 02:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Agree. I've tussled with TRM before but he was only mildly snarky this time, with provocation. The only behavior in need of action here is Autodidact1's. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  No comment from him here yet, but... Vaticidalprophet 09:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

===proposed: Autodidact1 may not make edits against the MOS===

• Support as proposer. Since Autodidact1 seems to just be ignoring this, and since they seem to lack competence in doing so, I think we need to prohibit them from making edits against the MOS. —valereee (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Alt wording: Autodidact1 (talk · contribs) is banned from making stylistic or grammatical, or WP:ENGVAR changes to any article, broadly construed. This wording is similar to that TBAN imposed on Anthony22 (talk · contribs), to avoid haivng to judge if the edit violated MOS. They clearly have a habit of labeling styles as "vulgar" or otherwise improper, and some edits, such as Special:Diff/1017446054 at Brent Strom about MOS:FRAC, inadvertently changed factual information. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Rambling Man accused me of making errors to an article that I edited without any evidence or without a link to the supposed errors. He reverted my changes because they violated the MOS. He persisted in accusing me of making errors when I only changed the converted fractions on typographical grounds. He has now assembled a posse of editors who want to ban me entirely. I've made over 5,000 edits and only a handful have been reverted. Almost all of my edits are usage corrections or improvements to prose, such as rewriting sentences to remove clichés. Rambling Man is guilty of character assassination; he's the editor who should be sanctioned. My edits improve articles, not change facts or introduce errors. Autodidact1 (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

If, at this late date, you still think your edits don't change facts or introduce errors[sic], then there may be a WP:CIR block in your very near future.[sic] I suggest you move quickly to show that you recognize where you messed up article facts.[sic] (Hint: It's explained in this thread.[sic]) EEng 04:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC) [sic].

• The problem with "may not make edits against the MOS" is that no one on earth (or anywhere else, for that matter) has absorbed all of MOS -- it's beyond human capability, so there would need to be a warning issued for each new kind of transgression. I think Mr. Pizza's idea is better, though I fear it may be overbroad. A third formulation to consider might be Autodidact1 needs to cut out the half-baked pedantry. EEng 04:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Valid point. Maybe just a warning for disruptive editing, along with an explanation that introducing error in an attempt to "fix" what isn't broken is disruptive. At this point I think we could give an only warning, as Autodidact1 seems to be rejecting the notion that this introduced error. —valereee (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Ironically, all those giving me a hard time on this fail to note that in the very diff provided above, my summary was "actually changing the meaning of the sentences". If that wasn't clear enough for the user making the repeated errors to find, I call WP:CIR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Ironically, all those giving me a hard time...

  And what makes you think anyone missed it? What makes you think that one bit was sufficient? Also, how, exactly, is it "ironic"? Is it like rain on your wedding day? --Calton | Talk 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm bored of this thread and the pointless point-scoring here. Have fun, I'm going to improve the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not going to bold an oppose, but there is so much to the MOS (and frankly, some of it is unhelpful or even arguably wrong) that I'd be happier simply blocking them for CIR if they continue to make factual errors without any recognition that they are doing so. Black Kite (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree. Introducing factual errors while making stylistic changes is harmful, blockworthy incompetence, so much so that I'm even going to pass up this opportunity to give TRM a hard time–a difficult but justified sacrifice. Levivich 07:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• The problem with a blanket ban on MOS edits is that it's treating a symptom: yes, it'll stop the half-baked pedantry in that particular area, but it's no the only space where Autodidact1 exercises their unsourced certainty. Take their edit-warring at I, Tonya

• 07:14, June 22, 2021‎ Autodidact1 44,746 bytes +10‎ →‎Critical response: That's not a "parakeet [sic]". Sloppy journalism. Looks more like a conure.
• 20:46, June 23, 2021‎ Autodidact1 44,746 bytes +10‎ An obviously careless description; not a parakeet. Do your research.

Their response on my User Talk page It's a conure of some type, and if you looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conure you would agree with me, assuming, of course, that you actually saw "I, Tonya", which I doubt...".

However, the very lede of Conure includes The term "conure" is used primarily in bird keeping, though it has appeared in some scientific journals. The American Ornithologists' Union uses the generic term parakeet for all species elsewhere called conure, though Joseph Forshaw, a prominent Australian ornithologist, uses conure.

So this is someone who not only practices unsourced, self-assured pedantry, it's self-assured pedantry that that's contradicted by the source that they claims supports them. That's a WP:CIR issue at work. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like Autodidact1's got a case of WP:ANIFLU. EEng 17:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Well that's easy when you're not being asked to explain anything nor being told that there's a definitive approach to your edits going forward. This case will be toothless and nothing changes right now. What's the proposal? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, then... Autodidact1, do you recognize that many of your edits created problems and introduced errors? EEng 21:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  The user continues to edit without responding here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• I commented at User talk:Autodidact1#Warning: collaboration is required (diff) and will review any claims of further problems. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• I thought the username was familiar when I first saw this thread - it's come back to me. I actually referenced my only interaction with Autodidact1 in my answer to Question 3 of my RfA (Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress?) The disagreement again centred on their dislike of the word 'via', and they used unnecessarily critical edit summaries to describe the use of the word here ("pretentious") and here ("lazy" and "stupid"). They did not respond to my talk page post here, in which I pointed out that the dictionaries and style guides that I turned to had nothing negative to say about the use of the word, and that it seemed entirely natural to me. I'm disappointed to see that they have continued to remove it, and to pour scorn on people who use it, based only on what appears to be a personal dislike of the word. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• The user just repeated what they wrote here on their own talk page. This shows a clear lack of understanding of the issues at hand and an apparently complete lack of competence. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  The user is still in denial about the errors they introduced (to whit: My edits improve articles, not change facts or introduce errors), along with their contra-MOS edits. Someone needs to explain explicitly as it's clear that competence is a serious problem here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• We've already got several retired equerries late of H. M. Stationery Office wandering about the project grumbling about dashes and vulgarities and typographical monstrosities. We don't need another pompous Sir Scoldalot. He's shown himself stubbornly incapable of recognizing his own fallibility so I think an indefinite block is now in order. [sic] EEng 09:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Via con Dios? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• So the same person who berates other editors over word usage issues would have us believe that My edits improve articles, [sic] not change facts or introduce errors is good English? Sorry Autodidact, but if you're going to be a supercilious, self-appointed grammar cop, you're allowed zero mistakes of your own. I'd support an indef for competence reasons. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Well, looks like Autodidact's ANIFLU has turned into ANICOVID. Can we please end this is [sic] an indef until he ackowledges the issues with his edits? EEng 04:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  ackowledges [sic]? Vaticidalprophet 13:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Watch it or I'll sic my dog on you. EEng 15:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps they really are sic [sic]... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Mebbe. Just skimming this thread made me sic [sic] from the ick. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: indef block

Sometimes the community shows way too much patience in the face of patently obnoxious and disruptive behavior. This is one such case. The above thread (and its diffs) contain ample evidence that Autodidact makes careless mistakes in article space, refuses to follow the MOS, responds to criticism with juvenile insults and whataboutisms, and pulls a vanishing act when faced with the prospect of being held accountable. This is not something that we should tolerate any longer.

• Support as proposer. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support (indef block as an ordinary admin action, or community site ban; either way) for long-term disruptive pedantry, even after this thread was opened, with apparently no hope of change. See, e.g., this July 1 message as an example: [2]. We don't have time to follow and check their edits, at some point it just has to end. Levivich 17:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support a Site Ban at this point as a net negative to the encyclopedia, and who wouldn't stop digging when reminded of the First Law of Holes. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support either indef or site ban. EEng 05:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef as an ordinary admin action. And certainly support the closure of this long-lasting section at an ordinary admin's earliest convenience. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 09:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef - clear net negative; would need a convincing unblock request to be allowed to edit again.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose ... for now. They seem now to be discussing things on their talk page. I think there is a chance they are beginning to understand things a bit better now. Their attitude aside, they do seem to make a lot of constructive edits. Paul August ☎ 17:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  They're not discussing anything, just hitting out at others and denying any responsibility for errors introduced. WP:CIR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support ordinary indef that can be lifted from an ordinary appeal to a sympathetic admin. I don't think the level of annoyance here justifies a site ban, and I don't believe the subject here could never be a productive editor. If the block gets lifted and he starts the drive-by pedantry back up, well, we'll be back here soon enough. Vaticidalprophet 06:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

<sound of crickets> EEng 05:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Autodidact1 last edit was on July 2. Paul August ☎ 12:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's called WP:ANIFLU. It's not unusual. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe CHINAFLU? Or else just good sense! lol Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef ban by community—Autodidact1 should have lived up to their user name by now. In a collaborative project, raising autodidacticism to a principle in editing and in relating to other members of this project is disruptive. Autodidact1 does not seem to take criticism on board easily (a few days after opening this complaint they blanked their talk page). Their participation in this boomerang is not showing understanding of why editors here find their editing problematic. This discussion is a time-sink. (Indefinite is not infinite). — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 10:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Indeff. In their last post they seem to have said they'll no longer revert fractions. Ignoring previous "fraction" edits, then on reviewing their contribs I'm seeing about 80% +ve, 15% debateable & only 5% -ve (such as where they miss subtle incorrect changes of meaning they've introduced like here or where the abrasive nature of their edit summary outweighed a trivial improvement.) 80% good edits is better than I'd rate most. While TRM was in the right & their impatience understandable, their approach was non collegial. So it's easily forgivable that Autodidact1's response to the criticism was sub optimal too. The disruption here seems no where near severe enough to justify going straight to an indeff for an occasionally grumpy but useful gnome with no prior blocks. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  You missed the part where there was literally no comprehension, acceptance or regret for introducing errors while editing directly against the MOS while then engaging in countless personal attacks, right? I wonder why. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Unlike the Brent Strom edits where they clearly in the wrong, I dont blame Autodidact for the timewasting MOS contention. MOS is a big document with several subpages. Considering the gulf in experience between the two of you (Auto has < 4k edits) it would have been kinder to point out the specific part you felt they were violating. They did ask several times. I guess you were thinking of MOS:FRAC, but even that doesnt seem especially explicit in mandating {{frac}} useage. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Weird, he deliberately and wilfully violated MOS, knowingly so, and described it as the "manual of shitty typography". To claim some kind of good faith ignorance of what they were doing is patently absurd. And calling someone a lying SOB is find too I suppose. What a weird messed up place this really is. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  P.S. In the very first edit about this on his talkpage, the title of the section was MOS:FRAC. Good grief. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  As I said, MOS:FRAC doesn't seem to explicitly mandate using {{frac}} , though it certainly describes how to apply if editors make the choice to do so. Your claim that Auto was deliberately violating MOS seems false. (though I'll happily apologise if you can supply diff(s) that unambiguously demonstrate the opposite.) Auto repeatedly asked you to specify the MOS error, you just get doubling down on your dubious claim without specifying. Little wonder they eventually started to accuse you of lying. Even when you finally supplied a diff pointing out a specific mistake, the obvious error there was mathematical, not MOS related. Going back to the lying thing, if you wish to appear sincere, I'd suggest not repeatedly wishing an editor well, and then once it becomes clear you have some support on ANI, pivot to arguing for an indeff & badgering editors who dissent. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  As you said, it was a clear case of WP:CIR and WP:NPA but yeah, just let it slide. I don't care about what happens to this user, but I do care when people make assertions that are simply bogus or give a perspective which is demonstrably one-sided. That's not badgering, that's simply correcting the record. I made no dubious claims, that's utter claptrap. The user repeatedly re-asserted the same edits containing the same errors, MOS and not MOS-related time after time after I gave warning after warning. But hey, let's just let people wilfully disrupt Wikipedia and make many personal attacks with impunity. Good one. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  At least nine more false assertions in that post. As you wish to let this slide I won't dwell on them. The one point I can agree on is you do seem to care a great deal about accuracy. Passion isn't always a +ve, but in your case it does seem to result in excellent content creation, for which you're much appreciated. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The disruption doesn't seem bad enough for an indef yet.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose indef for now. I'd support a block from article space, which might give this editor a chance to see which of their proposed edits are going to be seen as harmful and why. —valereee (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC) Moving to Support for an ordinary indef that can be lifted by an individual admin because this seems to have become a case of ANIFLU. Autodidact1, you can't just ignore a problem away. If you aren't going to engage here, IMO we need to engage you on your talk during an unblock request. —valereee (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Vaticidalprophet. Seems to be a total time-sink, complete with a case of WP:IDHT. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose — Although TRM was indeed correct I’m opposing an indef For reasons predominantly covered by Valereee, and additional input by FeydHuxtable and Paul August. I feel an indef is a bit of stretch. I don’t see anything here a stern logged warning won’t solve. Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Lugnuts. No room for immaturity. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Move to close

Congratulations! Your request for closure has advanced to within one month of the front of the queue!

Please can we see the back of this? There's clearly a split community here, which means the result should default to the status quo. There's nothing practical to be gained by continuing this thread. Warnings, stern, logged, or otherwise are irrelevant, no interaction with the user over the past week or more means this is a waste of community time and energy. Please let's move on. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

As long as I still get full pay for joining your posse. I don't cabal for free you know. Levivich 19:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Just let Rambler treat you at Claridge's. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Filed at closure requests. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User Noteduck HOUNDING and violating AE civility warning

Noteduck is a relatively new editor who opened their account in Dec 2020. They made a few edits with a prior account Spungo93. In a short period of time it became clear that Noteduck had civility issues related to edit warring and generally confrontational behavior issues. To this end I opened an AE related to Noteduck's behavior which resulted in a logged warning on 25 March (3 months ago)[[3]]. In the 3 months since Noteduck has engaged in a clear pattern of hounding and incivility with respect to my edits and myself.

HOUNDING:hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Noteduck has made, at the time of this writing, ~185 edits since since receiving a warning on March 25th related to uncivil and problematic AP2 behavior. Of those over 50% have been about me in some capacity.

• Aprox 40 sandbox entries to a grievances list in violation of POLEMIC [[4]]. After a repeated requests they blanked the list with an questionable edit summary [[5]]. Since deletion they have continued to add to the list [[6]].

Edit: this list of grievances was started on 24 Feb. POLEMIC notes grievance lists are only permitted when used for dispute resolution in a timely manner. Springee (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Followed me to a 3RRN where they were uninvolved to attack my credibility. [[7]].
• Cold contacting other editors to campaign against me [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]].

• Engaging in topic areas where they weren't previously involved after I was involved and in a way that opposed my edit/arguments:
  • Odal rune RfC [[13]]
  • Candace Ownes, restoring disputed material[[14]] by reverting my edit without participating in the on going talk page discussion [[15]].
  • I edited the Wall Street Journal page 31 March, Noteduck finds the page 1 April [[16]]
  • Tucker Carlson, reverting my removal of disputed content [[17]] despite not being involved in any related talk page discussions

• Article talk page comments/edit summaries that focus on me as an editor rather than on edits
  • Earlier today [[18]], "Frankly, I ask you to familiarize yourself with with Wikipedia:HOUND and WP:FILIBUSTER and ask yourself why you you continue to persist with challenging this exceedingly minor edit.", [[19]] where they accuse me of having a double standard, and [[20]] "respectfully, you've had considerable difficulty understanding WP:DUE and other policies in the past, including on this page,"

• Violated page's 1RR restriction when restoring the disputed edit above. 1st [[21]] 2nd [[22]]

• Personalizing disputes on talk pages - violation of AE warning regarding civility:
  • [[23]], "This is an extremely worrying double standard on Springee's part, given that they insist on the most uncompromisingly high standards on sources they disagree with. If Springee finds it difficult to evaluate sources, it might be best to stand aside and listen more"
  • [[24]], "Springee, you are currently facing a WP:AE hearing on the basis of tendentious editing. If you are having difficulties following editorial policy, it might be best to listen to others more rather than assume you know all the answers "

I've repeatedly warned Noteduck that this is a HOUNDING issue that needs to stop (closing AE admin's page [[25]], Noteduck's page [[26]]) with no success. I was hopeful when they recently focused on editing on topics like architecture it would mean I would be left alone. From my earliest interactions with Noteduck last winter I have tried to make it clear the editorial disagreements aren't personal disagreements. Personalizing disputes was one of the problems discussed at Noteducks AE. Despite trying to keep things civil it is clear they did not understand the prior AE warning. I am requesting either an AP2 topic ban or a 1-way interaction ban (I will voluntarily avoid interacting with them as well). Springee (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban from American politics, broadly construed. The bloody topic is enough of a permanent battlefield as it is, without the encouragement of new warriors to join the field. ——Serial 13:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If it's a violation of an AE warning, shouldn't this be at AE as well? Black Kite (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I've absolutely not only focused on Springee's edits: see my contributions page.[27] My recent new pages include Architecture of Belarus, Land Captain (Russian Empire), Wellerman etc plus extensive work on Texas Revolution, We Will Always Love You and more. Given a shared interest in politics we've indeed both edited Andy Ngo, Douglas Murray, and others. I maintain that Springee is a repeat civil-POV pusher on conservative politics (which almost all their edits relate to) invariably rejecting unflattering material. Springee was before arb com just a month ago for adding material from deprecated Daily Caller to the Andy Ngo page.[28] "Springee" gets 98 hits on the WP:AN archive. Many editors there share my concerns, and Springee's been sanctioned in the area of US politics before.[29] I indeed prepared a WP:AN complaint in sandbox, as Springee did against me[30] in Feb. My "double standard" comment came from Springee's persistence in wanting Fox's Ken LaCorte's "LaCorte News",[31] which dlthewave observed was "obviously terrible", added to Andy Ngo in April[32] {{{1}}} while rejecting material from Rolling Stone and Jacobin this month[33] (plus BuzzFeed News[34] and Bellingcat.[35] Springee is often litigious and made a WP:AN complaint based on an incorrect interpretation of 1RR on the Jared Kushner page in April.[36] I see this as a WP:BOOMERANG. Springee is quite fixated with challenging my edits and has 65 mentions on my talk page. I maintain that Springee's ongoing challenge to my short sentence on Andy Ngo is a WP:FILIBUSTER.[37] The 1RR Springee has raised with dlthewave[38] is trivial, as Dlthewave notes and I've reverted for now anyway.[39] Springee knows I'm sensitive and afflicted by bipolar-2 and prone to being angry and frustrated in manic phases. Full disclosure: yesterday I launched an unrelated WP:AN action after getting highly aggressive and personal insults elsewhere,[40] and can repeat details if necessary. I question Springee's decision to launch this complaint hours later and not wait for the other action to conclude Noteduck (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Noteduck, please indicate when you change your text. You have made significant changes to your reply above. As I noted below such changes may result in replies to your text that no longer make sense since the original text has been altered with items added/removed. Springee (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It makes me uncomfortable when editors cite mental health conditions to explain their on-wiki behavior. A lot of people suffer from a lot of things; anyone who is not healthy enough to participate here should immediately log off. Levivich 14:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, the recent AE against me was closed only with a comment to be more careful, not a logged warning.[[41]] Springee (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Edit: Noteduck removed the logged warning claim as part of a series of edits to their above statements[[42]]. The newly added claim I added "College Fix"[[43]] is an example of not getting the facts right. It was added by another editor [[44]] just before my edit. Springee (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck is trying to sidetrack with claims of bias etc but it's clear they personalize disputes (that was found at the AE and recent examples can be seen here. Rather than argue that edits were not supported they accused Conan The Librarian of acting on personal opinion/bias [[45]] and then proceed to put a warning on their user page [[46]]. In the month after the AE closed (24 March to 24 April), Noteduck made 39 edits. All but 5 were related to me. That included reverting my edits at pages they were otherwise uninvolved with, adding to the POLEMIC list, and trying to recruit other editors to join them against me. This fixation has toned down but they still treat all disputes as personal to the point that (see below) they accused me of knowing they are biopolar and trying to use that against them! It's clear that when editors disagree with them Noteduck is taking it personally. This is the core problem and one of the findings of the AE that resulted in a warning. I'm asking for this to stop. Springee (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I ended up here because I lurk at HiLo48's talk page which references an ANN which references this one. I've seen Springee at work and they are a careful, polite editor who stays on the high road even when confronted by rough behavior such as that described above. I find the above construction of trying to paint an incorrect picture regarding Springee very opposite to that very telling. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

North8000, what points in particular do you consider incorrect? –dlthewave ☎ 21:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Basically every (mis)characterization and claim about what every diff shows.North8000 (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Some of these complaints really don't hold up to scrutiny, and the diffs don't all show what Springee says they do. I would urge folks to take a close look at the diffs in context before forming an opinion. Noteduck does good work in maintaining NPOV in controversial American Politics articles and I would hate to lose a productive editor from that topic. They do raise numerous valid concerns about Springee's editing (although perhaps they could find a better time and place to do so), and this complaint comes across as a fairly sad attempt to gain "first mover advantage" and silence an editor who they disagree with before they have the opportunity to present their evidence.
  • Regarding the sandbox concerns, it appears that Noteduck has been collecting evidence for an Arbcom case or similar, which is explicitly allowed per WP:POLEMIC: The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Sure, the definition of "timely manner" is debatable, but the second diff presented by Springee has been up for all of three days which surely is well within bounds. I would also note that Springee maintained a similar collection of diffs in their sandbox for three months during which time they repeatedly asked Noteduck to remove theirs [47][48]. Pot calling the kettle black? I'm also drawing a blank on how this edit summary (material addressing concerns of tendentious editing and civil-POV pushing put in a safe place. This does not mean the concern has gone away, and WP:ANI proceedings may eventually be required.) is in any way "questionable".
  • Tucker Carlson, The Wall Street Journal, Candace Owens and Odal (rune) have been in the news lately and are hot topics for editors involved in American politics; Noteduck and Springee are far from the only editors who showed up to these articles around the same time. I'm sorry but you'd have to be quite the conspiracy theorist or have particularly thin skin to think that someone who responds to the same RfC [49] as you is trying to create "irritation, annoyance or distress".
  • The 1RR concern is a nothingburger. Springee raised the concern on my talk page [50] (I thought they didn't like it when people did that?) and Noteduck promptly and politely self-reverted [51]. –dlthewave ☎ 21:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Dlthewave, several of your points are incorrect or misleading. I did in fact compile a sandbox list before filing an AE in February. I started the list on 29 Jan and filed the AE on 22 Feb, so just 1 month. I will grant that I didn't clean out my sandbox for two months but the AE was open for a month of that. You mention the 1RR violation. It was interesting how you handled what you thought was a 1RR on my part. You went fishing for sanctions.[[52]] Why weren't you as aggressive with Noteduck's clear violation? If Noteduck were editing a wide range of AP2 articles I would find your point about similar article interest to be more convincing. But articles like Odal (rune) are low traffic, Noteduck isn't making it to a lot of AP2 articles where I don't edit (and that's most). This also came at a time before they decided to edit about architecture and the vast majority of their edits were focused on me (at that time near 80% since the AE closure). Springee (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake, don't pretend that Odal was some backwater article. You know it was well-trafficked and heavily edited after the CPAC incident, and you're having a meltdown because someone responded to the same RFC that you did.

As I mentioned earlier, this is the first 1RR violation that I've seen from Noteduck, and they quickly apologized and self-reverted when it was pointed out. On the other hand you and I have had several disagreements over what constitutes a revert, so I asked an admin for advice and it seemed to me like the three of us had a nice productive discussion about it. Do you see it differently? –dlthewave ☎ 01:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Please keep it civil. During the first month after the AE closed (24 Mar-24 Apr) Noteduck edited 7 article/talk pages that could be seen as AP related (Dennis Prager, WSJ, CPAC, Odal rune, Candace Owens, Douglas Murray, Andy Ngo, Tucker Carlson, 2020 US presidential election, A People's History of the US). Of those I have no involvement with the last 2. Noteduck had no involvement with WSJ, CPAC, Odal, Owens and Carlson but was either opposing my RfC comments or reverting my edits. They did have prior involvement with Ngo, Prager and Murray. If their comments and edits weren't related to mine it would be easier to see this as just hitting the same topics.

Was it Noteduck's first brush with edit warring? Edit warring was one of the AE concerns. You also haven't made it clear why you were quick to warn me when you felt I crossed the line but you didn't even provide a curtesy notice to Noteduck that they had crossed the line. When you asked an admin it was clear that you were fishing for sanctions and made accusations of 1RR violations on my part which you have yet to support. Springee (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Back to the sandbox thing: If we give you the benefit of the doubt, you had a list of grievances up for a month and you're claiming that keeping a similar list for three days violates POLEMIC. This is one of those things that really feels like a double standard: It's hounding and uncivil when Noteduck does it, but we're expected to give quite a bit of leeway for your similar actions. If you're so concerned about it, I would hope you would remember to keep your own sandbox clean. –dlthewave ☎ 12:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The grievance list was started by Noteduck 10 Feb. It's almost July and and still being added to. Do you consider 5 months timely? Blanking means little if they note that they can bring the blanked content back (the "blanked" content was added below) and if they keep adding new entries. You claim what I did was similar so lets compare. A specific list in less than a month, used at AE, never used again until blanked when the sandbox was cleaned a month after the AE closed. VS a continuous 5 month list, including many obvious errors, a portion was blanked but in a way that was easy to restore after multiple complaints that the list violated POLEMIC. The accumulation has continued even after several POLEMIC warnings. It's clear Noteduck has decided I've wronged them. To that end they are making a list, following me to continue their grievances at other articles, trying to drum up other editors for support (yourself included) and not trying to claim "but civil POV pusher" rather than reflect on their own actions. If they agree to stop personalizing disputes, MfD the list, and leave me alone all would be fine and we could close this right away. Springee (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

on the point about leeway: Springee has been editing for more than a decade and has far, far, far more editorial experience than I do. I've only been regularly editing since December 2020 (I have a handful of edits under an old account earlier in 2020). "Springee" gets 98 hits in the WP:AN archive; "Noteduck" gets 5. Springee should know the rules very well by now - and in fact, Springee does appear to know them when it suits their perspective. There's no reason for Springee to claim ignorance of editorial policy or expect preferential treatment Noteduck (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I can wipe my sandbox of references to you and any perceived breaches of policy now if you request. I can store it elsewhere if need be. However, you seem to be demanding that I never use my sandbox to build up any sort of allegation involving you again, which I think is pretty unreasonable (and indeed, a total WP:POTKETTLE situation). On the repeated HOUNDing allegations, please refer more to the specific parts of the policy you feel I am violating, and remember your many posts and 65 hits for "Springee" on my talk page[53] don't suggest you are exactly non-adversarial. Per WP:HOUND: 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. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. I believe that this is what I've been doing. You've recently pinged me and reverted my edits on the Andy Ngo page,[54] dragging me away from other Wikipedia projects I enjoy much more: see Architecture of Belarus and Texas Revolution Noteduck (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

And again an inaccurate telling. I was consolidating citations per a talk page discussion [[55]]. As part of that I noted questionable claims that included OR [[56]][[57]]. Despite your last involvement with the article being in May, you quickly reverted my removal of the OR [[58]][[59]] just 1 hour later. I pinged you because I went to the talk page to discuss this [[60]]. I will note that you edit warred not with me but with Volteer1 who reverted your restorations. You claim I was targeting your edits, I agree you originally added the OR but that was on 22 Feb. I wasn't aware you were the original editor at the time I removed it. Mischaracterizing and personalizing these disputes is a big issue here. Springee (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Just re the ping: sorry, I'm incredibly busy right now. I know I'm related to this stuff, and your retelling looks accurate at a glance, but I'll chime in properly a bit later when I have time. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• An earlier encounter between User:Noteduck and User:Springee was a lengthy mediation about five months ago at DRN, Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_201#PragerU. My observations were that these two editors disagreed on content, and that Noteduck was verbose (which is common and unhelpful at DRN). It was a difficult content dispute that ended up as a lengthy RFC that was really six RFCs rolled into one. All of the parties in the dispute were civil, which, like accuracy, is a duty rather than a virtue. It was preceded by Noteduck filing a Request for Arbitration that the arbitrators and I agreed should go to DRN. I haven't been involved with subsequent interaction between Noteduck and Springee. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Regarding the sandbox, from the content blanked in Special:Diff/1029281530, pasted below. The user accumulated a large number of grievances, mostly against Springee (talk · contribs). I note that some of the sources mentioned, such as CNN, are generally considered to be reliable, so they do have legitimate concerns about Springee. Their current revision says that they think it is Springee, not themselves, who should be AP2 topic-banned (esp. in relation to Andy Ngo). But, I think this warrants an interaction ban between the users as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• The problem with long lists of diffs is the reason things were reverted is often lost. Noteduck's records aren't very accurate either. Consider above where they accuse me of adding "Collegefix" as a source even though that was added by a different editor. Sometimes the removal of a reliable source from an article is not related to it being a RS but DUE, WP:V, specific phrasing etc. Recently it was suggested that I removed Rolling Stones from the Andy Ngo article. It wasn't true. I removed a specific claim that failed Wp:V and the redundant citation associated with it. The fact that Noteduck has been creating such a long list over so many months supports my POLEMIC concern. The long list says I violated my self imposed 1RR rule twice yet fails to note once was to revert an IP editor, the other was 7 March, where I reverted myself because I didn't include an edit summary [61][62]. Springee (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• dc̄ I absolutely contend that there is enough evidence of such a long and egregious history of civil-POV pushing to launch a WP:ANI action against Springee, with the main difficulty being the staggering number of potentially relevant diffs. dlthewave I share your frustration that Springee's characterisation of the Odal rune page as "low-traffic" is typical of Springee's selective recall and application of policy. Similarly, my recent uptick in engagement on the Andy Ngo page was in response to Springee on 18 June making an unjustified wholesale revert (although I've repeatedly reminded them about WP:ROWN) of material I had added sometime earlier.[63] I don't find Ngo particularly edifying and recently have spent the vast majority of my time working on more interesting things like the Texas Revolution and a bunch of Russia-related topics in my sandbox.[64] As dlthewave notes I believe Springee's clear motive here is seeking "first mover advantage" they can leverage as a WP:BOOMERANG that distracts from their own actions. As course, as per WP:BOOMERANG: There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny. Noteduck (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

whoops, on the extremely trivial point about who added the "College Fix", it wasn't Springee. I still think it's inexplicable that you added a point about Andy Ngo being purportedly threatened by left-wing protestors on the basis of the sources "Katu" and "College Fix"[65] without questioning their reliability, while RS's more critical of Ngo have been repeatedly challenged and reverted. Yes, you did remove material from Rolling Stone from Ngo's page, just this month.[66] Noteduck (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

And this is why we have to look at the details because you are still getting things wrong left and right. First, these edits were done after starting a talk page discussion [[67]]. Second, I didn't add any of the sources. The edit you link to is one where I changed the language to match that from the parent article. Nothing more. If you want to complain about those sources why don't you talk to the editor who added them? As for Rolling Stone, you are conflating two arguments. I was talking about being accused of removing a source (in the past, not this instance) when I only removed a redundant example of the source. A diff that only looks at the one edit might miss that the removed source was redundant. As for the Rolling Stones material you reference, the issue was it didn't pass Wp:V. The source is still in the article but the specific claim was OR. Springee (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

About 20 KB, by Noteduck (talk · contribs)

In May 2021 Springee expressly named a belief that the Cato Institute was an RS, but the SPLC was not, again expressing their selective assessment of sources based on their ideological position. Partisan reverts: some of the sources Springee has removed from pages related to conservative politics because they are "biased", "subjective" or some other feeble reason: the Southern Poverty Law Center,[68][69][70][71][72][73] The New York Times and CNN,[74][75] National Review(!),[76] The Washington Post,[77] Newsweek,[78], The Washington Post and NBC,[79] The Washington Post and Bellingcat[80], Vox and The Daily Beast[81], the Los Angeles Times,[82] The Intercept,[83] the [[BBC],[84] Rolling Stone, Jacobin and Columbia Journalism Review[85], BuzzFeed News,[86] The Guardian(including restoring grammatical errors!)[87], Salon (website),[88] Forbes,[89] the Seattle Times,[90] Reports sans Frontieres,[91] New Republic and NBC News,[92] the Chicago Sun-Times[93] Politico and four other sources,[94] The Independent,[95] Daily Dot,[96][97][98] Reuters and Fox News(!)[99] Middle East Eye,[100] The Huffington Post,[101] Mother Jones,[102] and smaller-scale newspapers like the 8-time Pulitzer Prize winner Kansas City Star,[103][104]Des Moines Register[105] and The Arizona Republic(known for its conservatism!)[106][107] and academic articles[108]. These are almost all going back to November 2020 alone! There are simply too many of them to list, as Springee's pattern of deleting material unflattering to conservatives has become increasingly brazen. Springee also fought a protracted rearguard action to keep a Harvard University study about promotion of climate change denial out of the ExxonMobil page in favor of an article from a fossil fuel lobby group,[109] as well as contesting at length the inclusion of an article from the New York Times on the same article.[110] Concerningly, Springee seems to have a record of whitewashing the pager of powerful climate-change denying groups[111][112][113][114][115] - Wall Street Journal here[116][117] Springee is currently engaged in a rearguard action to minimise the use of material related to climate change denial on the PragerU page.[118] The consistent feature of absolutely every one of Springee's reversions is not evidentiary weight but ideological bent - the material challenged is always something reliably sourced, but arguably unflattering, to a conservative subject. I've provided around 50 diffs as evidence. Here are some accusations of "whitewashing" by other editors levelled towards Springee.[119][120][121][122][123][124] Springee will throw the book at the offending editor in terms of spurious complaints about Wiki policies, frequently launch RfCs in order to contest sources and drag out the process as long as possible. Look back through Springee's edits on Andy Ngo, Douglas Murray (author), and PragerU and you'll see this pattern play out time and time again. The results are horribly whitewashed pages representing powerful, moneyed conservative interests - consider that on the current PragerU page, a flattering paragraph given over to the company's unsuccessful lawsuit against Google has 3 paragraphs and 310 words, while just a single sentence is dedicated to PragerU's well-documented[125][126][127][128][129][130] record of misinformation on climate change. On 15 September 2020, Springee said that they would voluntarily follow a 1RR rule limit.[131] Nonetheless. They repeatedly violated this request - on 28 January 2021,[132][133], 7 March 2021,[134][135] For other contentions of Springee's partisan bias, see[136][137][138] for behavorial problems on pages related to conservative politics[139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148], including a formal sanction in the area of American politics[149] unwarranted deletion of material[150][151][152] especially misbehavior related to guns[153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174]. Multiple overt claims of firearms advocacy[175][176][177][178] and whitewashing pages of firearms[179][180] are particularly concerning. If you go through these diffs, you'll see that unexplained block reverts and stonewalling are particular problems for Springee. It's worth noting that Springee has been accused of abusing the noticeboards and being overly litigious towards other editors before.[181] Note that these diffs are (a) not exhaustive in terms of Springee's record of misconduct and (b) fragmentary, so may not individually be absolutely damning. While my focus here is Springee, it's worth noting that they often operate as a kind of tag-team with others, invariably backing each other up on topics related to conservative politics.[182][183], [184][185], [186],[187],[188] Needless to say, dealing with multiple editors making the same partisan arguments is frustrating. You have made made several comments about purported left-wing bias on Wikipedia.[189] Some of Shinealittlelight's claims about obviously reliable sources are frankly quite bizarre - see this extended (and baffling) complaint about a widely-cited report written by a University of North Carolina professor that was critical of PragerU[190] and this attempt to ensure that the term "white nationalist" would not be used in relation to the Kenosha unrest shooting suspect.[191] PragerU has met the criteria for a "repeat offender" of spreading misinformation on Facebook[192][193] and yet "misinformation" barely appears on the PragerU Wiki page. Remarkably, these editors have alleged poor sourcing on a proposed addition to the header that would mention misinformation that contains more than two dozen sources.[194] Absolutely every addition that it critical of Prager gets ruthlessly purged. UPDATE4: I've perused through the WP:AN noticeboard and Springee appears on a jaw dropping 97(!) different archive pages, usually many times over. Cedar777 and Shadydabs have summed up what the problem is with Springee's editing, over and over: Springee reverts whole blocks of new material on a page related to conservative politics (despite their long history on Wiki, WP:ROWN appears to be unfamiliar to Springee), claims the source is not DUE, claims the source is not an RS, misrepresents the source's contents, and if this all fails Springee then claims there's no consensus, essentially demanding a personal veto S, that's a mischaracterization - I did not "accuse" editors of anything. I reminded editors of policy, namely WP:ROWN - here is the source[195] Noteduck (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Record of Springee's spurious edits and reversions: 2021 [196][197] July 2020: reverts of good sources added to the Andy Ngo page.[198] Reverts of good sources on Tucker Carlson.[199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208][209][210] June-July 2020: reverts of good sources added to the page of conservative historian Victor Davis Hansen.[211][212] June 2020: Andy Ngo [213][214][215], Tucker Carlson[216], Burt Rutan[217]

Proposal 1: Two-Way Interaction Ban

This is another case of two editors who do not like each other. I propose a two-way interaction ban between User:Noteduck and User:Springee with only the usual exceptions. Since they both edit in the area of American politics, this will inconvenience both of them. Antagonism between editors should be inconvenient to both editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I have nothing personally against Noteduck. I do not seek to interact with them. If they agree to AGF I'm happy to do the same. I do not feel my ability to edit articles where I have long been involved should be restricted due to Notrduck's logged uncivil behavior. As North8000 said, I understand AP2 can be confrontational so I take the high road. Springee (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as not the solution to this problem. This isn't about two editors not liking each other. Or rather, it's about more than that. I mean every ANI report involves two or more editors not liking each other. If we handed out IBANs for that, we'd all be IBANed. The problem here is disruption, and disruptive editors should just be removed from the project altogether. Or at least the topic area. We've had enough noticeboard drama about this (by my count: an arbcom request, a DRN, at least one AN, at least one ANI, and that's probably not everything). Either there is a real problem here or someone is really crying wolf. Either way, an IBAN is not the solution. (Also, no one is going to use DRN if the neutral later proposes sanctions against the participants.) For my part, I don't see a case being made yet by anyone for sanctions against anyone else, mostly because there are so many false positive diffs being presented. So if anyone reading this thinks this thread should end with action, I'd suggest posting your best diffs and quotes, and really making a clear and brief argument about what is needed and why. Levivich 16:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - the problem is not Springee or two-way interaction, it is WP:HOUNDING by Noteduck which is a policy vio and it needs immediate attention by an admin. This is unacceptable behavior. Hounding violates the UCoC, Section 3.1 Harassment - it is a very serious behavioral issue, and no editor deserves to be hounded, on or off WP. Atsme 💬 📧 17:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This mis-characterizes the situation. Springee has consistently taken the careful, polite high road. And they came here for relief from hounding. Maybe just a warning to Noteduck regarding the topic at hand would be sufficient to resolve this. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I appreciate Robert McClenon's work on resolving this. However I think the problem is asymmetric here, despite this litigious WP:BOOMERANG by Springee. Again, if allegations of WP:HOUND are being made, specific references to the text of the policy should be made, rather than broad-brush claims. I recommend looking through both mine[218] and Springee's[219] contribution pages and see the contrast between an editor who has added constructively to a broad range of topics, and one with a dogged focus on contesting material on pages related to right-wing politics Noteduck (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Withdraw - I am willing to withdraw this proposal. Will someone else propose something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Re-open and support - Robert McClenon has withdrawn this proposal, but I'd like to repropose it. There is a problem that has to be solved here, and I think this proposal solves it better than any other, and specifically better than any one-sided sanction against Noteduck. Loki (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support The sandbox demonstrates tendentious behavior by Noteduck toward Springee, and an overview of User talk:Noteduck and its edit history shows Springee repeatedly complaining about Noteduck's edits and fighting between the users. Out of 145 edits to this user talk, Noteduck themselves made 46 and Springee made 44, or about 1/3 each of the entire edit history. A third opinion will be needed to determine if either user's edits about Andy Ngo are problematic, which would warrant a topic ban from this BLP or post-1992 American politics more broadly. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 18:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 I'd be happy for an uninvolved party to look at Springee's edits on Andy Ngo, though it needs to be said that these are just part of a much larger pattern of blocking unflattering material on pages related to right-wing politics, particularly through the relentless and protracted contestation of material on talk pages. Note that Springee has made 521 edits on Talk:Andy Ngo (16.64% of ALL edits made to the page)[220] Noteduck (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - the two don't want it, the proposer withdrew it, and the problem is Noteduck, not Springee - there should be no false equivalence here. I say more below. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal #2

Enough has been seen and reviewed to at least raise concern about WP:hounding, WP:Battleground and against-WP:civility behavior by Noteduck particularly with respect to Springee. Noteduck is warned to avoid those types of behaviors. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I would support this or as an alternative I would accept a MfD Noteduck's sandbox with an understanding they may keep the content not related to me. This is a grievance list and a clear violation of POLEMIC. This is especially true since many of the claims are false if anyone actually looks at the diffs in question. Springee (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If you'd like to see it deleted, why don't you nominate it for MfD yourself? –dlthewave ☎ 12:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I considered that but if we decide to MfD here it will be easier to ensure it is completed. Springee (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Looking at the discussion above, I'm not sure there's agreement that Noteduck's actions merit a warning or even meet the criteria for those issues. It may be wise to wait for more input from uninvolved editors, preferably admins, before making further proposals to close. –dlthewave ☎ 12:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support as proposer As the mildest remedy that has a reasonably good chance at resolving the situation. I didn't fully understand Springee's response/post. But they are referring to work there by Noteduck that appears to be aimed at using the system to "get" someone vs. just to solve an issue, would agree that that should be deleted. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support I've had limited access recently and will for a while longer. I think it's clear that Noteduck has been campaigning against me (see the diffs showing them contacting other editors out of the blue and in cases which they weren't previously involved). The POLEMIC list started in Feb is also a problem. Yes, they blanked it but then started it right back up so it never went away and as the collapsed section below shows, it's still very accessible. This list is a serious problem when editors presume it was in any way shape or form reliably collected. In addition to the fact that most examples don't contain context, they also have a lot of just plain wrong claims (saying sources were removed in cases where I was moving blocks of text, saying I violated 1RR when I self reverted then restored to correct my edit note etc). Finally, trying to bring being bipolar into this! Levivich is right, if a this is a problem that results in confrontational behavior then the editor should stay out of confrontational areas. Springee (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment not particularly sensitive Springee. At any rate, Springee seems to want an asymmetric rule that I can't collect material in my sandbox for use in WP:AN complaints. As we've already observed, this is a total double standard. I'll certainly be more mindful about the "timely" requirement of the policy but surely this is an important part of the sandbox function, especially for the sake of transparency about upcoming complaints. One glance at my sandbox reveals that the large majority does not focus on Springee but on my various pet projects to improve Wiki. I just made Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate btw and I'm quite happy with it Noteduck (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no double standard. You have maintained a grievance list since February. That is only allowed if the contents are to be used in a timely fashion which you have not done. It doesn't matter if only 1% of the list is a POLEMIC, 0% is the upper limit. The fact that you deleted the list on June 19 means nothing if you show that you have learned nothing and started a new one. Springee (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess I'm a bit confused here, was Noteduck not supposed to start a new list (as new issues emerged) after deleting the previous one? –dlthewave ☎ 13:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is helpful, but I think that the "timely" part serves to make a distinction between complaints to try to resolve a current problem vs longer term constructions to try to "get" (deprecate or remove) an editor or just do battle with an editor. And the latter is presumably a reason for the polemic rule, particularly against another editor. Perhaps, in addition to the proposed gentle warning, if Noteduck could (you) agree to be extra careful and mindful of these objectives? North8000 (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that is a good distinction. A month is reasonable period of time to collect diffs but if this list is still here mid July it will be a clear POLEMIC and now Noteduck would be clearly warned about the policy. Springee (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

well yes, I can certainly aim to keep material in my sandbox for no more than a month in line with the "timely" language of the policy. The material I gathered was not intended to be part of some aimless, vague polemic but rather the concrete basis for a WP:AN complaint. The sandbox is a convenient place to gather such evidence, which I'm sure is why you've used it for the same reason Springee Noteduck (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee, just observing an example from the last couple of days - I'd work on this pattern of wholesale reverts,[221] especially since other editors have raised concerns about your editing related to right-wing politics. I've reminded you of WP:ROWN multiple times, and with more than a decade of experience I'm sure you know it well too. You correctly note that this material was about Kirk, not TPUSA, so doesn't belong on the latter's page. Why not move this material to the Charlie Kirk (activist) page, or if you think the material does not belong on Kirk's page either, take it the Kirk talk page or the editor in question's talk page? Noteduck (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

If timely is your intent why gave you been collecting grievances for 5 months with no action? I'm glad you are able to recognize that the content I removed from TPUSA does not belong on the page. I'm certainly not obligated to try to make a case for the content to be DUE on another page which is what you are asking me to do. Springee (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee I'm merely recommending that given your experience and your focus on pages related to TPUSA and proximate topics, you could assist less experienced editors. I see you have again reverted the eight word sentence I added to Andy Ngo,[222] though your rebuttals haven't been substantive. You initially referred to WP:OR, and now WP:V, without specifying what part of either policy you are grounding your argument in. I recommend basing any objections to new edits in the specific language of editorial policy rather than a broad-brush rejection Noteduck (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I and several other experienced editors did try to help you early on. Our efforts were met with hostility to the point that an AE was filled against you and you were formally warned. The Ngo material has been reverted by two editors and fails WP:V. The ONUS is on you to correct the problem. That you restored the same content you violated 1RR to add further shows that you didn't take your logged warning to heart. Springee (talk)`

Springee recently launched an action in Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard[223] in relation to my aforementioned short 14-word sentence.[224] They also are waging an ongoing fight on Talk:Andy Ngo to contest this same material.[225] Noteduck.

Mis-characterizations aside, those are good examples of the Wikipedian, polite, and content-focused way to deal with content questions/disputes. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

A gentle piece of advice to Springee btw: I recommend aiming to diversify your interest base beyond right-wing political pages like Andy Ngo ("Springee" gets 600+ hits in the page archives), whoops strike through Charlie Kirk etc. I had it on the brain because of the point about TPUSA above - please don't cherry-pick. As I noted in the earlier dispute in April, based on samples of around ~1000 of your recent edits, at times 95%+ have related to conservative politics-related pages. I've pivoted away and have found creating diverse and original content elsewhere much more satisfying (talk) Noteduck (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting... let's see, how many edits do I have to the Charlie Kirk page... [[226]]. It looks like zero. I'm glad to see you have found other areas to focus on. Hopefully that will mean you no longer need your POLEMIC violating list nor will need to hound me or attack me. That would be great. Springee (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

In response to your edit above[[227]], it is always a good idea to have your facts correct before lobbing criticisms. That is one of the issues with your POLEMIC grievance list. The fact that it violates POLEMIC is another. Springee (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Conditional support - a first time warning is customary for new editors, but in this case, it is overly gracious, especially considering Noteduck's comment just above Springee's which begins with "A gentle piece of advice to Springee", and their noting that 95% of Springee's edits are to conservative politics. Wow - that statement provides some pretty big evidence of HOUNDING. Why should any editor care, other than a POV pusher, if 100% of Springee's edits are to conservative politics? Those are the articles that need attention because of strong POV pushing, and left-leaning news media that dominates the echo chamber, not to mention an issue of noncompliance with RECENTISM and NOTNEWS; all of which means there is typically more work to do on those articles. We leave our biases at login. WP is a collaborative project - we don't "advise" other editors whose views oppose our own, especially veteran editors, where they should or shouldn't edit. Admins are the ones who make that decision when there's proven disruption, and right now the only disruption I'm seeing is coming from Noteduck. I commend Springee for exercising such patience. Atsme 💬 📧 10:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, how do you feel about Springee's similar assessment: Noteduck has made, at the time of this writing, ~185 edits since since receiving a warning on March 25th related to uncivil and problematic AP2 behavior. Of those over 50% have been about me in some capacity, followed by a detailed analysis of Noteduck's edits? Why is it OK for Springee to calculate percentages of where Noteduck has been editing, but when Noteduck does the same thing it's considered hounding? –dlthewave ☎ 05:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Dlthewave - for the sake of brevity, Noteduck's comments are political in nature, whereas Springee is being hounded and is expected to provide evidence of same. Atsme 💬 📧 11:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

As you note I think that a close review of this ANI thread itself says a lot about the situation. I'm not sure if you meant that my proposal #2 was too mild but for better or worse that's sort of how I roll. Perhaps a one way interaction ban would have been a better proposal to give decisive relief to Springee and be a stronger "we really mean it" regarding battleground mentality towards another editor. But the warning remains as the alternative that I support. And Springee themself supported it and so they likely feel that it is sufficient, at least at this "give it a try" stage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of WP:HOUND would proscribe "a gentle piece of advice" or how it displays a battleground mentality. I offered what I see as sound advice based on my experience that it's much more fulfilling to create pages and make extensive original contributions to Wiki rather than have to spend lengthy amounts of time on talk pages, which is where contentious political articles often end up. Springee has certainly aimed to correct perceived errors and issues reminders of policy when they've seen fit, sometimes in quite strident terms, on my talk page (see User talk:Noteduck). I've been distracted and busy working on unrelated projects, but I've wiped the perceived breaches I noted, which made up a small portion of my sandbox, in a good-faith compliance with Springee's request.[228] I hadn't been alerted to the “timely manner” requirement prior to this ANI notice but I'm fine with interpreting it as one month and not leave material for policy complaints in my sandbox for longer than this. This is by no means a repudiation of any of these points. I think that while I don't agree at all with the basis of this WP:ANI notice I've engaged in a constructive and good-faith manner Noteduck (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The first you heard about it? Why didn't you understand the problem when I warned you about POLEMIC on 10 April [[229]] and then again on 25 May [[230]]. It was only on 19 June that a 3rd warning finally resulted in you removing the content. Why did it take two months? Certainly you should have been aware of the timeliness requirement the first time I provided a POLEMIC link in the warning. Springee (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee none of your posts on my page referred to the timely manner requirement. Noteduck (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That makes your failure to remove even worse. The first time I just said it violated POLEMIC. You didn't bother to follow up and check so that's on you. Either way, you were informed. The second time I included this part, "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws.". So you just decided to ignore the whole thing since the only reason to keep such a list would have to fall under the timely exception. If you weren't aware of it, after being told where to look, what more do you want. It's clear you were keeping the list despite knowing it was against user talk page guidelines. Springee (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not the best representation of the facts. Having started to regularly edit Wiki in December 2020, I had of course seen other editors use their sandboxes to assemble ANI complaints and discuss the use of sandboxes for this purpose, and in fact on 10 February I made an enquiry on your talk page about material you were preparing in sandbox for a complaint against me (though it was quickly blanked).[231] You did indeed quote WP:POLEMIC in a post on my talk page on 25 May, specifically the passage warning against Example text For context, the very next sentence of WP:POLEMIC, in the same dot point, reads: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." Why omit this, especially given that your main objection here appears to be related to the timely manner requirement? On 25 June you referred to the specific phrase timely manner in this complaint.[232] It seems unduly to think I deserve sanctions based on not heeding specific points of editorial policy Noteduck (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose As someone who's often edited on American political topics where both Springee and Noteduck were participating I have never seen a dispute between them that I honestly felt was Noteduck's fault to begin with. This is not to say that Noteduck has been a perfect editor, but that I strongly oppose any one-sided sanction against Noteduck. For what it's worth, I would support the interaction ban above or even a one-way interaction ban against Springee: I think that there's a far better case to be made for Springee hounding Noteduck than vice-versa. Loki (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying this because you can think of any actual examples or just because you see this as a tactical move? Noteduck was warned about civility and edit warring at AE. Did other editors (myself included) start those problems? Springee (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing says "battleground mentality" like speculating about "tactical moves". Please, try to assume good faith. –dlthewave ☎ 11:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

struck Springee (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Loki, Springee has given pretty substantial examples of hounding. Perhaps you could give some to support your assertion of hounding by Springee?North8000 (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh certainly. Of the 37 sections on Noteduck's talk page, 11, or roughly a third, are sections started by Springee accusing Noteduck of bad behavior: [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243]. When these accusations have been actually reported to admins, none of them so far have resulted in sanctions for Noteduck more serious than one unenthusiastic warning once. Loki (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

There have only been two trips to the notice board, the AE that resulted in a warning and this one. If you look, many are good faith efforts to help a new editor learn the ropes. Others are for the exact behaviors that resulted in a logged warning. It's unfortunate that you and Dlthewave are condoning vs discouraging such behaviors. Even if you think Noteduck hasn't crossed a sanctionable line why encourage it? Springee (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, that's not hounding. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Loki and dlthewave for helping to set the record straight here. A search for edits made by Springee in my talk page history reveals 44 edits by Springee, or more than 30% of all edits in the page's history.[244] A search of Springee's talk page history shows 13 edits by Noteduck (though all have since been wiped).[245] This is hardly commensurate with the accusation of one-way, targeted WP:HOUNDING. Springee hasn't explained how they arrived at the point that "over 50% of Noteduck's edits since 25 March have been about me 'in some capacity'" [inverted commas mine], which they will need to clarify, and again I invite editors to look at the diversity of the contributions in my edit history[246] and sandbox.[247] Springee's stated desire to avoid interacting with me is hardly commensurate with their recent actions on the Andy Ngo talk page, where they:

• on 18 June Springee pinged me in a subheading I had no prior involvement in,[248] having reverted a not prominent, 14-word short sentence I had added to a body paragraph on Ngo's page[249]
• continued to contest this short sentence at length on Ngo's talk page for close to another two weeks, including repeatedly interacting with me without apparent distress[250]
• on 25 June took this same short sentence to the no original research noticeboard,[251] on the basis that it purportedly failed WP:V requirements, only for other uninvolved editors to quickly affirm my longstanding interpretation of the contested sentence.[252][253].

Given the outcome of the WP:NORN discussion they launched, I hope Springee will be restoring the material. As I've noted above,[254] I did not receive a specific reference to the point about assembling complaints in the sandbox being done in a timely manner from Springee, and would have applied the policy (though its wording doesn't lay out precise instructions for how to adhere to it) as best I could had I known. I'm happy to field any further questions Noteduck (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Why? There is not a consensus of support and there are concerns about weight for such a claim. Springee (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

do you not agree that the counter-arguments have been quite comprehensively refuted? Noteduck (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

A review of this ANI thread alone says much about the situation. Seeking to resolve a situation vs. seeking to deprecate an editor. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support per arguments of above support !votes, and how is this still open and unresolved? Closing with a warning and move on sounds reasonable. I also agree that the "evidence of hounding by Springee" above is not evidence of hounding. Levivich 18:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• Prefer topic ban for Noteduck, support warning if not. Their logged warning from March says they need to abide to policies while editing in the topic area of American politics, and they have not been doing so regarding WP:HOUND and WP:DISRUPTIVE. The time for warnings is past; it is time for more than a slap on the wrist. (Closer: Note that Serial supported a topic ban also right after Springee's opening.) It's not like bans can't be appealed in the future anyway. It is clear from the above, both the evidence and from their own words, that they persistently hound Springee and are WP:NOTHERE to encyclopedically and neutrally portray American politics, but rather, to right great wrongs and portray conservatives as negatively as possible. That is exemplified by their own statement above: A gentle piece of advice to Springee btw: I recommend aiming to diversify your interest base beyond right-wing political pages... Only a POV pusher and hounder would say that. If this is what they say openly at ANI, I can only imagine what these article talk pages (many of them being BLPs!) are like. This crusade is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for; it is the epitome of tendentious editing. A Wikipedia that is nothing but hit pieces on the right will do nothing but preach to the choir on the left, anyway. The topic area in no way benefits from these POV pushers that work their way in occasionally. Whether many editors agree with the POV being pushed is no grounds for leniency. Noteduck themselves states above, I've pivoted away and have found creating diverse and original content elsewhere much more satisfying, so let's help them stay away from this topic area. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose in part due to the vagueness of the proposal; what exactly does a warning to avoid behaviors described by essays we've all seen actually amount to, particularly when the dispute is over who is hounding whom? In my general experience, a significant fraction of what gets described as "hounding" ends up being clashing opinions on areas of shared interest, exacerbated by a kind of passive aggression for which Wikipedia is unluckily fertile ground. I'm not sure that isn't the case here. (For example, on the face of it, "try working in a different topic area for a little while" can actually be darn good advice. I've given it to myself plenty of times. What matters is the tone in which it is said, as it were.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

For better or worse, it was deliberately a soft proposal, including avoiding an explicit finding of hounding behavior while having a good chance of providing the relief that is owed to Springee. Ifr that doesn't work, more concrete explicit findings and direction could be provided at that point.North8000 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Suppose an ANI report had been opened on an editor who was adding labels to pages on figures like, say, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez based on right-wing opinion outlets, telling their opponent to edit pages other than "left-wing" pages and following that editor around, talking about them all the time, and keeping a polemic about them. Would we be seeing the same sort of replies here? I suspect not. They'd probably be indeffed. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support warning only - I think Noteduck is being too combative towards Springee. If this continues, we can move on to IBAN. Hopefully that will not be needed. starship.paint (exalt) 15:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Overview of recent discussions at Talk:Andy Ngo

@Noteduck: Very well then. Looking at the most recent edits on Talk:Andy Ngo, I see that Springee keeps getting into content disputes.

• On 17 May, they disputed whether content added by Cedar777 (talk · contribs) about Don't Shoot Portland was WP:DUE for Andy Ngo. JzG (talk · contribs) stepped in and agreed with Cedar777's addition of the content. It's still in the article.
• On 10 June, you contested the removal of content by Thomas Meng (talk · contribs), which he alleged to be biased and poorly sourced. That's when Springee rebutted your claim, arguing that the BuzzFeed News piece in question is biased and that the statement might have been WP:UNDUE as well. You also contested some commentary by third parties about Thomas Meng (talk · contribs), again insisting that the repeatedly used term opinion is a misnomer in this discussion. The statement cited to the BFN piece is still in the article.
• On that same day, Springee argued with Cedar777 over an edit by Meng that condensed several citations to the same source, per WP:OVERCITE. Then, they mentioned out of the blue that they reverted one of your edits [255] that allegedly misrepresented the sources cited and was undue. Another argument ensues on the talk page, this time a bit longer and with more involved parties. Ultimately, Springee won the dispute.
• A discussion on 17 June about covering a recent attack against Ngo, where Springee was involed. They also challenged an alleged WP:SYNTH addition by SomerIsland (talk · contribs), but then flip-flopped.
• A discussion on 19 June where neither you nor Springee was involved, apart from an aside by the latter about naming references.
• A discussion on 21 June about an ambiguous sentence. Springee definitely had a good point to raise, and there was little or no dispute.
• A discussion began on 30 June about the weasel word widely as used in a statement about RS consensus. You dropped in and changed the word to frequently [256]. This word change was supported by other participants, apart from Springee, before TomReaan90 (talk · contribs) pivoted the discussion to a conversation about Al Jazeera and the Iraq War.
• That was the last discussion involving you, but it looks like subsequent discussions involving Springee are good-faith and they do not fight with anyone else.

In summary, Springee is editing Talk:Andy Ngo a lot because they are heavily involved in good-faith edits and discussions regarding the article. So it's clear that Springee's edits are unproblematic apart from their interactions with you, although I don't have enough evidence to evaluate your edits about Ngo. Maybe someone can evaluate the archives, but I need to go to bed now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to look at my Ngo edits LaundryPizza03. I'd refer to diffs like this one as proof of my commitment to rigorously evaluating evidence on the page.[257] It's necessary to see this all in the context of how Springee fights at length to get flattering sources added to Ngo's page, no matter how feeble.

• For example, take Springee's extended contestation in April in favour of restoring material from "Lacorte News" (apparently an obscure source tied to Fox alum Ken LaCorte).[258] Springee was very lucky to avoid a topic ban later in April after an action brought by User:Dlthewave,[259] brought about after Springee made a protracted attempt in March-April to get material from the deprecated Daily Caller[260] and Daily Signal included on Ngo's page.[261] Although Springee had reverted material from the Daily Signal from Ngo's page in February on the (correct) basis that it wasn't an RS,[262] in March[263] and April[264] they defended Daily Signal's reliability on Ngo while rejecting WP:GREL-listed The Intercept,[265] as well as turning to other weak sources like Daily Wire, The Western Journal, and a celebrity gossip site called "Meaww" to buttress their LaCorte News point.[266] On 25 May there were happy to treat a website called "Katu", and the very non-impartial The College Fix as a reliable account of a BLM protest reported on by Ngo.[267] With sources like these, Springee has been hyper-permissive and emphasized context, while warning against rejecting sources outright.
• Compare this to the scrutiny they have subjected a recent 14-word sentence sourced to Rolling Stone and Jacobin (magazine) to: reverting it on 18 June,[268] extensively challenging it on the Ngo talk page[269] on the frankly, clearly incorrect basis that the Rolling Stone source didn't support the claim in the sentence,[270] opening a WP:NORN discussion on the sentence on 25 June,[271] and after their argument was comprehensively rejected, now maintaining the material is undue.[272] See also these extended challenges (both from April alone) Springee made to The Intercept[273] and Bellingcat, which Springee took to WP:RSN to see their point be quickly rebuffed[274] having contested Bellingcat content since November 2020,[275] plus objecting to a thorough and methodical Buzzfeed News piece in June.[276] Look at the stringency of Springee's evidentiary standards for Bellingcat and Daily Dot[277] compared with some of the above-mentioned obscure (and weak) sources more flattering to Ngo.

Go further back and you see block reverts of the SPLC,[278][279] Daily Beast,[280] Columbia Journalism Review,[281] The Guardian,[282], Salon (magazine) and Rolling Stone,[283][284][285] Washington Post and Los Angeles Times,[286][287][288] Seattle Times,[289], BuzzFeed News[290] Daily Dot,[291], Willamette Week[292] The Oregonian[293], the Los Angeles Times[294] - by no means a complete list. I've repeatedly reminded Springee of WP:ROWN without success. Springee often rejects new edits by invoking BLP, or employs an "injunction": block reverting an edit, starting a talk page discussion, and proceeding to resist any change at length on the talk page, while claiming there's no consensus for change. The clear, repeated pattern is that Springee fights hard to include sources seen to be flattering to Ngo, no matter how feeble, while those perceived as unflattering, even if high quality, are subject to impossibly high standards. I've seen them follow this same edit pattern across a range of political topics, and am happy to provide more diffs on request Noteduck (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

And this is more of the same falsehoods. What you call an "extended fight" was a civil and not long talk page discussion where Springee was on the same side as numerous other editors. The Daily Caller and Daily Signal stuff was dismissed already at AE. Meaww was only mentioned as a left-leaning source and alongside The Oregonian. He's right about Rolling Stone and Jacobin. The former is an entertainment magazine, not a serious news outlet, and does not have any pretenses of objectivity; the latter is openly opinionated and ideological for socialism. He's well within his rights on the rest, since context, due weight, and other policies matter, and discussion and being careful are very important on a WP:BLP. Many of those outlets are also inappropriate for political topics as they are very ideological and/or are not serious mainstream news sources that aim for objectivity, namely the Daily Beast, Salon, Willamette Week, and the Daily Dot. The only problem here is when editors such as yourself push for such glorified group blogs as sources on a BLP and then harass editors who disagree. Time to put a stop to it. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: As shown below, Noteduck revised their comment after I replied; the version I replied to is here. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, I disagree that the Daily Caller/Daily Signal issue was "dismissed" at AE. It was in fact closed with a reminder to Springee to "Please be more careful with unreliable/deprecated sources" along with a RS/verifiability reminder to the only admin who supported his point of view. I share Noteduck's valid concern that Springee has been challenging clearly reliable sources as biased while at the same time promoting sources that are so unreliable that they've been deprecated. Frankly I don't see how a good-faith editor can challenge Jacobin as too biased to use, while pushing for inclusion of a Daily Caller cite. –dlthewave ☎ 19:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"Pushing for inclusion of a Daily Caller cite" is a grossly misleading picture of what happened; the clarification and pushback on your AE report is explained there and I'm not relitigating it. Also, deprecation "is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation", though one wouldn't be able to tell from the constant push to get every right-leaning opinion outlet as de facto banned while left-leaning opinion outlets are mostly marked as green at WP:RSP. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, I recognize your opinion on the matter, but I need to ask you to respect the final outcome of the AE report instead of trying to relitigate. Although several editors (including yourself and one admin, who was admonished for their comments) did disagree, consensus among admins was clear: It was inappropriate to use Daily Caller in that context and Springee was reminded to be more careful with such sources. Unless you can explain how you interpret the outcome differently, I'm going to ask you to strike "The Daily Caller and Daily Signal stuff was dismissed already at AE" and the accusation "Pushing for inclusion of a Daily Caller cite" is a grossly misleading picture of what happened". I also ask that you strike "one wouldn't be able to tell from the constant push to get every right-leaning opinion outlet as de facto banned while left-leaning opinion outlets are mostly marked as green at WP:RSP" as inappropriate off-topic commentary. –dlthewave ☎ 22:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, per WP:REDACT (talk page guideline) please do not edit your comments after other editors have replied. if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. This was mentioned to you early on in this discussion (without a specfic guideline) [[295]]. After being asked the first time you have continued to edit your comments after other editors have replied without proper edit markups (examples [[296]] [[297]][[298]][[299]]). Please follow talk page guidelines going forward. Springee (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee thank you for the useful heads up on WP:REDACT policy. I noticed that you weighed in on a discussion on talk:The Wall Street Journal today,[300] shortly after I entered the same discussion yesterday.[301] While you're of course welcome to do so, this isn't really commensurate with your stated wish to avoid me due to hounding or obstructionism. If my edits no long bother you perhaps make that clear Noteduck (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, in fairness, Springee has actually been involved in discussion on that talk page concerning the WSJ's editorial board from before you even joined the project (diff). El_C 07:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C they did indeed, but Springee's willingness to be involved in a new survey and discussion where I'm present and where we can respond to each others arguments doesn't suggest that they feel uncomfortable or crowded out by my edits. By the way Springee you said in your complaint that "over 50%" of my edits since March 25 have been about you "in some capacity". What do you mean by this exactly and how did you reach that figure? Noteduck (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Responding to the same RfC isn't WP:HOUNDING and wouldn't even be restricted by an WP:IBAN as long as you're not directly responding to each other. I too would be curious about the 50% statistic since some of the initial hounding accusations were also just Noteduck commenting in the same discussions as Springee. –dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

IMO this misleading construction further shows what the situation is and that Springee needs and deserves some relief. Some have in essence said that my "just an oblique warning" proposal #2 is too mild and that is probably true, but this needs to brought to some type of conclusion to provide that relief. If it doesn't work, something stronger can be tried later. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

That Noteduck should be topic-banned from post-1992 American politics, or at least the associated BLPs? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a topic ban would be appropriate unless there's an overall pattern of disruption in the topic area. The accusations we're discussing here seem to be limited to their interactions with Springee. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I was about to say much the same thing. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Responding what the "something" in the "Something stronger can be tried later." would be is a matter of conjecture at this point. But a topic ban is not what came to mind when I wrote that. Certainly even what is on this ANI page itself reinforces the situation. Besides hounding, no editor should have to endure a continuing aggressive onslaught of such things including mis-characterizations. North8000 (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

North8000, your comment would be taken more seriously if you could specific examples of these mischaracterizations and what exactly is problematic about Noteduck's conduct in this discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 21:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Well asserting/implying that nobody takes my careful summary seriously is not a good way to start.North8000 (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

My assessment didn't come from just any one item, it was deriving from an overview of the whole thread here. A part of that overview is that IMO I'd guess that at least 90% of Noteduck's posts here have been trying to deprecate Springee rather than addressing the topic at hand. Regarding specifics, nearly every use of diffs in that type of post had a negative characterization (IMO mis-characterization) of Springee that did not arise from the diff itself. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you point to one diff and explain why it's mischaracterized? I'm starting to suspect that you don't actually have any examples, since I've already asked before with no success. –dlthewave ☎ 12:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Based on limited encounters not going too well, I choose to not deeply engage with you. But one structural note....I identified "mis-characterization" as just IMO. My statement in that area without the "IMO" qualifier was "had a negative characterization....of Springee that did not arise from the diff itself." You (or anybody) should feel free to reject or accept my assessment, or to skim this thread to assess whether or not they think that assessment is correct or incorrect. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

IP Sock

(Please note that my post below was moved here and the heading created by Dlthewave. While I noted the sock/evade basis for removal by someone else of the post, I am not knowledgeable enough of that IP situation to have identified it with this title) North8000 (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

There have been posts entered by 69.156.107.94 which have been removed per evade/ sock of blocked. The is IP has a history less than1 1/2 weeks old and ~90% those posts have been on this thread attempting to deprecate Springee. Springee is a polite, policy-conscious editor who has been subjected to far too much of this stuff from a few individuals. This type of abuse of editors must be stopped! The have asked for relief from the most egregious portion of that. I proposed an action which is probably too mild but something must be done! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

For that IP address, a lifetime of 6 edits, the first fixing a typo in July 2021, and then 5 of the 6 were all on this page in the last 2 days attempting to deprecate Springee.North8000 (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I've moved this to its own subsection since the IP comments are a separate issue the won't be helped by warning/sanctioning Noteduck. It looks like Awilley is handling the situation and has been notified. –dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was too slow on the draw. The sock was blocked via SPI. ~Awilley (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

MordvinEvgen and sex difference information

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

---

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

MordvinEvgen traverses sex difference pages and closely related pages to synthesize and bias information. He adds sentences that shouldn't be found in a children's book, let alone an encyclopedia. For example, in the empathy article, he said "and the correlation of the chromosome with only the female sex is controversial, which is contrary to common sense."[302]

He's gotten multiple warning about the way he edits.[303] People have told him to stop adding his own analysis and conclusions to articles and to leave primary research behind him, but he continues.

Here are some recent challenges to his edits.[304][305][306]

When I said to him today that he should stop, he said he will continue. He severely insulted me and threatened me, saying, "YOU also don't publish the meta-analysis effect sizes, which is a dumb publishing method. You don't even have enough brains to open meta-analysis and arrange everything humanly. I said your edits will be removed in the future. If you think you will stop me, good luck..."[307] He put emphasis on "WILL."[308] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBFEE (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I have added userlinks to the top of this report. Hopefully both parties will try to avoid WP:Personal attacks such as 'don't have enough brains'. Since GBFEE's account was just created today (June 30) I hope they are aware that Wikipedia has procedures for resolving disputes. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I think procedures for resolving disputes with MordvinEvgen are bound for failure unless he doesn't rail against the Wikipedia "system" (his words) when it doesn't work the way he wants it to. He says I don't know science.[309] Someone should tell him good science isn't what he does. If it was, his edits wouldn't keep getting removed for synthesizing the research and less than optimal sourcing, and he wouldn't keep getting warnings about them. He says I'm removing stuff I don't like, but I encourage people to look at his edits, many of which have been challenged by editors because he cuts what he doesn't like and inserts his commentary or own framing of the research. Multiple complaints from others about his edits are in the page histories. He's complained that I said he uses his personal commentary. He does. None of the sources say anything like "contrary to common sense"[310] or "It should be noted right away that the differences found in the brain do not necessarily mean differences in cognitive parameters." or "However, it is worth noting that evolutionary theories rarely reflect the true nature of the differences."[311]

He says he plans to modify all of my edits. If he does, more of the same will come from him. He doesn't care for secondary and tertiary sources. Look at his newest complaint about tertiary sources, Wikipedia's unwillingness to give primary sources the same mouthpiece, and thoughts about me.[312] He calls me his opponent and an "it", and says he "can give a lot of examples of the failure of both your system" and my behavior. Does this sound like a person willing to listen and defer to the reviews of topics? He hasn't listened for three months! So what is the appropriate course of action for anyone to take regarding this editor if it's not to report him here? GBFEE (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Mordvin clearly has a lot of knowledge about some life science topics, but since his debut 32 days ago, he either hasn't quite assimilated some basic principles of verifiability and sourcing, or doesn't agree with them; likewise for some behavioral guidelines with respect to collaboration and civility. Most recently, as GBFEE pointed out in the OP, Mordvin has been mixing it up at Sex differences in psychology, in this case, with Crossroads. I don't expect all new editors to be on board and comfortable with WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDRS within a month, but Mordvin has locked horns with various editors a number of times already on these points, and is way too smart to claim ignorance. C'mon, Mordvin; you can be a great editor; just a wee dash of humility, a willingness to learn the particular environment of Wikipedia, and collaborate with other editors, and you will be. It's easier to develop good habits while you're still relatively new here. It's best to avoid doing things that motivate other editors to want to spend their free time scrutinizing your activities and bringing them here to this board. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Good, someone opened a report on this user. I wasn't even aware of how widespread the problems were, but was considering opening a report if the issues continued. Admins need to take seriously what GBFEE says above. Here MordvinEvgen claims they were "adding more secondary sources and removing the primary ones"; in fact they did the opposite. After I reverted them, they made these edits, with unsourced original research and editorializing like "it is clear that stereotypes, expectations, and other social parameters can qualitatively influence...learning disabilities"; they also, for example, added a whole paragraph at the bottom using primary sources to argue against secondary ones, which is clearly against WP:MEDRS. At User talk:MordvinEvgen, you can see they have been told to not do this sort of thing for months. You can also see there from their arguments that they seem to give excessive weight to their own POV and edit based on their own ideas or findings. WP:Competence is required; this user should not be editing this topic area if they're going to keep adding primary sources and arguing on that basis. Pre-existing primary sources (that are not merely being cited alongside secondary sources) don't need to stay; but secondary academic sources (books and review articles) carry far more WP:WEIGHT than individual studies, of which there are many and which can easily be cherry-picked. They also should be more honest in their edit summaries and avoid personal attacks. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm allowed to link to his IP address here, but he made an edit as an IP address a few hours ago and I reverted him a few minutes ago because the tiny piece he removed is in one of the resources. I think he's waiting for this thread to end, and then he'll go back to doing what he does. GBFEE (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• I had a look at User_talk:MordvinEvgen and some recent diffs. They show a serious problem but I'm not sure there is quite enough to warrant action now. I can't see a short block as solving anything so the choices are site ban (unlikely from what I've seen), indefinite block by courageous admin (possible), or continue as normal. Assuming the result is continue, feel free to notify me if problems persist and I'll see if an indefinite block is justified. @MordvinEvgen: You must not "balance" review sources with your own analysis. You might be correct or you might not: that is not the issue. The problem is that at Wikipedia such original research is not permitted because there is no end to it and no way for other editors to assess the situation (what if X adds a point and Y removes it: such a situation cannot be resolved without an objective secondary source as there is no editorial committee at Wikipedia). Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Recommend closing this thread with no action per the advice of User:Johnuniq. It is my guess that an individual admin will feel able to take action if User:MordvinEvgen returns to Wikipedia and continues to add their own original research to articles about sex differences. Any more personal attacks from MordvinEvgen such as 'don't have enough brains' or any more threats of edit warring might also be enough for a block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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

He said he will create thousands of accounts, and then he changed his name

I know this thread has closed, so please excuse me, but I'm reporting this for admins here.

The editor responded, and it's not pretty. He went on the attack again, flipped off the Wikipedia process without pulling out his middle finger, and said, "Threats regarding blocking do not concern me. There is nothing complicated in registering a new account. ... While I'm leaving the activity, I'm disappointed with the flawed rules of Wikipedia and editors, but if I suddenly have a desire, then I'll come back, and at least block it. I will create thousands of accounts. There is no difficulty in this."[313]. Hours afterward, his name was changed to EvgFakka.[314] I don't think his reason for changing his name is innocent. Maybe he doesn't know we can still see his past edits. All things considered, I got a thanks from him on my account for an edit I made.[315] I think he was mostly thanking me for the edit right before that one. So maybe there's hope yet. I'll understand if this subsection is also closed without action because (aside from his reply today) he hasn't acted inappropriately again yet. Thank you for your consideration. GBFEE (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts' mass-creation

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

---

Hello. Today, I stumbled upon User:Lugnuts and found that they are back to their old ways again - creating one or two-line stubs, using database entries as sources even for living people's birth date which is a serious breach of WP:BLP.

Recently, community decided to remove their autopatrolled rights and allowed them to edit and create articles without any restriction based on promise that they will research-well and will follow WP:RS strictly. But, here we are again, they are creating permastubs within span of two minutes and (Redacted)

Now, they are also prolific contributor and their edits are more than 1M and we need more of them. What I suggest now to is give them a rest on article creation (Redacted)and can continue editing articles as they are doing. That will help them to break their habits and may help them to mend their ways.

Lastly, we don't want to loose them either, so article creation restriction is required now as we have already given them a chance. Hope they will cope up with this and will abide by community's advice this time around. Thanks. 95.145.220.124 (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Database sources such as Olympedia are reliable sources so perfectly valid for dates of birth- no evidence has been given to the contrary, and if you want to debate this, it should be done at WP:RSN, not by starting an ANI thread about an editor. And not all of these are permastubs- I'm sure most of them could be expanded at some point in the future, and I have historically expanded many articles created as stubs by Lugnuts, which demonstrated my point. Stubs are valid articles, they're just articles that have yet to be expanded. Also, please refrain from making assertions about other users- saying they have OCD is not appropriate, and may be considered a personal attack. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

IP: I have redacted the parts of your complaint where you make comments about another editor's mental health, and where you claim knowledge of another editor's motivations. Please do not make such comments again, particularly with regards to other editors' mental health.

Have you taken any steps to discuss the particular concerns about these sources anywhere? For example by asking Lugnuts whether he is confident that the sources are reliable, or raising a query at WP:RSN? He might have responded well to a good faith request that he stop creating them while the sources were discussed. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

All the ANI thread stated was the removal of the auto-patrolled right, which happened, and no other restrictions. Since then every single article I've created has been patrolled by another user. Here's a list of the most prolific in that area. In that three months, each page has been flagged as patrolled, with no issues of concern raised (that I can recall). Maybe the IP would like to question those other users to find any issues, or indeed how they know so much about this specific issue for a new user. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm still on a Wikibreak but noticed this and felt it was important enough for a quick comment. User:Joseph2302 is quite wrong and should not touch any WP:BLP until they re-familiarise themselves with policy. Nor should Lugnuts assuming the IP's summation is accurate. Database sources, even if they are WP:RS cannot reasonably be considered "widely published" and are generally not "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". They should not be used as the sole source for a date of birth. If there are no better sources, the content stays out of BLPs. It does not matter how confident editors are that the information is correct. The whole point of BLP policy on this matter is that we need to go beyond the information simply being correct. Whatever else Lugnuts may or may not be up to, if they are indeed violating BLP and they refuse to self-correct, they need to be topic banned. N.B. because I will be logging out straight after, I will point BLPN to this discussion. Nil Einne (talk)

By all means start a discussion at WP:RSN or WP:BLPN about this, but don't threaten me by telling me that I don't understand WP:BLP. I understand it perfectly well, and will not be adhering to your threat that I must stop editing BLPs simply because you disagree on one source. I consider the above a threat and a personal attack on my competency as an editor. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

My view is that database entries about non-notable sportspeople should be presented not as biographies (which they aren't), but as list entries. Reyk _YO! 09:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

No comment on Lugnuts, but I will say it is not appropriate to log out of your account to make a complaint against an editor. It should be done through your primary account. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

A BLP discussion has been started at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Possible BLPDOB problem- this should smooth out the BLP-related issues. Though I still question the conduct of an IP whose first edit is a personal attack, and another editor who demands that I must not edit BLPs simply because I disagree with them about the reliability of one source. Both of those things need admin consideration, the sourcing doesn't (as it needs the WP:BLPN discussion). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If that is their first edit then I am a unicorn. This is ax grinding while evading scrutiny plain and simple. I have already given them a warning and will follow through on it if they continue. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this underhandedness does detract from what is otherwise a legitimate concern. That and the ad hominems. Reyk _YO! 12:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have any BLP issues, but I do have notability issues. Lugnuts created stubs for a bunch of Venezuelan softball players from the 2008 Olympics, but on the team lineups I can find from that event, some of them do not appear. I'm pretty sure that being a non-playing squad member of an Olympic team is not notability, especially if one can find nothing else out about them. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite. I've just double-checked all those, and they did all take part (at the Olympics) at some stage. For example, Bheiglys Mujica's bio states Competed in Olympic Games. Compare with Kristen Karanzias of Greece who is listed as a non-starter, and doesn't have a wiki-article. Also, most if not all of the Venezuelan team won medals at other multi-national tournaments, such as the Pan-Am Games. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Good stuff. I couldn't find team line-ups for all the games, so I'm guessing that they appeared in the ones I couldn't find. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• OK, I registered an account. What about Máximo Ramírez, BLP DOB sourced with worldfootball.net. There are countless such problematic bios created recently. John Dirksen (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• John Dirksen Are you going to ignore the fact that your "first" edit was to raise this ANI thread? Clearly you've had other accounts that you're not being honest about.... Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • To be fair, it's possible that John has been a dynamic IP editor in the past and really hasn't created an account before. Have people forgotten that IPs are very dynamic, and there are a good number of long time IP editors?Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• The date of birth of footballers do tend to be the subject of reliable sources given the enormous interest in the sport, for example, in the U.K, The PFA Premier & Football League players' records 1946-2015 contains thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of dates of birth of people who have played in the Football League and Premier League. Now, I don’t know whether worldfootball.net is a reliable source (I note it is published by Heim:Spiel, a company that specialises in sport data) but that’s a discussion, I think, for WT:FOOTY and WP:RSN, not here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

References

• Just noting that I also have concerns about including DOBs on BLPs that are sourced to a single database as WP:BLPDOB requires DOBs to be "widely published by reliable sources". The BLP policy for DOBs is about a privacy concern, rather than merely an issue of verifiability or reliability ("the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified"). As I also stated on the BLPN thread, this concern should be even more important if the articles are about relatively non-notable individuals. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• FWIW, if the implied anomaly here is Lugnuts “mass creating stubs” Whilst I haven’t bothered to read every entry here, I do want to address the OP specifically, first off, please login into your main account if anyone is to take you seriously, secondly, The “mass creation of stubs on the part of Lugnuts meet WP:PSA, so that’s a non issue. AFAIK, Lugnuts has a decent knowledge of what is contained in WP:RS and possess the knowledge of how to optimize them, if you are not in agreement with the sources used to back up a DOB in a given article, you are more than welcome to remove the DOB and initiate a dialogue with Lugnuts on the tp of the given article where a consensus should be made, only if that fails is ANI and it’s worthless drama be initiated. Celestina007 (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• I am about to go on a week-long Wikibreak, but I thought I'd pop in before I do so. I think people complaining may have a point when they claim that the inclusion of birthdates for slightly notable individuals violates WP:BLP. However, I am not sure because the databases themselves may be getting the information from a wide range of sources. More discussion is needed. I oppose any further sanctions to one of our most active article creators of all time. These "WP:BLP violations" (if they are) are much milder than a lot of other ones on stubs. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Lugnuts should be banned from creating new articles. He has over and over again shown a complete disregard for the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• I am troubled by the mass-creation of bio stub articles reliant entirely on sports-reference.com and cricinfo.com (or similar low-quality database sources), and oppose it as I don't think passing mentions in databases are sufficient to establish notability, but the basic fact is that (unlike the GEO community) the sports bio articles community just haven't decided yet to tighten up on this. Reviewing Lugnuts' more recent articles I can see some evidence of mass-creation, e.g.,:

• On 12 July, 22 articles created in 58 minutes (11:50 - 12:48). One article every ~130 seconds.
• On 11 July, 36 articles created in 54 minutes (17:29 - 18:23). One article every ~93 seconds.

But I suppose it could be said that many of these are redirects. I think ANI was not the place to bring this, though a general reminder that editors are expected to edit carefully, that mass-creation of articles (even by WP:MEATBOT techniques) is to be avoided without first seeking consensus to create, would not go amiss. FOARP (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Databases, even when reliable, do not contribute to notability, and the previous ANI close mentioned that Lugnuts' mass creations are problematic because they place a burden on other editors to review them for notability. It is clear that removing Autopatrol has not resolved the issue, since these stubs with no assertion of notability are still passing NPP, so it may be time for an article creation ban. –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

They all have an assetion of notability, hence their creation. The removal of the auto-patrol right was so the wider community could look at my article creations. I've already linked to a list of editors that do the bulk of the patroling. To my knowledge, they have found nothing amiss. Nothing has slipped through the NPP process, so are they doing a bad job? Lets ask them: @Celestina007, Elli, Girth Summit, Govvy, Joseywales1961, John B123, Jupitus Smart, and Onel5969:. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, picking one at random, what makes Clara Vázquez notable? I only see two database sources which would not be considered significant coverage per WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 19:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

All Lugnuts's recent articles I've reviewed at NPP have met WP:NOLYMPICS. Not sure where stubs with no assertion of notability are still passing NPP is coming from? If they are that unhappy with the efforts of NP Patrollers perhaps they'd like to take over and show us how it should be done? I agree with the various other editors above that ANI isn't the place for this discussion. --John B123 (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the mention and my first (and only I hope) visit to ANI. I have reviewed quite a few football (soccer) stubs created by Lugnuts over the past few months, I would say each of these would survive AfD (I would vote keep at any rate), they all related to players who have played for national teams mostly in the South American Copa America competition in earlier years. Each article has a talk page (with project biographies, football and the country), a stub mark, a short description, plenty of relevant categories and at least 2 sources i.e. perfectly formed stub articles for notable international footballers who up to now were without articles. JW 1961 ^Talk 19:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• First, I think the standard should be to hold Lugnuts to the same standard we hold any editor to. Keeping that in mind, I see hundreds of these types of stubs every month, from a plethora of editors, and they all get marked "reviewed", based on the history of prodding them, or taking them to AfD and having them kept. I've taken articles (which I've marked for improvement, and have gone month(s) without seeing any improvement) with a single ref to Soccerway, get kept at AfD. I agree that I don't think this is an ANI issue. Appears to be a non-issue at this point. Regarding the above question (and I'm not the editor who reviewed it) on Clara Vázquez, WP:NOLYMPICS would apply. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Onel and John B123, I do appreciate the work that is done at NPP and am not trying to discredit in any way. My concern is that WP:NSPORTS (which encompasses WP:NOLYMPICS) does not replace GNG; it is merely a guide to help determine whether significant coverage is likely to exist. Quoting the FAQ at the top: Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. It's concerning to see mass article creation based on the likely existence of significant coverage, with no effort to actually find that coverage or prove that it exists.

I do realize that there's a disconnect between our notability guidelines, which require that articles demonstrate significant coverage, and common practice at NPP/AfD, which often allow articles with no proof of notability. It seems that these decisions are not always made according to the relevant guideline. –dlthewave ☎ 20:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: there's de jure policy, and there's de facto policy. The de facto standard is, as you say, that a presumption of notability is notability (though it can in some rare cases be refuted). Expecting random NPPs to deviate from that for a particular editor isn't really fair - changing this view would probably require a large and somewhat messy RfC. Feel free to go ahead with that - but I'm not sure it would be likely to succeed. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. I think the operative word here is eventually. That would infer that at the time of creation meeting WP:NSPORTS is sufficient. Also from WP:ARTN: if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. The question here seems to be are https://www.olympedia.org/ and https://olympics.com/ reliable sources. That's not a matter for ANI.

In an ideal world all articles would be perfectly referenced (amongst other things}. In the real world things are different. Looking at the articles that come through NPP, especially from a few other multiple stub creators, Lugnut's articles are not the ones that cause concern. --John B123 (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the mention, Lugnuts. While I somewhat disagree with our loose SNGs here - that's what we have - and the articles of yours that I have seen in NPP haven't run afoul of them. The proper way for unsatisfied editors to deal with this is an RfC, not taking action against individual editors. I do think not having auto-patrolled is reasonable here - since your articles are generally pretty easy to review, there's not too much of a load on the NPP system. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think my workload on new page patrol warrants much input here, however from my experience of Lugnuts contributions, I have seen a lot, but I am not sure I would call it overkill. Every so often I've double checked sources, most of the time I feel they are perfectly valid contributions to wikipedia. I really don't see the point for this ANI and feel that posting from an IP is a red-flag indicator. Govvy (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: the issue as it was last time is that he was creating some stubs with unreliable sources, and no one noticed until he had created hundreds of them. NPP allows us to make sure that doesn't become an issue before anyone wastes a lot of time. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Placeholder I have something I want to say here, but it's non-trivial and I have to check a few things, and won't have time until tomorrow. Please don't block/ban anyone hastily! Girth Summit _(blether) 21:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• AFAIK, notability has never necessarily being the problem but the “mass creation” of articles which apparently irate/vexes some persons. I stand to be corrected, but I have seen somewhere editors are encouraged to “create something! or anything! I think it’s somewhere in WP:STUB as earlier stated all stubs made by Lugnuts meet WP:PSA, honestly this is getting rather tiring. Oh and yeah, I’m seconding Govvy. Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Olympic athletes are presumed notable per WP:NOLY, so anyone citing Lugnuts' Olympic stubs as a reason to ban him from creating articles has no policy to back them up. I have also seen him create articles for athletes who competed on national football teams. I am not aware of the relevant guideline, but I am fairly certain that they are presumed notable too, provided that they actually competed. If Lugnuts' articles were truly problematic, a reviewer would have told him. I create similar stubs For the record, I thought the revoking of his Autopatrolled right was justified for mass-citing an unreliable source. However, all subsequent articles have been problem-free. I do not see any need for an article creation ban, or even an AFC restriction. Honestly, this situation sounds like a pitifully desperate attempt to sanction someone. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment We have never definitively decided whether meeting the sports SNG is sufficient, or whether both it and the GNG must be met, or whether sportspeople are notable who do not meet the SNG but do manage to meet the GNG. We have certainly many of us made very definite statements about which of these three possibiltles is correct, but there's never been a firm consensus holding over multiple years (and, if I'm any example, I've had different views on this over time just looking at my own comments) The only actual policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and the statement in the GNG that it does not cover all cases. This is WP, where we make the rules and the exceptions, and the only operational meaning of notability is whether it passes an afd--and since repeated afds can give different results, there is apparently no stable operational meaning of notability, nor, as long as we keep to our current ways of decision, is there ever likely to be. In some specialized fields there has been consistent practice, but sports interests so many people that full agreement here is unlikely. Ihave nothing to suggest except a compromise on the underused practice of combination articles (not mere lists, which I think often fail NOT DIRECTORY). DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Every time this matter is discussed at the sports notability guideline talk page or the notability talk page, there has been consensus, and it is documented on the sports notability page: the sports notability guidelines do not set either a lower or higher bar for having an article. The sports notability guidelines consist of rules of thumb that the subject is likely to meet the general notability guideline. Editors can choose to rebut this presumption, though, and illustrate that based on their research, the subject does not meet English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. However, what happens in individual articles for deletion discussions can vary, depending on what specific arguments are made by the participants, since Wikipedia's guidance on rough consensus doesn't say that arguments counter to guidelines can be discounted. isaacl (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (as promised above). I'll be frank: I don't like the way that Lugnuts creates articles. I think that articles should have solid, prose-based sourcing, and content that provides more information than can be presented in a table. If all you have is a nationality, birth dates, the name of a sport and the dates when someone competed in the Olympics or played for a particular team, it seems to me that we serve our readers better by presenting that information in a table or list somewhere. However, that is just my personal opinion - it doesn't have consensus behind it, and I have no right to impose it on other people. I have criticised Lugnuts in the past for creating articles based on sources that require the reader to infer the existence of the subject; that has not been a problem with any of his recent creations, which all use sources which are explicitly about his subjects, all of whom appear to pass the relevant SNG. Whether or not I like that kind of article is not something I consider when reviewing them. The community has not formed a clear consensus to the effect that this sort of article is unacceptable, and lots of editors create them. Yes, Lugnuts is unusually prolific, but I see that as a good thing: his creations in this area are better than a lot of the stuff you see at NPP in terms of the quality of prose, formatting of citations etc. If we are going to host articles of this nature, he should be allowed to write them, because he does a good job of it. In short: people should get off his back. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that perspective, Girth Summit (and others). I won't push any harder for an article creation ban since these stub creations are common practice and don't contain misinformation like the geostubs did. It really is interesting to see the diverse interpretations of policy/practice even within this discussion. If I recall, many of the relevant RfCs had a significant number of !votes from people who didn't think a change was necessary because these stubs fail GNG (to which NSPORTS is subordinate) and we just need to enforce what we have. But when we ask for enforcement, we're told to get the guidelines changed first. As others pointed out, in the end it's probably best to change the guidelines/practices/whatever instead of targeting individuals. –dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

dlthewave - TBH I don't think this will change until we have a case where tens of thousands of sports bio stub articles have been mass-created using a sports-reference.com style database that turns out to be demonstrable garbage, just like with GNIS/GEONET/etc. for Geo articles. It's only where we can show a massive problem that we can get the attention of uninvolved editors and build a consensus to stop doing this. Otherwise we're stuck in a discussion with the self-same people who are creating these database-sourced bio stubs and who naturally don't see any problem with what they're doing. FOARP (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Just to note that a number of RFCs have been raised and basically not reached any conclusion on the validity of the kind of one-sentence Sport bio articles that Lugnuts often creates. Unless and until that changes there really isn't anything that can be done about this. ANI is obviously not the right place for this discussion. This is unlike the situation for Geostubs, where consensus does seem to have shifted against articles containing solely statistical data copied from databases (see especially the recent cases involving GNIS, the Iranian census, Turkish Mahalles, and GEONET) that are essentially the same as bot-created articles. NPP monitoring of Lugnuts' output in view of the still-recent Turkish village case remains necessary in my view, but again, this is not a matter for ANI. FOARP (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural Close While I have seen good contributions from IP editors that improve the encyclopedia, submitting this while logged out is bizarre and I've accidentally done that before too but the fact that it hasn't been re-signed is telling. I've seen many positive contributions from Lugnuts and this sounds more of an issue for squaring WP:BLP with WP:NOLYMPICS, rather than an ANI issue. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Just saw the comments further up that an account was created. I'm remain concerned about the source here though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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

User Nkemonwudiwe Nothere and Coi Editing

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

• In the last 11 years the editor Nkemonwudiwe has violated our policy on image copyright over and over again, see [316] [317] [318] to mention a few, simultaneously and more worrisome for me is their edit pattern, which is consistent with the edit pattern of editors engaged in less than ethical practices which comprise of creating promotional articles for non notable persons or articles they have a COI with, see this article. A quick glance at their talk page, see here tells the story. I do not know exactly what should be done thus I’m bringing this before the community. Today they created a very promotional article yet again see [319]. Celestina007 (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  I changed all the links in your post to wikilinks, as they go directly to pages in the mobile version. I just A7'd another new article, PROdded an unused file of a person without an article, and FfD'd a file almost identical to a subsequent upload. Jane Michael Ekanem was previously deleted by AfD in 2015. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03, thank you, editing via mobile can be tough. The assistance is appreciated. Celestina007 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

They have had ample time to respond but have chosen no to, which is indicative of the obvious, thus I’m Proposing an indef block on Nkemonwudiwe as WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and using Wikipedia for promotional purposes

• Support — As proposer. Celestina007 (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment There has been some time ("ample" is a subjective adjective in this case), true, but the user has not edited at all in the past ten days, let alone in the four days since this ANI was opened; i hardly think the need exists to rush to a conclusion in that way, especially as small bursts of editing with large gaps in between is typically the pattern of contributions. If we block, it will have the appearance of coming out of nowhere, which i don't believe is particularly helpful. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 16:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User: Johnpacklambert emptying categories prematurely; edit warring

User:Johnpacklambert has nominated dozens of categories for deletion and merge. Before the nominations are closed, has started emptying some of them without any notice. When challenged, he refused to honour WP:BRD.

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 18#1431 establishments in Ukraine: he removed Derazhnia[320] and Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine[321] from the category, reverted my revert,[322], and then at talk:Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine#Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine, simply refused to respect the normal (academic, political, and Wikipedia) practice of treating earliest mention as the date of foundation.
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 18#Establishments in Ukraine when most of Ukraine was under the Russian Empire (33 categories): removed articles
  • Lviv National Agrarian University[323]
  • Trinity Monastery of St. Jonas[324]
  • Odessa University[325]
  • Grekov Odessa Art School[326]
  • Odessa Military Academy[327]
  • Beskydy Tunnel[328]
  • Perechyn Timber-and-Chemical combine[329]
  • Port of Skadovsk[330]
  • Odessa Art Museum[331]

There is no reason to remove these articles from the nominated categories during the merge discussion. If the proposal is accepted, then they would be removed as a matter of course. But if it is rejected, then these categories have been wrongfully removed. In my opinion he is doing so to stack the merge proposal by making it look like these categories are empty and unneeded. Perhaps he is also so sure that his rationale about the definition of “establishment” is the only possible correct view that he doesn’t need to wait for consensus to proceed.

In several of his nominations I have provided alternative valid rationales for inclusion of places in “establishment by country” categories, and on his talk page (User talk:Johnpacklambert#Historical categories by period) suggested that a central discussion is needed to establish a guideline for these scores or hundreds of changes, but he has refused to accept my arguments, and refused to start a broader discussion on the category framework.

As remedy, I suggest he revert all of his category changes under all of his nominations, including ones I may not have found, and make a note of this in each relevant discussion. The category discussions should remain open for a reasonable period afterwards. Perhaps discussion participants should be notified. —Michael Z. 23:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The relevant categories fall under discretionary sanctions per WP:AC/DS (Eastern Europe), and the user has been alerted.[332] —Michael Z. 23:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I was reading the discussion as it developed. From what I could tell Mzajsc and few othwr people repeatedly copy and pasted the same (or extremely similar) bad faithed acusations that the whole thing was (is) due to imperalism/colonialism, instead of engaging the counter points other people (not just JPL) were making. So I highly doubt any resonable admin would close the duscussions in Mzajac's direction.

Also, at one point JPL said someone (not him) had emptied out one of the catogries. So there should really be more of an investigation into who actually did what before the finger pointing/reverting takes place. Especially if he was just "following the crowd." Not that I think something being removed from a category matters that much during a discussion though. Who ever did it. Just like AfDs don't suddenly become invalid or are people normally chastized (let alone reported to ANI) if someone edits an article during one. Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1: without comment on the detail of this case, I'd note that this seems more akin to someone blanking an article undergoing AfD, that would probably be viewed as rather more problematic. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the case, going by what Liz said it sounds like there is precedent to remove links from categories that are going through a CfD. There's zero precedent to blank pages that are going through AfD. That doesn't mean I personally agree that the links should be removed, but I don't think it's worth sanctioning JPL over since it's already going on either. There should really be a broader discussion about it at WT:CFD instead. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to ask JPL to undo his revert-revert? Or am I just wasting everyone’s time at ANI when I could just push him to 3RR? Asking sincerely, since I tried to follow the advice at WP:WAR by coming here. —Michael Z. 02:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1: That is false. Please back up your accusation with evidence, if you expect anyone to take it as in good faith. —Michael Z. 16:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's a massive hassle to provide diffs when phone editing. Especially when they would be in the double digits. That said, the first thing I saw when I opened the link at the top of this complaint was Place Clichy saying "Oppose per Mzajac. In the age of imperialism, which is also the golden age of nationalism...Etc..Etc.." Which they copied and pasted like 9 times, without ever responding to anything JPL was saying. You also opposed the whole thing because "It is eliminating national and social history in favour of colonialism." Plus "it represents an extremely dated colonial WP:POV and WP:BIAS against the national histories of nations." So claims of imperialism, nationalism, and colonialism were being tossed around a lot and at the expensive of actually engaging in the discussion. Especially with Place Clichy. That was just from a quick glance to. I'm sure there's more, but that's all I feel like contributing. BTW, I wasn't saying that it's a problem that or Place Clichy brought those things up, just that doing so was/is extremely unlikely to result in the categories being kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not make bad-faith accusations. So someone else copy-pasted their own comment? I did not do that either (although it doesn’t seem unreasonable when several independent CFDs come off a production line making the same argument). Yes, there are historical (historiographical) views that are represented in current reliable sources, and others that come from the nineteenth century and Wikipedia should absolutely not uphold. —Michael Z. 02:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I copied and pasted your comments. They are bad faithed IMO because a CfD isn't the place to litigate wider historical (historiographical) views. Just like an AfD related to an ethnic minority isn't the place to discuss race relations in America. It's never productive. Also, since JPL was the one that initiated them, by claiming they have anything to do with imperalism/colonialism your associating him with those things. Even if you didn't directly say he was being imperialist. I'm not saying you know that or were intentionally trying to to derail the CfD discussion, just that it wasn't fair to JPL or other people to make the discussion about that. Especially at the cost of discussing the CfDs more directly. That's just my opinion though. It's more feedback on how to be more effective next time then anything else. Which your free to take or leave. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It’s my point that CFD is the wrong place. But JPL brought it to CFD when he decided to restructure dozens of categories to conform to his view, a change from the existing consensus that had interpreted categories “by country” broadly and variously. JPL declined to start the necessary conversation beforehand, and refused to consider it when I and others pointed out its necessity. He further committed to it by editing affected articles before his CFDs were concluded, and in fact after it was becoming clear that his view is not the consensus (you can read him complaining about opposition on his talk page). The result is likely to be a large random selection of categories changed out of thousands, and the issue no closer to a consensus or even a discussion. —Michael Z. 13:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Your really not making any sense. If CfD was the wrong place to discuss colonialism/imperialism then why did you discuss them there? Also, your saying he should have started the necessary conversations when he literally took the categories to "Categories for Discussion." That's what it's there for. To discuss categories. Finally, how did JPL edit the categories after it was clear that "his view" was not consensus when the CfDs aren't concluded yet and even your saying there is no consensus? I just don't get it. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken if you thought I was saying it was okay to empty categories in the middle of a deletion discussion. I was just saying that I'm seeing it happen repeatedly and from CFD regulars. But I complain about it at WP:CFD all of the time. It is irritating because editors spend their time considering the merits of the deletion proposal and emptying out the categories prematurely is a waste of their time. It bypasses the consensus building process. It's one thing if a category has only one page in it or if the category doesn't fit into the existing category structure & is a mistaken creation but to do it on a regular and widespread basis is disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if I miss-read or miss-represented your opinion. To me something is OK to do, as far as not being worth sanctioning any person over, if it's being done by a bunch of people already. Especially if there's no guideline against it. I don't think that means it "should" ultimately be done though and looking over your comment a second time (not on a cell phone) I can see that you weren't saying it was OK to do either. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have no comments about the Johnpacklambert's edits but as someone who regularly deals with empty categories, it's becoming more common for categories to be emptied prior to a CFD decision. I'm not pointing fingers, just pointing at a trend for categories to be emptied prior to a decision of whether to delete, merge or rename categories. It can sometimes be a challenge to determine who is emptying them. It might be a good discussion to happen at WT:CFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• None of these entries fit in the category in question. Odessa was part of the area of the Ottoman Empire that as a unit was much further south. It was no more part of any logical Ukraine than anything in Bessarabia. In the case of the places in Austria-Hungary they cannot be placed in a category under the Russian Empire. In the first two cases there is not enough evidence to place them in a specific year. If something clearly does not belong in a category, it can be removed, even if it is the only entry. I even explained in depth about the first two having no evidence that was the year of their founding. There is no coherent way to say any of these things happened in Ukraine in those specific years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• The first example, the university in Lviv, was founded in what was then Lemberg. Which was in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Ukraine category for that year is a sub category of the Russian Empire category, so we cannot place in it things that clearly happened outside the Russian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually that was in 1852, so it was in the Austrian Empire. There is no reason to allow categorization to be preserved in a case where it is so clearly wrong. Only a few years before the Polish nationalists in that area had insisted the very idea that there were Ukrainians was a ploy by the Austrian government to kill the asperations of Polish nationalists. National identities are very contested in the 19th century, but in Europe international boundaries at any given time are clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

    Johnpacklambert, please respect WP:BRD and discuss the specific category changes at the relevant articles’ talk pages, or better yet, wait for your CFD results before making changes. I filed this ANI because you refused to do that, there, and not to re-litigate the subject-specific questions here. —Michael Z. 16:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing in WP:BRD that dictates discussions have to occur on the articles talk pages when there's a dispute, otherwise there couldn't be RfCs or ANI complaints, and JPL was discussing the changes on the relevant CfD talk pages. Which is more then adequate. Or it would have needlessly created duplicate discussions with the same exact people and points being made. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Johnpacklambert should stop emptying categories he nominated (or plans to nominate) for deletion, as that influences and pre-empts the discussion badly. In many cases, his nominations for "obviously wrong" categories failed to get consensus, as there is serious disagreement about the best way to categorize such establishment by country / region / whatever entries (for JPL and some others, only one view is possible, the "historical" one, and the "current" point of view, that something in "current" country X was established in year Y, is unacceptable and should be eradicated by all means possible: the idea that a lot of readers might be more interested in what was established in what was established Ukraine throughout the ages, year by year, even at times when the country didn't exist, seems to be totally alien or unacceptable to them, as it is "wrong" from their point of view and no other point of view is acceptable). If they are not willing to stop this, I guess another editing restriction is in order. Fram (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact details and I don't feel like bludgeoning, but there was an AfD recently for what was essentially a personal essay written by someone who thought Afghanistan (which was formed in like 1949) should somehow be credited for something done 2,000 years ago by Sumerians, just because it took place in what is now modern day Afghanistan. Not surprisingly the article wasn't kept. If allowed, such articles are a huge slippery slope that can lead to a lot of nationalist type edit warring, arguing, and nonsensical duplication of historical subjects.

Whatever our personals beliefs about the issue are, it wouldn't be a maintainable, fair way of doing things. Especially when people start wanting to go the other way with it, where Sumerians are supposedly responsible for things currently taking place in Afghanistan because time/ownership are just imperialist/colonialist Western scientific notions and other views are possible, or whatever. At that point the big bang/god/Neanderthals should be mentioned in every article. There's zero precedence for it either. Let alone is it worth restricting JBL's editing abilities due to him keeping the slope from being slid down. Adamant1 (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

...which is hardly comparable to the current issue, i.e. that e.g. the Odessa University, a currently existing, major university in a major city in Ukraine, is removed from the "what things in Ukraine were established in what year" category tree[333] because it wasn't Ukraine in that year, and may only be included in the Category:1865 establishments in the Russian Empire. Now, Johnpacklambert may argue that at CfD (though he could do with turning down the hyperbole about how terrible and stuoid it is to have the "current country" cats as well), but emptying the category at the same time is not allowed. That's the behaviour problem for which a restriction may be needed, the other issue is the way he treats the content issue as if his PoV is the only possibly correct one and the opposite position, which would allow for both categories (one historical, one from the current situation) is an abomination. A tree of what is or would be currently located in country (or US state or whatever), by year of (dis)establishment, is of interest to readers, and informs clearly and succinctly about things that shaped the current country, even if the country didn't exist at all at the time of establishment. The dogmatism that only one tree is valid and the other needs to be erased is highly tiring. Fram (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I fail to see how it's JPLs PoV when he wasn't the only one in the CfDs with that view point. From what I can tell it also lines up with how historical subjects are handled in Wikipedia more broadly. Maybe the Ukraine/Russian Empire thing is (or should be) an exception. I really don't know. Anyway, with your tree thing sure it would be of interest to readers, but what readers find interesting shouldn't come at the cost of accuracy. You can't really have a "current situation" category for things that are in the past. Category:Trees of the United States (dis)establishment during the Silurian period or whatever just wouldn't make sense because the United States wasn't around during the Silurian period. Just like Spain/Mexico City/Tenochtitlan aren't all the same thing and things related to them shouldn't all be in the same category just because the area that comprises modern day Mexico City switched between them (and likely other groups) multiple times. So what if readers would find it interesting or that there were trees during the Silurian period on the landmass that now makes up the United States? Also, emptying the categories is allowed. Otherwise, can you point to a guideline/RfC/anything that's not an essay that says it isn't? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think it makes much sense to continue this discussion if you try to continue it with ridiculous examples, but without actually adressing the issues (simply "claiming" that it isn't accurate that e.g. the Odessa University is in Ukraine, and was established in 1855 or whetever year it is), and if you claim that something can't be someone's PoV if that position is shared by others as well (???). But to address your final point: the introduction of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion says "Except in uncontroversial cases such as reverting vandalism, do not amend or depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD as this hampers other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion.". Which is exactly what they are doing, and what is being discussed here. Fram (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

How is it a ridiculous example when fossilized trees from the Silurian period exist on the landmass that the United States currently occupies? It's literally the exact same thing as the University. Just because one is a tree and the other is a building/organization doesn't make the standard we should apply to them any different, or one ridiculous and the other not. I think Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine is a perfectly example of that. There was no Ukraine in 1431. When you do a Google search for "1431 Ukraine" all that comes up is the Wikipedia category. So 100% that's exactly the same as the tree example. If one is ridiculous, then both are and so is the category.

With the CfDs being depopulated, the guideline says not to do it if doing so will be controversial. if it was clear that the CfDs were likely going to be closed as "not keep" (which seemed to be the case) then IMO it wasn't controversial to depopulate them. Unless I missed it I didn't see Mzajac ask JPL not to depopulate the categories in the CfDs themselves either. The fact that JPL, not Mzajac, brought up someone else doing it makes me think that Mzajac wasn't really that concerned about it at the time either. I'd hardly call one person taking issue with something in an ANI complaint after the fact a controversy. It's pretty clear that JPL is being singled out over it also. Since no one else that has done it is a part of this complaint. Plus, Mzajac went out of their way to specifically call out JPL and say he was doing it "to head off consensus." None of which should be encouraged. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Where did you get the "which seemed to be the case"? There have been plenty such discussions, and they nearly always are controversial. The issue of depopulating cats under discussion was already brought to their attention in 2011 (User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 2#Note), 2012 (User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 3#CfD a,d January 2021 (User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 7#Establishment in Taiwan categories) (the latter one makes it abundantly clear that they are aware that these nominations are controversial). And from his current talk page, we have User talk:Johnpacklambert#Russian Empire-categories. As for "ridiculous example", we are talking about the "established in" categories, and you discuss fossilized trees. If you consider that "literally the exact same thing", then our positions on what is reality are too far apart to have a meaningful discussion. Fram (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I was talking about in the CfD. I don't think a discussion from 10 years ago on his talk page is that great of an example. With the one in 2021, it looks like what was said is that the categories shouldn't be emptied because it looks "like a sneaky attempt to circumvent the CfD process." In no way does that translate to "hey, maybe you shouldn't be emptying categories because it's controversial." Even if it did, one person saying something on a users talk page doesn't mean what they are saying has wider community support. Plus, you can't say the CfD rules are being broken if the categories were emptied before the CfD. Look at it this way, there's a tree on the landmass that the United States currently occupies. The tree (de)established before the United States was formed. Then there's a university in the Ukraine, that was started before the Ukraine was formed. How are those fundamentally different? If you think they are, cool. IMO figuring this out is fundamental both to if JPL did something or not and how to move forward the CfDs. Just saying they are different and that we can't have a meaningful discussion because of it doesn't help though. Pick a better example. I don't really care. What about Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine when there's literally nothing that connects Ukraine to that date? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to accent my point, it appears that JPL removed articles from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine before the CfD was started. So saying the category should not have been depopulated because of the CfD guidelines is wrong. Since there was no CfD at that point. Also, one of the articles he removed, Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine (which was the only example I could find), clearly states that they don't know when the city was founded. So, it clearly shouldn't have been in the category anyway. I have nothing more to add. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Avoiding the "don't depopulate during the CfD" by depopulating right before the CfD is hardly any better, but is a nice example of wikilawyering. And examples of his emptying of cats during the CfDs have been given, e.g. on Odessa University he removed the cat on 23 June[334], 5 days after he has nominated it[335], and at a time when there were already three oppositions to the nomination (so the "didn't know it would be controversial" defense is again shown to be clearly invalid). Also this one, this one, this one... Fram (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith that he didn't know he was going to do the CfD at that point. It happens sometimes. I know I've done AfDs for articles that I edited beforehand because it turned out the sources weren't as solid as I originally thought they were. Specifically with Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine there doesn't have to be anything in the category for people to know that there wasn't such thing as the Ukraine in 1431. So nothing could have been established in the Ukraine at time. It doesn't matter to the CfD what's in the category or not, because it's literally a hoax. None of the keep "voters" ever addressed that fact either. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

He didn't know he was going to do the CfD ... 5 days after he started the CfD[336][337]??? Uh, bye, thanks for confirming my first impression that discussing this with you was a total waste of time. Fram (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD. Since that's what we were talking about. Either way, with your first example he said why he removed it in the changeset comment and it seems like a reasonable explanation. Same with the other one. There isn't a known establishment date for the city. Nothing says clear categorization errors can't be fixed while a CfD is going on. None of the edits that I've seen show a clear intent on his part to try and stake the CfD (or whatever claim Mzajac is making) either. Outside of that, I'm not going to litigate every single edit or discussion he's been involved in over the last 10 years just so I can read (IMO) non-existent bad intent into his actions. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD." Such an edit doesn't seem to exist, not in the one article you provided, and not in the other one I provided; both of these were already given in the opening post of this thread, so nothing new there. So it appears that not only did you not provide a single new element, you furthermore made, again and again and again, incorrect claims about these old elements. I hope you were simply mistaken and not trolling, but coupled with the "fossilized trees" attempt above it sure looks that way. Fram (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know we were required to add anything new to ANI complaints aside from our opinions about if action should be taken on them or not. Which I've clearly gone above and beyond. Also, I don't know what "incorrect claims about these old elements" that I've supposedly repeatedly made is in reference to. Outside of that I'm not engaging in this discussion anymore. Since I've said all I need to and it's pretty obvious that your just trying to provoke me. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment So the view of some is I shopuld leave in a category articles that either A-were clearly created outside of Ukraine in that year if Ukraine is as our own category structure says it was a sub-units of the Russian Empire, ignoring that the Russian Empire recognized no sub-unit. B- articles that expressly state that the year the subject was established is unknown, so how exactly do we then categorize it in a specific year. There should be no precendent to leave such very clearly wrong categorizations in place just because they happen to be the only one in a specific category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Liz and Fram have provided sufficiently clear reasoning for why editors should not depopulate categories that they have nominated or plan to nominate for deletion. You don't seem to be engaging with those reasons. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Fram. Such edits with such justification (edit summary) are questionable. As reflected on our page Ukraine, this is not just the modern day country. My very best wishes (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

What about things that took place in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth? Just put them in multiple categories or one for "Ukraine" stuff and call it good there? Also, how is it fair to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth or not robbing them of their history to credit stuff they did to the Ukraine just because both were in the same area at different times? Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

ANI is not the proper forum for debating the merits of the disputed categories. If a category is problematic, get it fixed or deleted at CfD. If the CfD results in a delete outcome, then the category can easily be removed from all pages at that point. But if consensus does not support such removals, they should not be carried out. In short, JPL needs to get consensus before he blanks the categories. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that in general. The problem is that this ANI complaint is about specific edits. One of which was him removing an article from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine because it doesn't have a known establishment date. I don't see how it can be determined if that was the right action to take or not if we can't discuss categories. Nor is it a given that there needs to be consensus before removing an article for something that doesn't have an establishment date from a category that's about places with establishment dates. There is zero consensus that someone can put whatever they want in establishment date categories and then there has to be a protracted, consensus building discussion to find out if the edit is OK before the articles can be removed. No one is out there asking permission on talk pages to remove irrelevant, off topic entries from categories. Even if it empties the category. A few people complaining about something on a user page doesn't represent the broader consensus of the community either. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the angle from which one endeavors to view the situation, the bare fact remains that JPL has been emptying categories shortly before and after he has nominated them for deletion. Moreover, he appears to have disengaged from this thread without acknowledging the substance of the concerns raised by Liz, Fram, and co. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (as participant) It's definitely best practice to leave the articles as is in categories so that other editors can evaluate them themselves in CFD. (I may have occasionally done this myself though when I thought I could save a cat before realizing that was hopeless and then nominating it for deletion.) There have also been a lot of other challenges with these CFD discussions with cutting and pasting, questioning motives, and especially WP:RGW. I don't think these nominations, including my edits, have brought us closer to a consensus about the categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by User:16ConcordeSSC

• 16ConcordeSSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Examples of unsourced edits:

• June 29 – diff1
• July 7 – diff2
• July 7 – diff3
• July 11 – diff4
• After final warning – diff5

User is a relatively new editor that frequently adds unsourced information on a daily basis, and has continued this behavior beyond the final warning. They are also marking every edit as minor, despite pleas from multiple editors to stop. The editor is aware of their talk page, evident from replies around the time of account creation, but appears to be ignoring the warnings. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree on this one and second the report. The user, early on, tried to go to DRN with a complaint that his edits were being removed. When I explained to him (by email) that they were being removed because they were unsourced, he then tried to hire me (via email offering a contribution to a charity of my choice) to make the edits for him, ostensibly because he couldn't figure out how to use our system. I told him that, being kinda-sorta-semi retired, I didn't want to do that, that he needed to find sources and make the edits himself, but that sources were required. He apparently chose not to listen to that and decided to just start adding material without concern about sources. He now has over 1,000 edits in mainspace and I'd be amazed if any of the additions are sourced or properly sourced. (To his credit, many are beneficial wikignomish things like this.) On the other hand, the few that I've looked at appear to not be particularly controversial (unlike the ones that got me initially involved) or inaccurate, just unsourced. Since he's ignoring the warnings and creating a voluminous and expanding mess for other people to clean up, it's clear that he's NOTHERE, at least not to support the full mission of the encyclopedia. Regards, |TransporterMan]] (TALK) 16:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. I would only add that a lot of the edits are little tidbits of information, like dates and locations, inserted into statements that already carry a valid citation. I was wasting a lot of time hunting for that information in the existing sources only to find that it didn't exist. Very frustrating. Would be best to put out the fire before it spreads further, then circle back to assess the damage. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Just stumbled across this user at Sam Peckinpah, where he made a number of edits that looked like vandalism. Perusing his editing today, he seems to be changing punctuation at various articles (usually incorrectly) and to be on some sort of crusade to eliminate the Oxford comma wherever he finds it. Grandpallama (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Even the "beneficial wikignomish" edit User:TransporterMan cites mainly appears to be changing wording to US spelling and removing Oxford commas, which is not especially beneficial and even low-level disruptive. Grandpallama (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the reported user for 36 hours for the repeated addition of unreferenced content. They've received numerous warnings, and it's become clear that the behavior has not improved. I'm hoping that a temporary block will get their attention. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Anglyn insisting on adding their unreliable translation

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

---

On 13 March 2020, Anglyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added a translation of the Corpus Hermeticum to the Hermetica page by a certain Maxwell Lewis Latham. Since Latham appears to have no scholarly credentials (Google scholar has nothing on him, and what Goodreads writes about them does not inspire any confidence), and since the translation was published by what appears to be a vanity publisher (Falcon Books, e.g. listed here as such), it was reverted on 21 June 2020 by Ian.thomson (not actively editing at the moment), at which point Anglyn re-added the translation and got reverted again for adding unreliable and promotional content, followed by some more reverting back and forth ([338], [339], [340], [341]).

Ian.thomson also engaged with Anglyn at their talk page about Wikipedia's requirements for reliability and how to deal with a potential COI, but without much success. In their last reply at the talk page, and after having expressed their intention not to edit Wikipedia again, Anglyn referred to Latham's translation as "my translation".

However, yesterday they returned to add the Latham translation again, arguing how Latham is not a practising Hermeticist and holds a relevant Master's degree. After I reverted this for adding an unreliable source, Anglyn reinstated with the message that this is Latham's first translation after ten years of studying Latin and Ancient Greek. As Ian.thomson before me (though perhaps with a little bit more AGF), I explained our policy on reliable sources and inquired about a potential COI, but was met with the same attitude: rather than discussing reliability or potential COI, Anglyn chose to point at my deficient English and to call me an "amateur". They seem to be WP:NOTHERE. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Warned. El_C 11:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It is quite alright. There is no problem here, whether it be under the guise of partisan censorship or arbitrary selective choice of translations permitted or not permitted. There are self interests at stake, yes, which invalidates any claim I might have on being listed as a scholar. Yet your caveat (Wikipedia's) implied that I am not a scholar. Who are you (plural) to say what constitutes an accurate or an inaccurate translation? Do you have qualifications and experience in this area? Or, more likely, are you just another bunch of armchair philosophers, that have the mere veneer of knowledge, and much less the supposed pretence of wisdom? What is more likely? What qualifies you, precisely, to decide on what is and what isn't an accurate translation? Evidently you have not studied Latin or Ancient Greek (from the terms in which you frame your argument), therefore you have no authority, whatsoever, to say what comes and goes, except that of a know-it-all, without ever having studied, and with no actual authority yourselves. Long after we are all dead and gone, my translation will remain, whereas the same cannot be said for the edits made by these so-called the 'scholars' on Wikipedia. The fact is that you are an amateur. You have not passed the necessary examinations to qualify yourself as a Latin scholar. You lance accusations at those that are better than you at Latin, in every respect, but fail to acknowledge your own deficiencies in the subject. You are not, and never will be, a scholar. You are an amateur, and will always remains so. Nothing you do has any impact upon the actual academic community, and therefore someone who has not learnt his Latin or Ancient Greek is in no position to say whether a translation is accurate or inaccurate. Your conclusions are drawn from ignorance, not from knowledge. The only so-called "knowledge" you have is supposition, conjecture and nothing more. That, is the truth. Angyln (Maxwell Lewis Latham).

I believe the above to constitute a personal attack, and to evince an attitude that is irreconcilable with a collaborative environment. I hope that someone will spare both myself and others from this in the future by blocking this user from editing Wikipedia. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE editing by user:Səlmanöğlu

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

• Added an entirely unsourced section to the Language shift article: "In Iran, during the last hundred years, many measures have been taken to Persianize non-Persian speaking people with a lot of propaganda and ridiculing of non-Persian speakers, while 50% of Iranian people are non-Persian speakers." No edit summary, source or explanation.[342]
• Removed "Persia" from the Afsharid dynasty article ("Delete a word that is not necessary to say and It is against the national interests of the iran")[343]
• Added numerous historical Iranian kings to the List of Azerbaijanis article. No edit summary, source or explanation.[344]
• Changed "Persian" into "turkish" on the Ismail I article, accompanied by a non-WP:RS link.[345]
• Removed "Persian" from the Mohammad Reza Golzar article, only keeping "Azeri" (which he later turned into "Azerbaijani"). No edit summary or explanation.[346][347]
• Removed a link to "Azerbaijan (Iran)" from the Tabriz Khanate article. No edit summary or explanation.[348]
• Has been given numerous warnings[349]-[350]-[351]

Looking at the compelling evidence, it is safe to say that said user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban. Səlmanöğlu should no longer be able to touch pages related to Iran. Jerm (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello.

• About deleting name of persia from Afsharid dynasty article is that today the official name of the country is IRAN nothing else, writing other names instead of official name of the country which is IRAN is kind of misleading the readers.
• About article of Ismail I I must say word of Khatay'i is a Turkish word and I also added the sources that word have nothing to do with persian language. If it written like (خطا) it will be Arabic and if we write like (ختائی) which is the write form it will be Azerbaijani which is name of a place and according to the source which I added it is Turkish word you can study these sources.[352],[353],[354],[355] and now again you persianize the article without any sources.[356]
• About adding the king's you can go and read their personal articles in wiki you can see they where born in Azerbaijan of Iran and also ethnically they are Irainian Azerbaijani and also they had sources.
• And also Mohammad Reza Golzar is not persian he is an absolute Azerbaijani and I added a source and as you can see in this video in (1:50) he say proudly I am absolute Azeri he don't say I'm perso-azeri did he say? And also in this video in (00:04) he said I'm proudly Turk(please watch and listen them carefully) and also Azerbaijani or Azerbaijani-Turk or azeri are same.[357]

your act's are really shameful according to your edit history and your act's we can say you are anti-Azerbaijani and anti-Iranian and you just want to persianize every thing.Səlmanöğlu (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Səlmanöğlu:

• writing other names instead of official name of the country which is IRAN is kind of misleading the readers: Not mentioning this name is anachronistic. The Afsharid dynasty existed from 1736 to 1796, while the name Iran was adopted much later in 1935.
• The source you used [358] appears to be a Wiktionary clone, which is not a reliable source, and isn't about Ismail I. خطائی seems to mean different things in different languages; could an uninvolved editor give a comment?
• Quoth LouisAragon regarding your entry on Ismail I: The given "sources", many of which are non-WP:RS, don't state that Ismail I was an "Azerbaijani". [[359]
• You are correct that Golzar is of Azerbaijani descent, but he is of Iranian nationality, so we may call him an Iranian Azerbaijani.

Given their problems with using RS, I support the proposed topic ban from Iran-related topics. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

About meaning of KHATA first lets go and check the correct spelling shape that is (خطا) or (ختا). It is better to go to Ismail I own poems.

ظلمتِ زولفونده کؤنلو بو «ختايي» خسته‌نين////خضره بَنْزَر کيم، گؤرونمز چشمهٔ حيوان اوْنا

or in another poem:

بو «ختايي» نين مقامى آستانيندير مدام////چون سنى شاهِ کَرم اؤزومنى قنبر گؤرموشم

Now lets go and check what is the meaning of Khataʾi«ختایی». we can go and check persian dictionaries.

1. Dehkhoda Dictionary : Relate to KHATA. From the people of KHATA

meaning of Khata: It is the name of a province of the Turks.

2. Amid dictionary : From the people of KATA.

meaning of Khata: A land in ancient East Turkestan

3. Moin Encyclopedic Dictionary :From the people of KATA.

• As you can see ختا is the name of city or land in ancient East Turkestan and ختایی means a person from there ex. England and English. any ambiguous point?Salman.oglu (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

References

• Səlmanöğlu, what you're doing is well outside prevailing practice. As such, you can't force your interpretation across multiple pages. You need to work on gaining the consensus to do so through discussion. But not here, this is not the place for that. El_C 09:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• But it is absolutely unfair and unlawful to ban my account because:
• As you can see here[360] on 09:18, 11 July 2021 the user LouisAragon said that: If you reinstate this self-interpreted unsourced content again, you will be reported to ANI. and then after that did I restate unsourced content again ?? Absolutely NO. [361]
• About this[362] which is written by LouisAragon on 18:17, 9 July 2021, as you can see here[363] in my history up to that time I did not have any edit relating to the Armenia or those kind of things and why he told me god know!
• About this[364] edit I must say it was just and just nominal similarity of two article nothing more that then I fixed it and finish and does not have nothing to do with this topic.
• As you can see what ever I edited have so many authentic sources and we can just speak and debate about the articles and the sources why you want to return your unsourced text which you can see here[365], It is meaningless to ban someone account without any warning with out any violating rules.

I didn't have any wrong act and I didn't violate Wikipedia rules, I always respect them. I didn't receive any warning before and again repeat that it is absolutely unfair and unlawful to ban my account because I didn't violate Wikipedia rules.Salman.oglu (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Salman.oglu, this isn't a legal matter, so please do not (repeatedly) use the word "unlawful." That is inappropriate. In any case, the warning has now been issued (by me above), so please heed it going forward. El_C 02:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Rmmiller44

• Rmmiller44 (talk · contribs) has been really "pushing" the envelope of what constitutes civility, and this [[366]] is just the latest. Their bad faith POV pushing and ad homonyms are tiresome to an extreme. As is the fact they never actually seem to read what has been written or by whom. They also seem to have formed their own views of what policies say [[367]] and false accusations (I have no idea what "outrageous attacks" they are talking about.

They are clearly not here except to push an agenda.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

First off I'm a HE, not a they.

Let's be very clear about this. YOU are the one pushing an agenda. You were told by no fewer than four people that a section on mass shootings in the AR 15 style rifle entry violated WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I'm an expert on the AR rifle with more than 30 years of using it. I own over a dozen of them. I'm an expert on guns, gun crimes, and gun laws. You have contributed nothing to this entry other than channeling the opinion of a Democrat politician.

You filibustered every discussion people had with you on this entry. You did not budge one inch. People gave you detailed explanations about why the OPINION attributed to a politician was factually false and not reliably sourced.

The AR 15 being the "weapon of choice for mass shootings" is propaganda straight from the Democrat Party, Moms Demand Action, and the Brady United. There is literally zero truth to this claim. It is conclusory nonsense made up by anti-gun activists. EVERY type of gun -- pistols, rifles, shotguns -- have been used in mass shootings. There is zero evidence the AR 15 is disproportionately involved in such instances. The claim, which doesnt mention the AK 47 used in mass killings throughout the globe, is a blatant attack against US domestic arms manufacturers.

Multiple people explained this to you, and you completely ignored them. You kept repeating that the claim was RS because some newspaper quoted a politician saying that. This tactic is an abuse of WP:RS. An opinion doesnt become fact by citing a source quoting an opinion. By your argument, every contentious issue on WP could become flooded by competing "This guy said this" opinions presented as facts.

I was at least the fourth person to mention this on the talk page, and I believe the history will show more. The bottom line is there is NO CONSENSUS on including that section. You are taking advantage of status quo bias.

It's the same story every time I attempt to remove leftist WP:NPOV propaganda from entries.

1) Someone adds content that blatantly violates WP standards.

2) Someone with integrity and intellectual honesty removes it, enforcing standards.

3) You or others revert the change, falsely claim there was a consensus to include it, filibuster discussion, claim edit warning, and call in your meatpuppet leftist admins to find in your favor.

YOU violated WP standards, not me. I'm fixing your malfunction. I'm trying to keep this and other entries objective, factual, unbiased, and well sourced. I dont have a political agenda with the entry, you do.

One of the Founders of WP complained about exactly what I'm talking about. You and your leftist ilk have taken over WP and youre using it as a propaganda machine for the Democrat Party. You have zero intellectual honesty and you violate rules with impunity. ~~rmmiller44

I don't care what your political beliefs are, as long as you are civil in your interactions with other editors. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any of that from you. Oh, and by the way, it's "you're", not "youre". MiasmaEternal^TALK 05:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Just an observation from the sidelines: referring to it as the "Democrat" party makes you sound more strident and less serious. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Just an observation but interfering with a discussion with irrelevant and petty snipes is unhelpful. Dont comment unless you have something meaningful to add to the discussion.rmmiller44

In addition, working on your use of apostrophes would be welcome. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rmmiller44: did you inform User:Slatersteven that you were starting a discussion about them here? It is in a giant colorful box at the top of the screen when you edit here. Not doing so could feed a narrative about you of not desiring to play by WP's rules. DMacks (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks User:Floquenbeam for clarifying the context here. It is indeed not "starting a discussion" here. DMacks (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven notified ME of this incident. I dont need to notify him. You assuming I did something wrong could feed the narrative that all the leftist meatpuppets are flocking here to support their comrade.rmmiller44

By your own edit, you started a new section. There was therefore a new discussion here, started by you, for which there was no required notification made. Now that (as we see in the edit history) you actually meant to continue an ongoing discussion, and as another editor figured out what you were talking about and fixed for you, I addded a followup to my comment. And now I'm also fixing the indentation and ordering of your most recent comment here per discussion standards. Follow those sorts of standards can only serve to help others understand your position and possibly support it. I honestly don't care who flocks here and supports whom, but WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL problems could end your career here sooner than your ideas even get a full discussion. DMacks (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"and call in your meatpuppet leftist admins to find in your favor.", need I say any more?Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

And their response to my ANI notice [[368]].Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Come on. If a new editor pulled this shit, they would be indeffed on the spot as WP:NOTHERE. This is an ongoing WP:CIV violation by rmmiller44 if nothing else. It's really a shame when hitherto productive editors assert a battleground mentality.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh and also, if it bothers you that much, you can avoid people assuming your gender by making adjustments to your user preferences under the "Internationalisation" section or publishing your pronouns in your signature - although that's certainly not mandatory. --WaltCip-(talk) 12:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Rmmiller44, I can sympathize with your view that the content in question shouldn't be in the AR-15 article. However, I don't think this confrontational approach is going to work in the end. Wikipedia is based on consensus (wp:Consensus). This is a case where there has been a lot of discussion about the topic and in the end most editors have agreed that some level of this content is DUE in the article. The reason is we do have reliable sources (per WP:RS) that discuss this topic with respect to the AR-15 which provides the wp:WEIGHT for inclusion. That doesn't mean the current material is perfect but it means tearing everything up is not likely to work. Where you are more likely to make a difference is if you can help find good sources, especially related to the technical parts of the rifles. I understand some readers only care about the political parts but I think others might appreciate more apolitical content. One other thing, I know it's really easy to assume political motives behind editors who try to include/exclude various types of content (believe me, I know) but most editors are really just acting in good faith. There are gray areas as to what should/shouldn't be included in an article or how emphasis such information should be given. I can certainly say that Slatersteven has been in the firearms topics even in cases where we don't agree. In part for this reason it is always best to stick to the facts and not even discuss the possible motives of the other editors. If you are wrong you just antagonize someone unfairly. If you are right it still makes you look like you are battling the editor vs trying to improve the article. If you can keep this civil disagreement in mind I think you will find your ability to influence an article will increase significantly. Springee (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Blocked indefinitely (with TPA disabled). Longstanding aggression, which seems to be unrelenting. WP:AP2 in nature. El_C 10:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Incivility and threats by Snowflake91

Snowflake19 started to make edits on the article UEFA European Championship, without discussion and using heated politics-based argumentation. The user was told to go to the talk page and eventually he replied this, which qualifies as incivility, and then he replied this, which qualifies as a threat ("in 24 hours"). The Replicator (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Cry me a river, you have reverted me 4 times without even providing any sources when you was asked to (I provided three highly reliable sources), not to mention that you cross-out my comment at the talk page, talk about being disruptive. And by the way, if you want to make potentially controversial changes its you who should seek consensus at the talk page first, and not the otherwise - remember thats its you who wanted to change something that was established and unchanged for literally 10+ years, so why should others go to the talk page first if you are the one that is making big changes, and then you are actually provided with sources, and you simply ignore them? Very funny, you keep reverting with an edit summary "go to talk page", and then I go to the talk page and you are not really ready to discuss anyway as you are literally like "Im right while you are wrong, go away" even when you are provided with reliable sources, so what on earth do you want to? Its actually you who needs to get blocked, not me. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Snowflake91 Getting a bit too heated. Keep it civil Snowflake. Furthermore, this looks like a content dispute with both parties already violating WP:3RR. I think the best solution would be to continue the discussion on the article talk page, but with the article WP:FULLY protected. Jerm (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

But thats the problem - he is obviously not willing to discuss anything, when I provided him multiple sources, he crossed out my comment and asked for a block instead. Yed, I did violate 3RR, but I was just restoring to the revision (well not entire revision, just that specific table) that was established for so many years and no one had the problem with it, while he tried to force his version without any discussion in the first place. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Snowflake91 Reverting is obviously not working. That is why I am suggesting the article be fully protected rather than just giving out blocks. Jerm (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Aww, c'mon, Snowflake91... Let's not be uncivil and disrespectful toward other editors like that. I understand how frustrating that disputes and edits like this can get. It can be hard to remain emotionally clear at times, and I get that completely. Just remember that incivility isn't going to resolve anything, but only make things worse and more difficult to sort out. I'm not going to fully protect the article at this time, as it appears that the back-and-forth editing has stopped. Handing out blocks obviously wouldn't help the situation either (even though they'd be unnecessary at this point, since, like I said, the edit warring has stopped), so that's out. The Replicator, Snowflake91 - Please work together on the article's talk page, sort things out peacefully, and try and come to a consensus (or at least determine what the consensus is). I'm counting on you two! Remember: when it comes to the project and our core values, you're both on the same team here - work together. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

IP 87.71.158.72 consistent disruptive editing on Arrowverse crossover articles

This IP 87.71.158.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been consistently making disruptive edits to cast tables on Arrowverse crossover articles (Heroes Join Forces, Invasion! (Arrowverse), Crisis on Earth-X, Elseworlds (Arrowverse), and Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse)). Here are their edits on Heroes Join Forces, Invasion!, Crisis on Earth-X, Elseworlds, and Crisis on Infinite Earths. A single diff example to show they type of edit (as they are virtually identical across each article), can be seen with this edit. These edits are adding excessive information to the cast table, which is against current consensus and has been constantly reverted by myself and other editors. Editors have warned this IP (as evidenced by the warnings on their talk page) and they have keep making these edits with no indication of trying to discuss why they are trying to make these changes. I previously reported the IP to ANV and they were blocked for 2 weeks, and that has since lifted and they've returned to making the same edits, hence the need in my eyes to make this report. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The IP made the same kind of edit in DC Extended Universe (diff). —El Millo (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) And Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse) again (Special:Diff/1033556185). Recommend blocking this IP for persistent fancruft. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat

This edit summary appears to have a legal threat: "if anybody again edits just to mention "Untouchable" Definitely I will drag him into the court." Notfrompedro (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Since the term in question is a pejorative, I have copyedited Bhoi to remove it. I invite editors with knowledge of India's caste system to take a look. This is a very new editor reacting to a perceived insult. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Its still a legal threat, so they shouos be warned.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

They have already been warned by another editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Generally speaking, when we issue a warning we use the term in its ordinary English sense – identifying a problem, and warning that repetition may result in sanctions such as blocking. My understanding of legal threats is that we take a firmer stand — we don't simply warn them not to repeat it we affirmatively require that they either explain themselves if there is any doubt about the intention, but absent an explanation that it's not really a threat, we expect them to remove the threat which is a little stronger than simply a warning.

I appreciate that the editor has been warned, but that warning doesn't include a requirement that the threat be retracted. I think that's required. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

But we also should not bite newbies, unless they show they do not get it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Fuck WP:BITE; threats like this are intended to intimidate people into silence/inaction. If they don't unequivocally retract, they need to be blocked. Simple as that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Which part of "unless they show they do not get it" means we take no action if they do not obey policy?Slatersteven (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, it looks like they received a standard templated Twinkle warning. Maybe the template language needs to be rewritten. Personally, I do not use Twinkle. They have made two edits and their grievance has been resolved. I see no need for a block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Has the legal threat been retracted? WaltCip-(talk) 22:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

WaltCip, you could have checked that yourself. The answer is "no" but the newbie hasn't edited in about 24 hours, and their second of two edits contained the threat. Everyone seems to be ignoring that the threat was in response to a pejorative or slur against an ethnic group that was restored repeatedly by uninformed editors. That's why responding appropiately to legal threats requires us to take a look at the underlying dispute. If someone was repeatedly restoring content to Gullah calling those people a bunch of "N-words", then we would correct the problem instead of just blocking a newbie who complained about it forcefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that Cullen328 took a reasonable, fair, and appropriate response to the threat. Legal threats should not be tolerated, but we also need to look into the situation, understand why such a threat is being made, and handle things on a case-by-case basis when it comes to new users and biting them, as well as some other situations. Remember, Don't overlook legal threats. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

This was an unambiguous legal threat and clearly meant to intimidate in a content dispute. Not only are we not qualified to deal with legal threats they also fly in the face of our core values of consensus and neutrality by causing intimidation. Furthermore our editors don't deserve to be exposed to that, especially if they are making an uninformed mistake.

For those reasons I have blocked the user until they retract the legal threat. Once they retract the threat and agree not to do this in the future then an unblock is fine.

If another editor is also behaving poorly or simply uninformed then that should be dealt with on its own merits, I see no attempts to communicate with the editor who was reverted about this. I will point out that the threat was not aimed only at the person who made the objectionable edit but to "anyone". HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That being said I have made clear to the user that they can be unblocked right away if they retract the threat and agree not to make another. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Not that he needs external validation, but FWIW I think User:Cullen328 handled this correctly. Sure, block the new user if they do it again after being warned, but blocking a brand new user, with no prior warning, for something said in the heat of the moment, in response to being called "untouchable", when everything has already been resolved, is silly and counterproductive. WP has weird priorities sometimes. What's especially odd with this place is that, if Cullen had blocked, HiBC would have been expected to consult with Cullen before overturning the block. But when Cullen makes it clear that his administrative decision is not to block, HiBC can just over-rule him. Weird. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Well it is true that declining to take an action is not considered an administrative action. However if you think it is more fair then any admin is welcome to reverse this block if they feel it is appropriate to do so. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've unblocked, while (I hope) making very clear they can't do that anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is the type of situation explained by WP:DOLT. Thanks, Cullen and Floq. Levivich 03:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually at no point was this being overlooked. The objectionable content was removed, not overlooked. Nothing in that essays suggests that the legal threat is permissible. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course nothing in the essay, and nobody in this thread, suggests that the legal threat is permissible. That's really a whopper of a straw man :-) I was referring to the parts of the essay that discuss when to block and when not to block and why. Levivich 05:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

My apologies if it seemed like I was making a straw man, not my intention. Your comment made it seem as though you thought the subject of the legal threat was being overlooked. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say about this incident except to encourage administrators to always take a close look at the underlying circumstances before blocking and moving on when dealing with legal threats. Sometimes but not always, the legal threat is a response to ugly and deeply inappropriate content here on Wikipedia. Do not shoot the inept newbie editor messenger without taking a serious look at what caused them to threaten legal action in the first place. If they have a legitimate grievance, deal with it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

From a content perspective, I was under the impression that untouchability is an appropriate matter to discuss when its in the context of caste oppression. The removed/reworded content does not IMO reflect that the Bauri were historically, (and to this day by certain sectors) treated in the context of untouchability. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 06:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

We are straying into content issues but I feel confident in saying that "untouchable" is an ethnic slur when used in Wikipedia's voice to describe a contemporary Indian caste. It violates WP:NPOV and should not be used in Wikipedia's voice but rather only when directly quoting historical sources. Plenty of sources from 55 to 60 years ago called Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X the "N-word" but we never use such slurs in Wikipedia's voice, do we? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Describing such castes as Scheduled castes is neutral, contemporary language which does not demean people who belong to those ethnic groups. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This is indeed straying into content discussion, so I've opened a topic on the TP; my gist was that they were subjected to the treatment of untouchability, which was certainly true, but does not stray into labelling them "untouchables". Best, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 06:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Repeated reversals and fringe theories

Goodmorning. The user @Pipsally: has repeately tried to insert sources supporting the Christ myth theory. Since such theory is a fringe theory, I and other editors (@Joshua Jonathan:, @MPants at work: and @Ramos1990:) have reverted their edits. He/She has been repeatedly told to stop inserting new edits on the matter, since a consensus has already been reached. Instead of doing it, she has randomly started to revert all my edits with no apparent reason. The edits have been done to these pages:
Page: Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman book) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Forged (book) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Necho II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merneptah Stele (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--Karma1998 (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

you are conflating two different things here. I have not touched the Christ myth theory edits since consensus was reached. Also it is disingenuous to say I was inserting the edits when I was in fact reverting your WP:BOLDremovals. Regardless that is resolved and I respect consensus there.

my other edits are all explained in the edit summaries, and are to do with you adding WP:SYNTH to articles, particularly citing an authors own website for reviews of his book which is not WP:RS. There is no way this is an WP:ANI issue.

i suggest as well that you don’t both remove content and add something else in the same edits as you have a habit of doing. It makes your edit summaries quite misleading Pipsally (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I’d also like to point out that contrary to the claim above the neither @MPants at work: or @Ramos1990:) have reverted my edits. They have made comments in relation to my edits in talk, and I have respected that input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipsally (talk • contribs)

Do not try to change the point. You have tried to insert arguments in support of the CMT in the page Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman book), quoting minor and insignificant scholars. And you have reverted my edits for no reason, since Ehrman's blog is a reliable source (he can't invent reviews from newspapers).--Karma1998 (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Restoring something that didn’t get saved here. I’m not changing the point. I have not inserted arguments, I reverted your WP:BOLD edits, but when it became clear consensus supported you I stopped. Your second section is exactly the point, he could invent those (i’m not saying he has!) so you need to provide a reliable source and not the authors selfpublidhed blog.Pipsally (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I most certainly would have reverted your edits, had not Karma1998 beaten me to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

ok, and I respect that, but I just clarifying the above statement is not accurate. And again, please note that ones it was clear there is consensus I have not persisted on those edits and have respected the conclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipsally (talk • contribs)

• The bit about citing Erhman's site for the Salon quote seems disingenuous; Ehrman is a widely respected scholar who faces constant scrutiny from evangelical scholars who take umbrage at his high profile as possible the best known biblical scholar, and his oft-professed agnosticism and adherence to methodological and naturalistic methods and conclusions. The suggestion that he would deliberately misrepresent a quote from Salon like this is rather ridiculous on the face, and the triviality of simply doing a quick google search for that quote (literally two clicks of the mouse) to find the original article which contained it is such that it's very difficult to believe this was a good-faith revert. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

my point is that it is trivial to find the actual sources, and not to rely on an authors self pub. All Karma has to do if he wants this content is to provide the RS and I will note dispute it. Pipsally (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

If you agree that finding the source was trivial, then why didn't you find the sources, instead of engaging in an action which you knew would antagonize Karma1998? 19:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pipsally:, you have once again reverted an edit on the page Forged (book), despite warning not to do so. @MPants at work: I'm not an administrator, but I think a block here is needed.--Karma1998 (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no warning. I reverted it because you have not provided a reliable source. You cannot cite an authors own blog for reviews. Find and cite the review!Pipsally (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

This denial seems quite disingenuous, given that this entire ANI discussion serves as a warning that you are editing against consensus. I'm uninvolved, and I can see quite clearly that there is a consensus against your inclusions.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

thank for looking in. Please do review again. Karma1998 has cited my edit regarding the Christ myth theory as his complaint. My edits turned out to be against consensus, and once that was clear I have not pursued them. this was yesterday, and I have not touched since . That’s how we work. My other edits are in relation to his citation of an authors own blog for positive reviews of his material, and that’s what I was trying to explain above.Pipsally (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: he/she has just reversed another time! That's amazingly stubborn.--Karma1998 (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Karma1998, has it passed the point of an edit war? If so, report to WP:EWN.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I've already done it, and they told me to come here.--Karma1998 (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I largely agree with Karma1998. Pipsally & 2db are obviously POV-pushing in a pro-Christ Myth theory fashion. For example, Pipsally considers that simply stating the contents of Did Jesus Exist? is "OR" [369] (no, explaining what's in the book is not OR). 2db is prominently citing what seems to be a vanity-published book by a random person as if it was an authority on the topic, sticking in a faux-reference to a Christ mythisticist in a "reference" that is really an accusatory footnote to the lede [370]; it's not even clear that Raphael Lataster is particularly prominent within the Christ Myth community. I think that some of this material may be somewhat salvageable (if sourced to prominent Christ myth proponents such as George Albert Wells) but 2db needs to learn to phrase things neutrally and with WP:DUEWEIGHT for what is, like it or not, an academic fringe theory. For example, 2db introduced ridiculous phrasing like "Ehrman admitted that (Did Jesus Exist? is not an academic monograph)." [371] What? Of course it wasn't, it was a book. That's not a scandal or a problem, so why phrase it as if it was something Ehrman was "covering up" until finally forced to admit guilt? See MOS:SAID for why this is problematic, even if the claim wasn't so ludicrous. SnowFire (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Snowfire: I agree . This is done, since yesterday. I have not pursued it. There is consensus. I accept it. I have not edited since to restore this Christian myth material, which anyway was a reversion via recent changes of a deletion. Consensus was made clear and I have left alone.Pipsally (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe this can be resolved on talk pages after all. We shouldn't restrict what the book itself says, but better sources are always welcome. SnowFire (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pipsally: Actually you added fringe supporters of the CMT to the page of Ehrman's book.-Karma1998 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

where? Which book? I’m happy to remove finge if I’ve added it in error Pipsally (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The book Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman book).-Karma1998 (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

What on earth are you on about? I’ve removed things from the article that are poorly sourced or unsourced. To my shame I’ve added nothing, and certainly nothing fringe. Please show me the edits you think ar fringe Pipsally (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You added works and comments from CMT supporter Raphael Lataster, forcing us to remove it.-Karma1998 (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Show the edit diffs where I’ve done that please . Also, my only interest in this through recent changes. I know no detail of the topic, I’ve just reverted obvious blanking or removal of content without explanation .

I apologize for my mistake @Pipsally:, it appears that the Lataster reference was added by @2db: and not you. Still, I believe it is not credible to say that Bart Ehrman's blog is not reliable for the reviews on his books.--Karma1998 (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry for being so pedantic, but there are certain usages of English that I find so distracting as to prevent me from looking dispassionately at the merits of a case. In the section title you mean "continual", not "continuous". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for that @Phil Bridger:, unfortunately English is not my mother language (I'm from Italy). I will correct-Karma1998 (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

No. Please don't apologize. I assumed from the perfect English used in the rest of your comments that you were a native speaker. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Well, I studied English for many years, so I know how to handle it hahahaha.-Karma1998 (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Karma1998, looks like I came in late. But it looks like the situation has cooled down a bit (I hope). I would just like to mention that perhaps if edit warring continues then it could probably be summarized further in a more constructed fashion? It seems to be getting muddy and verbose. Perhaps less responses here would make it easier for others to follow the issue and provide input in the midst of all the noise. Others are already seeing your point and siding with you. I also think you have some good points here too. And at @Pipsally: I see you are blanking out your talk page with all of the warnings you are getting. Please cease the edit warring since in you blanking out your talk page is taken as an acknowledgement that you have heard the complaints by editors who have posted there. Its pretty visible in the history of the talk page. It is best to use the talk pages for the articles in dispute to discuss these issues instead of just reverting.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• While I disagree with Pipsally on the merits (and they should start with a 30 second Google rather than removing the entire line if they want to improve sourcing), they have the absolute right to clean their talk page up as they like (barring block notices / discretionary sanctions / etc.), so I wouldn't really press them on that account or derail this into a talk page guidelines discussion. SnowFire (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I agree. But just wanted to note that clearing their own user talk pages does not really hide anything for admins. It is their right, but some do it thinking they can go undetected. More of an FYI than anything else.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone repeatedly adding unsourced material to Sheldon Adelson

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

---

Four times now, someone has added unsourced information to the Sheldon Adelson article, claiming that Adelson had a son in 1962 by a woman he had a relationship with. The person adding the information claims to be that son.[372] I can find no Reliable Source to confirm any of it. This is not only unsourced, but it has BLP implications (Adelson is not living, but he died recently). The first three times, it was added by an IP claiming to be the son. After the IP was topic banned from the article,[373] a new user called User:BostonCasinoKid appeared and re-added it, also asserting that they are the son. (BTW although they claim in the edit that they are the son, their edit summary said changes were made after verifying biological son's background information.)[374] I don’t know what we should do about this. Ask the person to prove their identity through the usual channels? Or to submit evidence privately? (It would be primary in any case.) Block them both for evading the topic ban? Simply semi-protect the page? I’d appreciate somebody, or the community, taking charge of this case. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Obviously the same person. I'll block this new account from the article as well, and leave a talk page message. We don't need them to verify their ID or provide private evidence with OTRS; they still can't add this without a reliable source. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, without RS confirming this is just gossip, doesn't matter who the editor says they are. Try to treat them kindly, in case they are exactly who they claim to be. —valereee (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

"Try to treat them kindly"!? What makes you think that comment was needed!? Just because it's me who's contacting them!? I am renowned for being a kind person, and I'll destroy anyone who says differently. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll have to agree that your message was kind. (I'd be afraid to disagree, after all.) Thanks for a simple and straightforward handling of this. I'll continue to monitor the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

As the administrator who page blocked the IP, I support the page block of the new account, as this is clearly the same person. If disruption of that article continues, it should be semi-protected. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Since another IP is making the same type of edits, I have semi-protected the article for a month. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Concern by IP

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

---

I'm trying to resolve problems for Denniss, who does not following neutral point of view, only antisemitic edits for German radio article [375], removing information over edit warring on child's personality (but several) and certain misleading articles on World War II [376], [377], and others that would violates WP:3RR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:INCIVILITY, and WP:NOR. --2001:4452:48D:E600:44C0:6D32:7E23:BA1D (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think you're trying to resolve problems; I think you are trying to create them. Your diffs certainly don't indicate antisemitism (I mean, seriously--that's a ridiculous claim), nor do you provide any proof of the other charges. Are you familiar with WP:BOOMERANG? Drmies (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes you are, I warned to Denniss, if you engaged on antisemitic comments on KenFM. --2001:4452:48D:E600:44C0:6D32:7E23:BA1D (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Please proofread before you post. Update: that is marginally better. Also, rangeblocked. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
    • User:HighInBC, I think you know this guy--I'm going to drop a rangeblock. Thanks--I'm building on your earlier work. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes their particular take on English is a dead giveaway. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
        • A global rangeblock may be needed, they've been carrying on the same vendetta at Commons.Acroterion (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Serial Edit Warring on Genocide Denial

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

---

The article Genocide Denial is being subjected to serial edit warring over the past few days as editors with varying political agendas are jockeying over the inclusion/exclusion of various countries- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• And none of them know how to seek the talk page, or search for better, more reliable sources to write better content. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Repeated false accusations by Firejuggler86

• Firejuggler86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Firejuggler86 is repeating unsupported false claims about me, and I want it to stop. Here are relevant quotations and diffs:

• Firejuggler86 on 3 July:  "you want to change the guideline to broaden the scope to cover historical, sociological, and political areas, so that you can win one particular content dispute"[378]

• Me on 3 July:  "I do not want to broaden the scope of this guideline. Stop making this false accusation."[379]

• Me on 3 July (at User_talk:Firejuggler86):  "I do not hold the views that you claim I hold. You either need to stop attributing opinions to me and other editors, or you need to provide diffs to back up your claims."[380]

• Firejuggler86 on 10 July:  "Your side were the ones that wanted to CHANGE WP:BIOMED by expanding its scope to include matters of history, sociology, and politics."[381]

• Me on 10 July:  "@Firejuggler86, please provide a diff to your accusation that I ever said anything about wanting "to CHANGE WP:BIOMED by expanding its scope to include matters of history, sociology, and politics", or I will take you to ANI for making false accusations against me after being warned to stop it."[382]

(Also:  "My" side?  I didn't !vote in the RFC being referenced, so I wasn't on any "side", but if I had been, I would have !voted the opposite of the way that Firejuggler repeatedly claims.)

Firejuggler86 has been editing since being told to stop it, but has failed to provide any diffs supporting the false claim (an impossibility, because those aren't my views), to strike the false accusations, or even to say that they won't continue to make up inaccurate and unsupported stories about other editors' alleged views whenever they feel like it.

We could prevent future problems by simply blocking the editor, but perhaps a wider audience will be able to come up with a less harsh option that will be equally effective. This is indirectly a COVID-related dispute, and Firejuggler86 might just be copying some of the bad behavior that some other editors have displayed in COVID-related discussions, so if you'd rather that I took this to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, let me know. I'm here because I think it's probably better to process it as a type of of WP:NPA#WHATIS, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• I queried Firejuggler86's claims about editors at that discussion, and asked for diffs. I see also that Graham Beards| raised concerns about wrongheaded claims about editors. It is notable that Firejuggler86 was previously entirely uninterested in MEDRS until they decided to add their revert to the two others also by editors that had hitherto shown no interest in MEDRS. Covid related discussions are heated enough with all the politics involved, but recently misinformation about guidelines, their scope, their purpose and the intentions of those who wrote them, seem to have taken on a new level. It is one thing to have an opinion that one can agree or disagree on, but Firejuggler86's comments at the MEDRS discussions seem entirely divorced from reality in terms of their description of what has happened and the motives of those involved. -- Colin°^Talk 07:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Courtesy ping for Graham Beards, who was mentioned with a small typo in the comment just above. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know where this bile from Firejuggler86 is coming from, but their accusations are as wrong as they're rude. In a topic area where there has already been a significant waste of time based on false statements about policy and editor motivation, their comments are very unhelpful, almost seeming designed to try to escalate tensions. Alexbrn (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Huh. They threw an accusation at me, too (my reply with a pointer to Wikipedia:Casting aspersions was here). Lacking any ability to infer the contents of someone else's head, it's still hard not to see their comment as an attempt to escalate tension, as you say. XOR'easter (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Fun fact: in the first diff, Firejuggler says "...an editor that uses the words 'medical advice' when what they actually mean is 'medical information'"; i.e., a factual statement is misread as a kind of deontic statement. I just reverted this diff of theirs, where they claim a factual statement was actually a judgment. No. The Historia Regum Britanniae is pseudo-historical: fact. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• There is a lot of confusion in terminology in that dumpster fire of a discussion and I agree with the sentiment in the first part of Firejuggler86's comment here (specifically this portion: Medical advice is generally defined as "providing diagnoses and prescribing medication". Do any of you seriously believe that Wikipedia editors are at risk of trying to diagnose readers and/or prescribe medication to them?? No. What y'all are doing is jumping on every instance of an editor that uses the words "medical advice" when what they actually mean is "medical information"), although I'm unsure if people are doing it deliberately or if it's just miscommunication (per AGF I'll assume the latter). However, generally when people are using "medical advice" in that discussion, they mean it in the broader sense of "providing information that a reader could then use to self-diagnose and treat themselves" and not a Wikipedian saying "Hey Bobby, sounds like ye got COVID. Pop to your local chemist and buy some hydroxycloroquine mate." and WhatamIdoing is one of the editors taking the most conservative definition of the term, so I can see where Firejuggler86 is coming from. But as I say, I think it's probably just miscommunication resulting in somewhat inflamed discussion, and not bad intent of either side.
  I don't understand why this has been brought here, or a block proposed. I'd advise Firejuggler not accuse editors of dishonesty but editors aren't required to abide by parliamentary language. The evidence presented does not support any action, IMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  While I'm here I may add that there are various other aspersions in that discussion (not from any of the editors commenting or mentioned in this ANI) that are worse than the one presented, on both sides really. The proponents for the change, above, cannot find themselves faultless here. They've either implicitly presented the RfC as a referendum on the origins of COVID-19, or stood back and allowed others to assume such (for the votes?), which only stowed the flames for comments such as [383][384]. All of us should learn a thing or two from these events, because indeed I don't think anyone really tried to honestly engage with the arguments of the other side, and the cause of that was the rush into an RfC caused by the proponents' attempts to forcefully and immediately remove long-standing text to 'prevent the community from being confused'. The result? Unsurprisingly, a hurried RfC, and mutual distrust. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  I am here because:

  • I have a very long history of narrowing the scope of MEDRS.
  • I wrote Wikipedia:Biomedical information for the purpose of narrowing the scope of MEDRS.

  but @Firejuggler86 has repeatedly and falsely claimed that:

  • I want to expand the scope of MEDRS.
  • I support a proposal in an RFC that (a) I never !voted in, (b) I have said I would have opposed, (c) I think was ill-considered and badly phrased, and (d) I have publicly said has obviously failed to gain consensus.

  and these claims are being made despite being repeatedly told that none of this is true.

  NB also that the group Firejuggler86 seems to be calling "my side" are the people who also voted against the RFC to expand MEDRS at Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information. Voting against an expansion of MEDRS is being twisted by Firejuggler86 into supporting an expansion.

  There are many destructive things that editors can do on wiki without consequences, but repeatedly posting incorrect statements about what other editors have done isn't one of them. Notice that I don't make any claims about why Firejuggler86 is spreading these false rumors. But whatever the reason, Firejuggler86 needs to stop making false statements about other editors. It's really that simple. As far as I'm concerned, a note that says "Hey, sorry, I won't say that again" could be sufficient (assuming the editor actually does stop). But if the only way to stop the false statements is a block, then that's also okay with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  • What about all these occasions in that same thread where you accused/insulted other editors allegedly using Wikipedia to dispense medical advice, for example, That's a fundamental reading (mis)comprehension problem that shouldn't be seen in 12 year olds [385]. especially when it comes to a level of reading skills we normally expect from 12 year olds [386]. You even made a legal threat here [387]. Where are your diffs that show a bunch of editors dispensing medical advice? I can understand if Firejuggler lost patience with you in that thread. Geogene (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

    I didn't accuse anyone of giving medical advice. I quoted multiple editors who said that they thought the purpose of MEDRS was to tell editors how to give medical advice. If they're embarrassed now that because they said something that they now think is wrong, then that's not really my fault. They could go correct their errors.

    As for a supposed "legal threat", I said "this is a friendly reminder that when unlicensed people give medical advice, that's considered a crime in most of the world." That is not a "a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors" (the definition in our policy). Editors who provide information about real-world facts, without even hinting that they intend to engage in any external legal process, are not making legal threats. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  So it's legal advice, then? Of course it isn't. But if I were to repeatedly accuse you (and that could be an individual you, or collective you) of dispensing legal advice, and suggest you could be jailed for it, wouldn't that test your patience and ability to assume good faith? I think it could even be considered disruptive. Geogene (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  A plain statement of facts about real-world legal systems, such as I made there, is legal information. Information is not the same as advice, even if a well-informed person might take different actions than a person without that information. For example, a Wikipedia admin in possession of general legal information about libel might decline to provide a WP:REFUND of a deleted page, even if the admin received no legal advice about the situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I already said that, yet you're acting as if I don't know this? This is obnoxious. Geogene (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Your report depends on two edits AFAICS (3 July, 10 July), as the others are just diffs of you giving warnings and not diffs of the editor. As far as I can see, their 10 July comment that prompted this ANI ("Your side were the ones that wanted to CHANGE WP:BIOMED by expanding its scope to include matters of history, sociology, and politics.") does not make a comment about you specifically but rather "your side" (ie, the proponents and supporters). That does not seem to be a personal attack, and this rhetoric is better than the language used by some of the supporters. When considering this, the 3 July comment, the full comment being (No. What y'all are doing is ... - ultimately because you want to ..., and considering "Y'all" is clearly referring to your group, it's unlikely the subject changed half way through the sentence. So neither of those seem directed at you individually.

  More generally, this wouldn't be the first time when people have accused the MEDRS writers of trying to scope creep MEDRS [388]. Considering the concerns expressed in 2015, the comments there and above which amount to nothing more than WP:OWN (eg It is notable that Firejuggler86 was previously entirely uninterested in MEDRS until they decided to add their revert to the two others also by editors that had hitherto shown no interest in MEDRS), and the proponents' behaviour as a result of statements expressed at WT:BIOMED, it's very difficult to even say the allegation is patently false.

  Sorry to say that although the proponents are all respectable editors, I think they've mishandled this situation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Claiming that I'm on a particular side is claiming that I share that side's opinions. If @Firejuggler86 didn't intend to claim that I was one of "the ones that wanted to CHANGE WP:BIOMED by expanding its scope", then Firejuggler86 could have used other words, like "Those other editors wanted" or "Some people wanted". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  "does not make a comment about you specifically but rather "your side" (ie, the proponents and supporters)." -- no, but these two diffs do demonstrate a very clear WP:USTHEM mentality, which in and of itself is troublesome as examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND.

  I think, for that reason alone, the user should receive an admonition and a very temporary (7 days? 14 days?) topic ban (not a block) from COVID-19 articles. Something extremely mild that allows the user to gain some distance and introspection about these articles and whether this really is a "my side" vs "your side" type situation.

  Re: whether your link shows "scope creep," I actually think the result of that RfC in 2015 was to narrow MEDRS, if anything. And has not much of anything to do with this ANI report, except that it's orthogonal to the whole thing about "medical advice." It was true then as it is true now, MEDRS is not about medical advice, because no one should be giving medical advice on wiki.

  I think WhatamIdoing was absolutely right to caution users against giving medical advice. That was no more a legal threat than saying "hey, by the way, there's a reason MEDRS isn't really about medical advice, and it's because we're not allowed to give medical advice." Which is also a perfectly appropriate statement. I say that as someone who very recently started giving medical advice (yay graduated licensure) and definitely does not want wiki doing it! We have enough problems getting it right in the real world!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Once again, who is giving medical advice? Geogene (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Geogene, that wasn't really the point of my comment. I explained that using the idea "we shouldn't be giving medical advice at all" to help demonstrate why it's wrong to say "MEDRS is about medical advice" is perfectly reasonable. I did not accuse anyone of giving medical advice, and I don't believe WhatamIdoing was doing so either.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  I suspect that Geogene is trying to convince us that since nobody's actually giving medical advice on wiki (or, more precisely, since giving medical advice is banned by the TOU and we remove it from the wiki whenever we discover it), then it shouldn't matter if several people, including himself, said things like "MEDRS specifically applies to medical advice". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Reminds me of the ol' rhyme: "Who took a cookie from the cookie jar?" "If not me, then who?" (looks around conspicuously) There's nothing wrong with being wrong once in a while, it's an unfortunate consequence of being human.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  I agree; we all make mistakes. A long-time admin has said that you're not a real Wikipedian until you've made at least fifty mistakes. (Read about it on Medium.com.)

  Where this stops being a mere mistake, and turns into a behavioral problem, is when you make a false accusation, you're told (twice) that it's wrong and to stop it, and then your next post-warning edit to the same page is to repeat the same bad behavior anyway, with only minor tweaks to the wording of your false accusation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  No need to suspect, you could simply have noticed my followup from June 30th, immediately after below that comment [389]. How did you miss that? It's still near the top of the page history. Geogene (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  And has not much of anything to do with this ANI report: It seems to be the discussion the editor was referring to when they said Your side were the ones that wanted to CHANGE WP:BIOMED by expanding its scope to include matters of history, sociology, and politics. That failed, and now you're ... (ctrl-f that 2015 RfC discussion for "history", etc.)

  The user should receive no sanctions at all. Personally I think there is no conduct issue here, but if an admin disagreed then for fairness they must also sanction the supporters who actually made (false) allegations of impropriety. That admin must also examine whether this allegation was baseless, and to evaluate that they would need to look into the behaviour of the proponents. If the allegation isn't baseless, then there is nothing to be done about Firejuggler86.

  At this point I'm more concerned about the following:

  1. I linked two example diffs that contain actual and provably false aspersions and battlegrounding, but nobody has decided to condemn that behaviour or call for sanctions on those editors. Surely if this ANI is just about behaviour then we should care equally about the improper behaviour of supporters too?
  2. Just above, WAID says I quoted multiple editors who said that they thought the purpose of MEDRS was to tell editors how to give medical advice. If they're embarrassed now that because they said something that they now think is wrong, then that's not really my fault. Precise language matters to clearly express ideas of course. However if confusion caused by language is clarified, but you continue attacking the argument with your original misinterpretation to make it easier to attack (something a politician might do), then that is dishonest. WAID has certainly been informed of the intended meanings at this point, by at least threefour editors, including myself (above). I don't think that original definition made sense anyway, unless you believe > 20 long-time experienced editors (quoted) are under the impression that the English Wikipedia has a place for readers to mention their symptoms and have Wikipedians diagnose and treat them (WP:Medical desk?)

  ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  I have seen editors claiming that they magically know that other people meant something different from what they wrote, but I haven't seen anyone clarifying their own comments.

  All of this is a side show (or perhaps a premature re-litigation of a still-unclosed RFC?): @Firejuggler86 has accused me repeatedly of trying to require medical sources for non-medical information. These accusations are false. Firejuggler persisted in making these false claims after being told directly that it was wrong and to stop it. I need Firejuggler to stop posting false accusations about me. That really doesn't seem like a complicated situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  I thought we already established that the editor was not making any comments about you individually, which is quite apparent if one reads the full diffs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  Making false accusations about "your group" is still making false accusations about "you". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Making repeated unsupported false claims of wiki-misbehavior of a Wikipedia editor is particularly stressful and abusive against an editor who strives to and does do things properly and garners respect for doing that. This is abuse of an editor and must be stopped. North8000 (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Catchpoke

Broken off from another section

I am unsure if this is relevant, but user:Firejuggler86 made a revert clearly in retaliation of my comment here. Catchpoke (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

These edits by Catchpoke were recently discussed at [390] There's a lot of IDHT involved in bringing it up here. Geogene (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

My intent is not to bring up my behavior; my intent is to note user:Firejuggler86's behavior. Catchpoke (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:BOOMERANG. EEng 00:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Since Catchpoke had the poor judgment to inject himself into ANI, I think it's time to find out whether they can show they understand the concerns expressed by other editors at the discussion linked by Geogene. If not, I think a very simply topic ban is in order: Catchpoke is not to make any edit in any way involving the word "etymology" (or its variants: "etymological", "etymologically", etc.), nor any edit related to word or phrase meanings, denotations, connotations, implications, intimations, or origins, broadly construed. EEng 00:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Pedantry against consensus is behavior that needs to be nipped in the bud. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support I very much support EEng's suggestion. Catchpoke is on some sort of campaign, based on the sort of "faux precision" typical of non-native speakers, to replace anything about the origin of a name, expression, or anything else; of course "etymology" is a good word, but it has specific connotations of the lexical origin of a word through different languages. Much worse, Catchpoke is edit-warring against the opposing consensus, and engaging in other non-cooperative behavious like user talk page blanking. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I had intended that we observe the ritual waiting period, during which Catchpoke could express some mea culpa, before the tar-and-feathering got underway. EEng 09:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  But the tar will be cold by then. Levivich 12:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  And let me guess: we're out of propane. EEng 21:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  Been working late, used lots of gas lighting. Levivich 22:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich, I mean it when I say that your wit is close on to Wildean. EEng 06:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I've stopped making section name changes. I've used MOS:SECTIONSTYLE and MOS:NOBACKREF as edit summaries at times which I felt were appropriate. I disagree with user:Imaginatorium's definition of etymology. I consider it to cover all nouns and feel it is the appropriate word to use instead of "Origin of the term" or "Origin of the name". If people disagree, I am willing to reengage at [391]. Catchpoke (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  A little late for that; at this point you'll need to reeengage right here. Let's start with I consider it to cover all nouns and feel it is the appropriate word to use instead of "Origin of the term" or "Origin of the name". Do you recognize that a half-dozen experienced editors have told you that your campaign is inappropriate and disruptive, that at this point it does not matter what you think, and that if you do it again you're going to be blocked? Yes or no? EEng 20:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I make very similar edits for very similar reasons, and can use all the help I can get. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support The user gets questioned about their editing and pretty much says, "No, you're wrong!" [392] [393] [394] [395] Your competence is required here. – The Grid (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Removing disputed edit indication and adding the disputed edit again.

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

---

In this edit, Bastun removed the template that an edit was disputed and reinstated his version. Discussion was taking place here as well as on the talk page. Rather than participate in the dispute, he simple bludgeoned his own point and reinstated the disputed edit, while actually deleting the indication that a discussion/dispute was ongoing. There was no consensus for the edit and it flies in the face of due process. NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Bastun is now attempting to reopen the solved dispute in which he declined to participate.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I highly recommend you withdraw this ANI. An admin will review your actions as well as your dispute and you run the risk of being sanctioned yourself. If your behavior isn't exemplary it's not a good idea to accuse others. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 11:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I am reporting Bastun for making an edit that deleted an indication that a dispute was taking place and reinstating the edit that started the dispute. NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

And, FormalDude, if I want a lesson in exemplary behaviour, I'll ask someone else.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I removed the templates, in good faith, as a) I had not been pinged about the DRN and only became aware of it a short time ago; and b) assumed the templates related to the semi-protected edit requests on the talk page, where discussion had been live. Given that one of the participants (NEDOCHAN) has been blocked from the page for a week for edit warring, I assumed the consensus of the original IP, FormalDude and myself to include the first requested edit would apply - NEDOCHAN was the only person to object to including the correct result, sourced to ESPN.

Given that NEDOCHAN's argument against the second edit was nothing more than Undone We source the official record to Sherdog., despite knowing about the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318#Sherdog.com RfC here due to participating in it, and it being referenced also in his edit-warring report, I considered it did not hold any weight, and in any case had already been previously done by FormalDude. Again, a consensus of 3:1, to include reliably sourced information.

And yes, I reopened the DRN discussion as I was mentioned in it, had not been pinged about it, only came across it when I noticed a link in an edit summary by FormalDude, and I wanted to participate - specifically seeking affirmation that community WP:CONSENSUS, as determined in the aforementioned RfC, trumps a guideline used by a moribund Wikiproject, to use only One True Source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It is perfectly legitimate to restore the STATUSQUO while discussion is taking place. And you were informed of the DRN.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN, this was very foolish. Drmies (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Davey2010 ANI

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

---

Hi admins, want to report User:Davey2010 for his tedious editing behaviour on selfie. I wanted to make some improvements on selfie article with some additional selfie options but Davey reverted me thinking the previous version was fine when in fact the images kept overflowing. However my version [396] with the added images but I thought I was doing what was right. I am getting used to it, but Davey2010 keeps reverting me for no apparent reason. Am I worthless around here? --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You replaced a whole bunch of images and reduced them for no actual reason. Although not apparent I did reinstate all text changes once the edit conflicts stopped happening.

You were told on the Selfie talkpage to start an RFC so why are we here Nim?. Also you're well aware of BRD and are well aware that once you're reverted you need to seek consensus for your changes although sure it takes 2 to edit war so I'm not entirely blameless here. –Davey2010^Talk 14:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I don't think ce is a very good edit summary, the crux of Davey's objection (from talk) seems to be 'unnecessary'/'not an improvement'. I see you tried discussing on the talk page but this does seem to be a content dispute and so have you tried following the other steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Your next steps I think would be to invite the participation of other editors (from WikiProjects) and/or starting a WP:RFC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah sorry the "ce" and "reinstate few changes" wasn't me trying to sneakily add the content back - I was trying to reinstate the text and then trying to make copy edits after but kept hitting edit conflicts everytime I was trying to make those changes. –Davey2010^Talk 14:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The best solution is for Davey to revert it back to my version for now and we can sort a version. His version is not good as he has removed some crucial images like the drone selfie which is completely different. Some of the images had to be removed as they were crushing the article. Davey2010 seems to have favouritisms for users like Vauxford and some others, but not me. I don't know why I came back in the first place. Wikipedia was already a mess when I've arrived and I don't think I'm a valued editor anymore. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I have never edit warred (for the last 7 years) until today. Also User:Davey2010 shoved WP:BRD down everyones throat and this is ticking me off as its not a policy. What am I doing? Wikipedia is a mess as it is. Users always get their own way, and this is completely bollocks. I'm trying to act as a normal editor, and improving but users like him are the main reason why I'm getting driven away from editing. What do I do next leave, abandon my account, create a new one?? What do I do, as I want to be involved with the images only as I've explained I'm bad at writing. I am planning to leave Wikipedia once again if Davey2010 reverts me once again. In fact look at his block log for edit warring, do you think that makes sense? Btw I have reverted to my version for the moment and initiated a talkpage discussion section, hence why I went middle ground and removed all my own work images, but kept the flickr ones. Its sad that I have to get all crazy and stuff, but unfortunately, my actions are sadistically coming back to haunt me with mental problems and psychiatrist reports and all that that upsets me from editing Wikipedia. I hate bullying, personal attacks and other nasties and this sadly comes down to my pain. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Not to create more drama but BRD is widely followed and I've followed it for the past 5 years - You were the one who created changes, You were reverted and so you now need to seek consensus for your changes.... If I made a whole heap of changes and were reverted - I would need to seek consensus....,

Everyone has things they enjoy here but Nim images have been the issue with you for some time and I did tell you here to steer clear of images ... but instead that's been your main focal point again and again it's been something that's sort of been the subject at ANI (Obviously I'm the main subject but I mean images are the reason I'm here essentially).

I get the impression at times you make unnecessary edits for the sake of making unnecessary edits. I'm all for image replacing providing what you're actually replacing is better which 9 times out of 10 it's not.

I fail to see what my block log has to do with it given my last edit warring block was in what 2014 (7 years ago!) and unfortunately not to be nasty but Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. Anyway I shan't revert there any further and will back off from here. –Davey2010^Talk 14:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I know, and I'm sorry. I did create an WP:RFC but times are changing and my BDR method is much better. But yeah lets put this to bed and go to sleep --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• FYI they've now reverted again[397]. –Davey2010^Talk 15:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh right... But I have stopped now, and this is the only article I have edit warred. In hindsight I only did a partial revert. I'm giving up editing if I cannot do images because as Ive mentioned, i cannot write for long periods of time. I compromised so in my opinion, there's not really much point in me being blocked. In my view, it achieves nothing, and a simple apology coupled with a middle ground point takes the cake. So in summary, I am very sorry how I acted today with my edits and promise to be a more productive editor going forward without edit-warring.--EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 15:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

EurovisionNim - I appreciate your apology, but I'm starting to see a pattern of editing with you that concerns me. You've been topic-banned from all pages relating to automobiles, broadly construed - and if my memory serves me well, this topic ban stemmed from repeated disruption in relation to the addition and replacing of images on those articles. Now we're here, and again, we're having issues with edit warring that involve the same thing - the addition and replacing of images on the Selfie article. I understand that images interest you and that this is a big focus for you on the project. That's completely fine, but you need to understand that edit warring and causing disruption isn't going to help you, nor is it going to help the project. I don't want to see you in hot water like this, EurovisionNim. It's not good - especially when you already have an active sanction in place. Please please take this as a lesson learned; take some time to review and make sure that you understand Wikipedia's policy on edit warring, and please work things out peacefully with Davey2010 and come to a consensus on the article's talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is most definitely ending up as no action and I honestly do not see anything necessarily disruptive to the point where an ANI has to be opened. if you are having content disputes, there are other methods such as WP:3O that can be quite helpful. My take is if you are editing here it’s almost impossible to have everything go “your way” what I can tell from content disputes is that more often than not, a compromise is the ideal solution, Davey2010 and EurovisionNim you both are mature enough to meet each-other half way without an ANI being evoked. Celestina007 (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 I apologised. And yes, I do agree. Hence why I went for middle ground :). In hindsight what do blocks achieve? Nothing. It is not the ideal solution and compromising is the way to go :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Why have you not stricken your OP comment and requested that this thread be closed with no action? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hijiri88, I don't know how to do it. But i don't want to be blocked for making unnecessary closures --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 05:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

You can strike comments by using <s> and </s>, like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

EurovisionNim - Blocks are applied for many reasons. The typical reason that a block is applied is to prevent further disruption to the project when it appears that it will continue if no action is taken to stop it. That being said, you could've been blocked for edit warring earlier, as this is what was occurring on the Selfie article. I'm happy to see that it didn't happen, but such a block would've been justified had the edit warring not stopped. As I said to you above, please be careful, please refrain from edit warring, and please work with Davey2010 to come to a consensus on the article's talk page. Mistakes happen and your apology is appreciated. However, it concerns me when I read the responses above and see that you reverted the Selfie article an additional time after this ANI was started. Your response, "Oh right... But I have stopped now", makes it seem like you were pushing the limit until someone called you out on it, and committed to stop edit warring only after being asked to do so multiple times. It shouldn't take that much of a collaborated effort by the community to get you to put the brakes on, stop, look up, and listen. I'm also not happy to see the edit summary you left with this edit. "I am happy to be partially blocked from this section"? This reads to me as if you're doubling down on Davey2010 instead of doing the right thing and taking the dispute to the article's talk page. That's not something I want to see. Please slow yourself down, and please remember to discuss content disputes rather than engaging in edit warring. Like I said above, it wouldn't hurt for you to take some time and review Wikipedia's policy on edit warring just as a refresher. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah. Look, i think I'll take a small break from editing and do some other things. But surely, there are bigger things. Yes, that's no problems, I will review it during my break. Cool champ! I'm suffering from a lot of personal problems, hence my behaviour hasn't been up to scratch. But what I did for the selfie article is do the half-half method, so to reach a compromise. But i didn't think adding images was a big deal. Yep ok I'll nip a small break for a while. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 05:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

EurovisionNim - If you feel like you need to take a break from editing, by all means, do what you feel is right for you. EurovisionNim, please know that this discussion isn't meant to, nor is it trying to, chase you away from Wikipedia or from editing. We want you here, and we want you to be part of this project as an editor. I've made more than my fair share of mistakes on Wikipedia; I'm telling you these things not because I'm perfect, but because I've experienced making mistakes many times before. All you need to do is internalize what you've learned from this discussion, and apply what you've learned to your future edits. Commit to being better than before this discussion started. That's all we ask you to do. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm sorry Oshwah, Davey2010 and Sjeintspen. I did put a discussion forward as mentioned. But true, if its a breach of policy. I do apologise, but sometimes you owe smaller leeways. Let me know if you guys need anything, as I'm only back after a week and I think if no one reverts one another we would not have this discussion. I have. 6months to improve myself, and there's a good chance we won't need this discussion. Anyway, case closed, move on and forget about it. I will read the WP:3RR and other aforemented policies where necessary and become a lot more constructive.--EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

EurovisionNim - Again, I appreciate your apology and your willingness to improve your edits and your behavior. Just remember that starting or participating in a discussion on the article's talk page over a dispute doesn't mean that you can continue to revert edits to the article in a back-and-forth manner while the discussion is ongoing. It's still considered edit warring if you do that. Instead, you need to participate in the discussion regarding the dispute and refrain from reverting the article at all until the discussion comes to a consensus or a conclusion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Oshwah, I wasn't too aware of that policy prior, but yes that can happen! I want to improve for the better. I made the mistake, I face the consequences and improve. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

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

• tedious editing – To my surprise, there's already WP:TEDIOUS, which redirects to WP:Tendentious editing. I don't think these are the same concept at all. EEng 03:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  @EEng: you may be interested in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 12#Wikipedia:Tenditious. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  Seriously, TEDIOUS ought to redirect somewhere else, but unfortunately it's got too many invocations already. See also WP:TENDONITITS. EEng 13:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  Isn't that what people get scrolling through your talk page? :) RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  Excuse me, that was supposed to be WP:TENDONITISEDITING. I TITS little experience have with. EEng 13:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism/OR by Legaiaflame

Legaiaflame has repeatedly inserted subtle vandalism (i.e. changing numerical values without explanation or sourcing) into articles, and to a lesser extent engaged in original research. He has never used an edit summary to explain his actions, nor has he ever used a talk page. He has been given plenty of warnings, including two final warnings this week, and he has completely ignored all of them.

Examples of diffs:

[398], [399], [400], [401], [402], [403], [404], [405] Loafiewa (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Not providing a reason in the edit summary doesn’t automatically classify an edit as vandalism. However, not providing a edit summary, especially to added unsourced content, is highly disruptive. Jerm (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

As is altering sourced content without an explanation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Based on the editor’s talk page, they have a history of adding unsourced content and not providing an edit summary and have ignored a multitude of warnings. A block should be implemented. For how long? I don’t know. Jerm (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that they are editing through the Android app, which is a known issue with people getting notifications about their talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm true, but you could also enable email and get notifications through there. I do that as I have a busy lifestyle, and emails come to my phone so i can easily click them :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 16:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

They don't have email enabled. If they don't know what a talk page is, or that their app is bugged, they wouldn't think to enable email to get around the bug they don't know exists. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Can they not subscribe to their talk page??Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Surely Legaiaflame could respond to the messages on their talk page if the editor can edit articles. Is the Android that difficult to use when it comes to responding to messages? Jerm (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Jerm, Wikipedia:Mobile communication bugs, it's that difficult, or in some cases, simply non-functional. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

If that's true, how should this case be handled then? Can't block an editor who can't respond to messages, but it also has me wondering, the editor can still read the messages. If so, Legaiaflame shows no sign of discontinuing their editing pattern despite the multiple warnings. Jerm (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Would it be worth considering giving them a 24 hour block, just so that way they might actually look at their talk page? As Jerm said, there's no reason to believe they'll change their behaviour now when they've been doing it for so long, and learning to WP:COMMUNICATE is not optional. Loafiewa (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I support a 24 hour block. If nothing is done, Legaiaflame's editing behavior will continue. Jerm (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

If it's subtle vandalism, ie the info is false, then blocking is the only solution. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

That's the thing though, it's not really vandalism, but not filling out the edit summary, not providing reliable sources for their changes, and ignoring concerns/warnings from other editors on their talk page. The editor would be blocked for WP:NOTHERE reasons but for only 24 hours. Jerm (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Are the edits factually accurate? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The cost of blocking needs to be weighed up with the fact that this is a long-time user who is intermittently active and continuously active over the past 12 months. If you block them, they will not see any block reason due to the inadequacies of the Android application. They will just see "You have been blocked from editing." or some variant thereof. Odds are, that will cause them to leave permanently. There is only one technically possible way (that I know of) to send a message to them, but it would violate policy.

If the edits are factually incorrect, then there is no option but to block. But if they are factually correct, then I think we can bear out imperfect (but ultimately encyclopaedia-improving) edits until the WMF decides to fix the damn app. But we've seen a lot of these ANIs recently. I appreciate it'll take some time for the WMF to fix this mess, but it's trivial for them to implement a hack that lets us send custom messages to these editors (through, for example, an edit filter). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Well let's see, their edit claims the M-16 "In the 1970s, the United States developed the M16 rifle" the thing is, it entered service (I.E. had already been developed) in 1967 (Note this was when it was adopted by the US army as the mM-16, note when versions were issued for fields tests). Now anyone who knows anything about the Vietnam war, or the M-16 would know this. So (even if it was a mistake) it was just a number they plucked out of their head.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

If our article onM16 rifle is accurate, it entered in service in 1964 apparently, and was designed in 1959, ie the late 1950s. The edit quoted in the OP is RandomCanadian's rollback; that user's edit was actually this, which seems correct? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I was going by when it was called the m-16, not when it was called the XM whatever it was. Not sure it's vandalism persee so much as a desperate desire to increase edit count by any means. So they just make random changes based upon assumption, OR or just plain "giveitashotism", either way, it's disruptive.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

But this is an Android app user. Why would they want to increase their edit count? They have never used a project page (probably don't even know about them) and I don't think they can even see their own edit count. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Then why make these meaningless (and apparently in some cases totally wrong) changes? By the way, it might not be about them seeing it. I note even their early edits seem to be this kind of minor change (always undone). So if it is not "just to get their edit count up" then it must be a form of vandalism, entering tons of incorrect information just to make pages inaccurate (but subtly so, in the hope no one notices). If that is the case a site ban is in order as they are not here for any good reasonSlatersteven (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

To make conjecture, I'd guess the reason that they like to make so many edits as once is just to make it more difficult for other editors to sift through all of them and make sure they're accurate, and thereby make it go easier for their edits to go unchallenged. Their edits to .44 Russian, Browning Hi-Power, M1917, are deliberate factual errors, and there's just no other way around that. They might do some good gnoming here and there, but I don't really think it's acceptable for an editor who's been editing for upwards of a decade to still think it's okay to just make stuff up in their edits. Loafiewa (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor for repeatedly adding unreferenced and incorrect content to Wikipedia. On the matter of the Android app, that is a very, very sad situation. I am an administrator who does 99% of my editing on Android smartphones and have for many years. I am a consistent advocate for mobile editing because I have proven that it can be done productively. But I use the fully functional desktop site on my phone, instead of the miserable crippled Android app. This is a very sad situation, but we cannot have an editor adding bad content on a whim when we cannot communicate with the editor. The responsibility for this is on the WMF. They should not offer any app or site that doesn't allow fully functional collaborative editing. They have poured gigantic amounts of money into these failed apps, when the 20 year old desktop site works just fine on billions of Android phones in service. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible that, after being blocked, one may take some initiative and log into the desktop site to learn more about why they were blocked, or try get in touch with someone to discuss. I doubt the WMF really cares about this block, since they've already explicitly said they care for 'the big picture' (ie the overall statistics) rather than what happens in individual cases. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Plant-country category removal

A series of plant-country categories including Category:Rosids of Argentina have been systematically depopulated by Plantdrew using HotCat. Subsequently users like UnitedStatesian have apparently unknowingly of the arbitrary deletion proposed them for speedy deletion. Category:Rosids of Argentina is just among the few ones I have been able to save as I arrived on time prior to speedy deletion. The issue of deleting country-plant taxonomy categories was discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_18#Flora_of_X_by_taxonomy and the result was no consensus. Hence the categories should. Stay. I would like to ask for all categories deleted in this irregular way to be restored and repopulated. If Plantdrew still wants to delete the categories he needs to discuss it first at WP:AfD like Wikipedians are expected to do in most cases. Sietecolores (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This would be much easier to analyze if some examples/diffs of the category removals were given. (Plantdrew has so many edits I couldn't quickly find any) There are certainly valid reasons why Plantdrew might have done such a thing, there are also invalid reasons. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I note that a) Plantdrew did not take part in that discussion, and b) you seem to have made no attempt to discuss this with them, so maybe this is a wee bit premature...? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Ugni molinae: Plantdew first attempt [406] 2018 November 2019, Plantdew second attempt [407] 13 June 2021.

Araucaria araucana Plantdew [408] 18 November 2019.

Drimys winteri [409] 18 November 2019.

There are many, many more examples. Most undiscussed category removals that were carried out in November 2019 by Plantdew.

This is a serious incident of abusing advanced tools like HotCat, that's why I bring it up here. Sietecolores (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Finding diffs are difficult (no pun intended), but regarding HotCat or advanced tools, a possible solution is to impose an WP:EDR on the use of the tools till the user is capable of understanding their wrongdoings --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 16:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense, from both of you - sorry. This is really none of my beef (I just saw the notification on Plantdrew's talk page in passing), but good faith removal of categories that go unchallenged for two years, by a very experienced editor who may not have been aware of a local consensus to the contrary, is not "a serious abuse of HotCat". Talk it over with them before making a ruckus here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Elmidae, maybe it was premature, maybe you are right. But given that I the issue is already here I propose we discuss it here. This is still a serious issue given the massive removals he did and the subsequent deletions cant be easily undome. Sietecolores (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It is incredibly easy to undue a category page deletion; the re-population is slightly harder. I don't see an issue needing administrative action here; if the removals have stood unchallenged for over a year there is no need to revert them before a discussion establishes they are appropriate. Perhaps a discussion at Plantdrew's talk page would be sufficient; otherwise either a Wikiproject or a new CfD (without the procedural issues that plagued the first one). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an exact memory of this, but I edited 34 articles on 18 November 2019, removing intersectional categories of plant orders (and some higher taxa) and countries. I assume I was motivated by noticing some categories with few members, which weren't fully populated with potential members. e.g., the intersection of Asterales and Flora of Chile categories has 64 articles, but only 1 article was placed in Category:Asterales of Chile. Some of these underpopulated categories would've had very few members even if fully populated (Canellales+Flora of Chile has 2 articles, but only one was in the intersectional category). (these are underestimates because e.g. Category:Flora of Chile isn't fully populated, and frankly it would be more productive to ensure that the country category is fully populated before creating intersectional subcategories). Most of the categories I depopulated were for Chile and Argentina but there were some others (e.g. Category:Asparagales of Southwestern Europe) For Chile and Argentina, there were categories created for 8 flowering plant orders (out of 64 globally; some don't occur in Chile/Argentina, but far more than 8 do).

In short, I saw an incomplete system of underpopulated categories. While there is a well developed and (fairly well) populated set of categories for Australian plants by order, breaking down geographical categories by plant order isn't mentioned in any of the guidance for categorizing plants: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization and Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions; the set of Australia categories isn't a standard to follow. It appeared to me to be an experiment in categorization that had been abandoned by it's creator(s), so I boldly removed the (underpopulated, incomplete and nonstandard) categories. It wasn't the first time I've come across a nonstandard way of categorizing organisms where the creator made almost no effort to populate the categories. Plantdrew (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism/WP:BLP violations at John Schnatter

Looks like someone is creating multiple accounts for disruptive purposes. Probably a lot of rev/deletion needed here. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I've revision-deleted the obvious BLP violations, and Luk3 has semi-protected the article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Heads up: Caliph of Islam again

Previous thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#Users excessively posting about Caliphs of Islam at help desk

First hints that this might be cropping up again. See edits by Muhammad Hashir 786 (talk · contribs · logs) (and also 39.44.38.139) to an ancient AfD & my talk. (Not watchlisting ANI) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) We're We've also been seeing some slight activity at the help desk in the past few days. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The semi-protection of Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad and Talk:Ahmadiyya Caliphate has stopped some of the disruption, although it may have simply transferred it elsewhere. What I'd like to know is why they are asking Google who the current caliph of Islam is to start with... FDW777 (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

And I'd like to know why some editors who usually seem quite level headed think that it's possible that Wikipedia is to blame for what Google displays, even if (as in this case) it's clear that Wikipedia has things right. I've seen several instances of this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

They are Googling and coming here because they believe that they are investigating and rectifying an insult against Islam. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could transclude WP:CALIPH into page editnotices? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

That, and also create a FAQ in the affected articles' talk pages as well. The latter's been done at Talk:Adam's Bridge, which has seen its fair share of brigading. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The FAQ won't help, speaking from experience at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. Most of the people coming here and complaining do not read FAQs, previous threads, or anything that goes against what they know to be right: that Wikipedia and Google are joined at the hip. The consequence is that WE get the complaints because they don't care enough to realise or admit that complaints to us are a waste of time and that we're on their side this time, if only because Google is very much an outlier here with respect to their search results compared to Bing, DDG, Yahoo, etc. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I remember that the last time this happened, some big-brain managed to copyedit the lead of the guy's article so that Google's idiotic scraper would stop claiming that Wikipedia said he was the Caliph of Islam. Would it be possible to do this again? Obviously, this isn't a permanent solution -- the permanent solution would likely involve a Google manager being introduced to a wet trout -- but it would help to ameliorate the immediate issue. jp×g 02:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

No, because if they're still complaining about this then as far as the Google search goes the calls are coming from the visitors inside the house. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Filter 1106

• 1106 (hist · log)

Would it be possible to possibly expand the use of the edit filter set up back in December to also catch this sort of thing on the Help Desk or any other pages where this is a constant issue, or would that result in too many false-positives or be technically impossible/inviable? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 12:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz and GeneralNotability: maintain that filter I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's currently disabled, which is why it's not stopping anything. I have re-enabled in log-only mode; no objection to anyone setting it to disallow, but I don't have the bandwidth right now to monitor it for false positives. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

False positives were previously becoming an issue, and I'd suggest before enabling disallow that it will need a rethink.. perhaps make it page-specific for disallows at a minimum, but probably a wider rethink. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:Help desk seems to be the main page where the drive-bys are happening; I expect this is because the relevant article talk pages are semi-protected? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The pages hit so far (since the filter was re-enabled) do not include the Help Desk, but do include Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Talk:Mirza Tahir Ahmad, User talk:124.109.47.86, and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (twice). It's a similar distribution to the previous event. I think we can probably split off the WP namespace, but may have to tolerate a bit more in talk namespaces, or rely on protection or something. I sometimes work slowly, so in the meantime I've re-enabled and made public 1108 (hist · log), which does something similar, for monitoring purposes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

IP from Taylor, Michigan

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

---

50.4.9.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly added unsourced and dubious information regarding Craig of the Creek, usually adding unsourced future episodes or a fake series end date. They have returned sporadically since July 2020 to add such information. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced future epsiodes

• Earliest edit, July 2020
• [410]
• [411]
• [412]
• [413]
• Added information about the upcoming season 4 that failed verification

Fake end date

• [414]
• [415]
• [416]
• [417]
• Fake move to Netflix
• [418]
• [419]

Heads up - I've reported the IP to AIV. If you see any more instances of persistent vandalism by IPs or users, go there instead. MiasmaEternal^TALK 22:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Strange user behaviour regarding diplomacy and communicating with users.

There are some strange edits and input by Supermann (talk · contribs) and there is a perceived bias and possible conflict of editing on certain articles and discussion. See certain points of discussion here (Said user having conflicting nature/aggressive behaviour with other users who are simply discussing issues with articles), here (said user behaves the same, this time however resorts to personal attacks), here (User tries to add information on article involving China related content, although there was insufficient supporting sources said user still pushed to have his input approved, here (Said user gets into verbal attacks towards other users who are simply following Wikipedias style of editing along with inappropriate edits threatening users here, here, and here. Further disruptive edit warring here. officialreply ^comesayhi 02:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit: It has come to my attention Supermann (talk · contribs) is already a subject of discussion here. His behaviour towards other users is concerning. Regarding anonymous IP leaving inappropriate messages he handled the situation in an aggressive manner. His behaviour is not friendly especially when this website strives to be a community and place of helping and learning. officialreply ^comesayhi 02:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: OP has been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

It should be clarified for the diffs provided in the first paragraph that theatre chains websites are not reliable sources for runtimes per WP:FILMRUNTIME. —El Millo (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have indeffed this user for WP:NOTHERE. They are either a troll or a sock. They created their account today. They created a userpage and a Talk page with childish emoticons on them. They immediately filed a report here about a user that was already the subject of a thread here. They notified the user properly. The report is complete with diffs, better than some experienced editors' reports. There is no way in hell they are a new user. And it is obvious they are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Their username is suspicious. If another administrator believes I am wrong or acted too hastily, I consent to them doing whatever they believe is appropriate as I am logging off shortly (bedtime).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Possibly related to a couple of IPs I blocked for trolling on Supermann's talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Familiar edit to the other accounts

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

---

Hello there! I found out of this user [420] User:Jellyjelly34, the same and familiar edit of the other user [421] User:Jellywings19, editing like stuffs on airlines and aviations, adding the airline destination like Garuda Indonesia. Both accounts seems to be have a multiple accounts, with unsourced edit material without a single explanation. I hope y'all check this user. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornerstone2.0 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cornerstone2.0 per the rules of Wikipedia, please notify the users mentioned on their own talk page. I have notified both users. Can you provide any particular diffs on why you suspect these users may be engaged in sockpuppetry? I am not experienced in stuff like this, but when researching them using the Interaction Timeline all I can see is just both have similar interests. I also look at Garuda Indonesia article, the last edit by Jelly34 is this and this does not have anything to do with airline destinations. Jellywings19 do edit about destinations, notably on this diff. SunDawntalk 11:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Jellywings19 was blocked for disruption, so they created Jellyjelly34 to evade their block. I've indefinitely blocked and tagged both accounts for obvious socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

   Confirmed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Two years of unreferenced genres from France IPs

• 2A01:CB00:E80:1800:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in France has been adding unreferenced genres to music articles for the last two years.[422][423] They have never responded to talk page warnings. Can we get some relief from this person? Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet - I started the block at two weeks. If shenanigans continue after the block expires, let me know and I'll extend it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Will do. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Liverpoolpics et al: Bizarre editing pattern

I propose that Liverpoolpics be banned or at least have their editing severely restricted.

[[So on my watchlist today I found that Frombowen (talk · contribs), almost definitely a sockpuppet of Liverpoolpics (see below), had added a photo request to the talk page of Mary Brown Austin, who died in 1824, before the commercialisation of photography. I thought that was particularly bizarre, so I checked out their contributions, almost all of which were similar additions of photo request templates to seemingly random articles and basic (and often barely necessary) WikiProject tagging. Since they had made only a few hundred edits, none of which were in the main namespace, and been unresponsive to the message on their talk page by Fram, I indef-blocked them for disruptive editing and mass-rollbacked their edits.

On checking their contributions more closely, I found a particularly egregious photo request added to Talk:Hacienda HealthCare sexual abuse case ... far be it for me to judge, bubt what exactly would one want a photo of for that article? Fram removed the photo request but it was readded by Liverpoolpics (talk · contribs), who also spends much of their time adding photo requests in a remarkably similar manner, but has made over ... 61,000 edits! At this point it's worth noting that the documentation at {{Photo requested}} says: "It is not a general-purpose "no image present" indicator. Editors placing this template on a talk page should provide information about what photographs are wanted."

But Liverpoolpics is problematic in many other ways, most notably with their insistance on using the articles for creation process to create new articles and often having them rejected, as can be seen by their talk page and many archives (which I've just added links to), which have hundreds upon hundreds of such notices. An example of their repeatedly rejected work is Draft:Ølsfjorden. After at least four years of trying to write articles, shouldn't an editor have the competence to do it correctly by now?

Their early edits are particularly unusual for a new editor, adding images and removing photo requests from talk pages, which makes me wonder if they previously had another identity here. For their years of tying up the AFC backlog and their bizarre way of going about making photo requests, I think they should be indef-banned or have their editing severely curtailed. The only reason I haven't done it myself is that the situation just seems completely bonkers to me and I'd like to perhaps find out more about what on earth is going on here. I know it's a different site and all, but also see their Commons block log. Graham87 19:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I've notified the AFC project. Graham87 19:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment). Based on what I can find, I'd have serious difficulty in getting Ølsfjorden (no) through WP:GEOLAND, even though it clearly exists. It doesn't look like one of Slartibartfast's more distinguished efforts. Narky Blert (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(Full disclosure - I came here from the notice on the AfC talk page). I've come across Liverpoolpics many times at AfC and find their editing pattern baffling. The MO consists of submitting articles that have been translated without attribution from another Wikipedia (presumably machine translated), and which are often unsourced or supported by one or two references of dubious quality. The draft inevitably gets declined for being poorly sourced, at which point they add one more source which is usually unreliable and/or doesn't support any of the statements in the article, and resubmit. Repeat until someone finally gets annoyed enough to either reject the draft, or begrudgingly accept it, as some of the topics are probably notable but the drafts fail to show that. For an example of this pattern, see [424][425][426][427][428][429], or really any other of their AfC submissions. Several users have noted that this behaviour is not productive [430][431][432], but they continue to do exactly the same thing.

I have wondered whether there is some sort of undisclosed automated editing going on here, as the behaviour is very repetitive and you'd expect a normal editor to change their approach after years of their drafts getting declined. This could also explain the indiscriminate photo requests and problematic mass uploading on Commons. I don't know whether this is actually the case, or whether Frombowen is their sockpuppet or just someone else with the same strange preoccupation with the photo request template, but regardless I share the OP's serious concerns about their editing. Spicy (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Just wow! Also, if you believe this message on User talk:Frombowen], I have a bridge in Brooklyn, Hants County, Nova Scotia to sell you. Graham87 07:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is a real problem here. In April 2018, they received a detailed explanation of why they needed to attribute the original version of Wikipedia articles they translated: User talk:Liverpoolpics/Archive 1#Translating from other Wikipedias. Their creation log shows that after that, they started including an attribution on the talk pages of their newly created articles, but at some point, they stopped attributing translations, as seen in User talk:Liverpoolpics/Archive 15#Important advice from December 2020 and User_talk:Liverpoolpics#Translations and drafts with poor sourcing from a couple of weeks ago (also linked by Spicy above). In the latter thread, where they were asked to go back and add attributions to their created drafts and articles, they acknowledge the issue but they have not done anything about it. For some reason, the Norwegian Bokmål (no.wiki) Wikipedia seems to be one of their preferred origin Wikipedia versions (also for articles about topics with no connection to Norway), but it is eminently clear that they don't understand Bokmål, and that they don't even try to read the sources they add. As pointed out above, their treatment of sources appears to be to look for anything that mentions the subject they are writing about, and then add that as a source at some random place in the text. But there are other issues as well: have a look at the recently-declined Draft:Åse Svenheim Drivenes where the female pronoun hennes, "her", in the original was translated into "his" ("His directorial debut", "His second documentary film") although none of the sources indicates that Drivenes uses male pronouns. I understand that it might not be obvious to a person who does not speak any Scandinavian language that "Åse" is a female name, but this source, which Liverpoolpics added to the draft after the most recent decline, is in English!

It has to be very frustrating to receive all those decline notices and other feedback criticising their edits, but it is simply baffling that they don't change anything, or ask what the problem is if they don't understand the feedback. I admit I am a bit frustrated myself since I've put a bit of time and effort into explaining these things in the last month or so, and I imagine that people who have been interacting with Liverpoolpics for a longer time must be much more frustrated than I am.

While many of the drafts Liverpoolpics creates are about notable topics, they are making it more difficult for Wikipedia to cover those topics. I would support some editing sanction, either in the form of a ban on creating and re-submitting drafts in this careless way, or as an outright block. --bonadea contributions talk 08:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd like for another CU (Ponyo? NinjaRobotPirate? TonyBallioni?) to have a look at the overlap between Frombown and Liverpoolpics. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Have they claimed anywhere not to be the same person? CU-wise it's fairly  Likely they are. Either that or they know each other and are working in conjunction.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I can't find a single statement that they've made about each others' accounts. I forgot to mention it last night, but I also started a discussion about this at Commons, for whatever it's worth. Graham87 16:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Having received no serious objections, I'm about to indefblock this user. This edit will serve as a permalink for the block notice. Graham87 02:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

User Reodorant

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

Reodorant (talk · contribs) keeps on relating the concept of Transylvanianism to the marginal Transylvanian autonomist or independentist movement. The person behind has used way more (IP) accounts for doing these changes continously, recurring to fake edit summaries and additional changes to add Transylvanianism once again in unrelated articles. But first of all, I need to define Transylvanianism.

Transylvanianism is nothing but the promotal of good interethnic relations between the Romanians and Hungarians in Transylvania (a multiethnic region). It is not independentist, autonomist and, by definition, it is not regionalist as well as this user claims. The page of the latter says this: "Regionalism is a political ideology which seeks to increase the political power, influence and/or self-determination of the people of one or more subnational regions." Not the case of Transylvanianism. I explained further, with links to reliable sources, the concept at User talk:2A04:2413:8003:B380:E458:C1D5:38C9:2419 (one of the IPs of Reodorant). At first we discussed (months ago already), but then they stopped replying to me.

Here are the fake edit summaries I mentioned: [433] [434] (this one is quite obvious). And that's it from this account but there are way more. They are not in chronological or any particular order, because I am not willing in wasting more time with this issue.

• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:B909:B054:CB9D:97DE (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [435]
• 2a04:2413:8003:b380:b54a:99e2:5b5f:61e1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [436] [437]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:E458:C1D5:38C9:2419 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [438] [439] [440] [441] [442] [443] (this is the IP I discussed with and stopped getting replies from)
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:D8B:A350:B112:1D74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [444]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:7032:7AB9:62C5:53F6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [445] (fake edit summary)
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:794C:C6E6:860C:FFDD (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [446]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:5D72:A717:297A:F4D9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [447]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:E402:1151:5613:79DE (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [448]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:1CBE:E342:7BD0:1A38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [449]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:2430:F681:D7A2:8477 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [450]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:F591:9066:CBE2:F780 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [451]

This is not an easy to track issue, it's very tiring and time consuming, and it has been going on since FEBRUARY! I want it to stop so I don't have to check the histories of those pages every once in a while anymore. By the way, I didn't specify it earlier, but the pages where this conflict has been happening are these: Regionalism (politics), Template:Stateless nationalism in Europe, List of active separatist movements in Europe#Romania.

I also note I already reported this here before, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#IP.

I please ask any administrator to take the measures they see necessary so this doesn't happen anymore. By the way, out of this, I see Reodorant is a good contributor to Wikipedia, so perhaps blocking them from editing those three pages might do it. Super Ψ Dro 21:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a tip, those IPs are all the same subnet prefix so you can see their combined contribs using 2A04:2413:8003:B380::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It's probably the same person (see WP:/64). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/2A04:2413:8003:B380::/64 for one month for apparent logged-out edit warring about Transylvanianism. I've also blocked User:Reodorant five days for the same thing. Reodorant's deceptive edit summary 'orthography' when adding the link to Transylvanianism is an example of editing in bad faith The same IP range was partially blocked from article space for a week back in May. Since the end of April the editor has managed to register an account but didn't stop warring. Due to the nationalist subject matter (Romania versus Hungary) I'm also alerting Reodorant to WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Great, many thanks for dealing with this! Super Ψ Dro 07:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

IP has concerns about the Palmer Report page

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

---

• Palmer Report (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An editor named "Dr. Swag Lord" has essentially hijacked the Wikipedia article titled "Palmer Report" and turned it into his own personal playpen for carrying out what appears to be a personal vendetta. For instance, the article previously included links from USA Today and the Washington Post that referenced Palmer Report in a positive/neutral light. Unfortunately Dr. Swag Lord took it upon himself to remove these, in an effort at making sure that the page was 100% negative in nature. This makes clear that he has a personal bias and/or personal vendetta toward Palmer Report, and that he has no business editing this page.

Further, when an established editor named "EraserHead1" who previously worked on the Palmer Report article returned to ask questions about why it had been whitewashed, Dr. Swag Lord threatened him and chased him away, saying "Please go somewhere else. Do not reply here again."

This is wildly inappropriate behavior for an editor. Dr. Swag Lord's edits are intentionally biased in bad faith, and his abusive behavior toward editors who question his unilateral edits are proof that he's attempting to operate this page as his own personal playpen. Remove him, and half the current problems on the Palmer Report page will disappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.188.194 (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see the big yellow banner at the top of the page: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ to do so. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

(comment from involved editor) There is already a request that Talk:Palmer Report be protected at WP:RfPP because of tendentious and unproductive IP comments, likely stemming from the Palmer Report's own attempts at Twitter brigading, which have been ongoing for some time ([452], [453], etc).

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d and I have been on the opposite ends of at least one disagreement in the past, but this is not one of them—their behavior on that article has been reasonable and well within the bounds of policy, despite considerable unpleasantness levied against them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be under the impression that Dr. Swag Lord chased the other editor off his personal Talk page. This is NOT the case. Dr. Swag Lord engaged in this behavior on the Talk page for the Palmer Report article, which means it was abusive and threatening in nature.

As for the legitimate sourcing from USA Today and Washington Post that Dr. Swag Lord removed, he did it more than a week ago, back when he and his partner JohnPaos decided to eliminate half the longstanding text from the Palmer Report article while they thought no one was looking. Dr. Swag Lord has since buried that whitewashing under dozens if not hundreds of followup edits, which appear to be an attempt at making it impossible to revert the portions of the page that they removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.188.194 (talk • contribs)

Can you please provide the diffs of these removals as I requested on the article talk page? You're right that I incorrectly assumed "Please go somewhere else. Do not reply here again." was from their user talk page, thank you for clarifying that. Again, this is why specific WP:DIFFs are important. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Here where Dr. Swag Lord began his hatchet job on the article, removing legitimate sourcing from USA Today and Washington Post, and making false and unsubstantiated claims that Palmer Report has issued "death threats" against people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palmer_Report&diff=1031370350&oldid=1031369897 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.188.194 (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This is a continuation of the discussion at the talk page of the article in question. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d(Crossed out false signature) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.188.194 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I doubt this IP is a new user, I am guessing they are using an IP to hide a history in this topic. A curved stick that turns around and returns when thrown comes to mind. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.188.194 (talk • contribs)

• Some elucidative background here is that Bill Palmer (the owner of the Palmer Report website) made a bunch of tweets saying a variety of things about his site's Wikipedia article; the smoking gun, more or less, is "If you have some experience editing Wikipedia and you want to take a crack at starting to remove the baseless defamatory nonsense that's been added to the page, go for it [...] Keep in mind that this is a war of attrition. You have to wear the rogue editors down". Since he has almost a half-million followers, you can imagine there's been a fair bit of fracas since then. I haven't seen any misconduct on the part of Dr. Swag Lord. For the record, I am opposed to describing the website as "conspiratorial" (since "factually inaccurate" seems to be both more objective and more meaningful), but none of my interlocutors there have done or said anything beyond the pale. It's to be expected that people will get worked up about political topics, but there is nothing I've seen that warrants action at AN/I. jp×g 02:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Palmer has now tweeted a direct link to this AN/I thread and encouraged his followers to "add their two cents". Hi, Bill! Put me in the screenshot, please. jp×g 02:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately this may justify the unusual step of semi-protecting the talk page. I know we try to avoid this, but this has been bad for a while and is only getting worse. The comment "Keep in mind that this is a war of attrition. You have to wear the rogue editors down" makes their strategy clear. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and semi-protected this talk page for 1 month in response to a request at RFPP Special:Permalink/1033663709#Talk:Palmer Report. As always I welcome review. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think it might be a good time for some uninvolved admins to start to exercise a bit of their discretionary authority under WP:AMPOL. This is getting a bit out of hand. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any specific sanction in mind? I will consider it if the current semi-protection does not mitigate the situation. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a complaint discussion about Dr. Swag Lord. Do NOT attempt to hijack this complaint and turn it into something else. HighInBC is completely out of line for locking down the Palmer Report Talk page. This action needs to be undone, and HighInBC needs to be permanently banned from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.188.194 (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Note I have blocked this IP for making legal threats[454]. It seems I have been reported to the FBI. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• I strongly recommend any uninvolved admin close this report and any of the many additional ones likely to materialize here under the direction provided by Paragraph 12 of the WMF's Community Culture Statement [455] which guides us to "stop hostile and toxic behavior, support people who have been targeted by such behavior". The subject of the article at the heart of this report (Palmer Report) has been engaged in an escalating pattern of off-Wiki threats that is becoming increasingly extreme, calling on its followers to wage "war" [456] against Wikipedia editors; in now-deleted tweets they have threatened civil and criminal [!] action against editors, threatened to dox editors, and more extreme acts which policies preclude me from describing. I'm probably involved in this matter, since I've made a few small edits to the page, but the situation has become so dire that this may qualify as one of the "straightforward" cases imagined by WP:UNINVOLVED. I am in complete concurrence with GorillaWarfare's evaluation of Dr. Swag Lord Ph.D.'s operation in the article, and that they have been completely compliant with our policies and guidelines. Chetsford (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

No objection to closure. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems appropriate. Editors have been reported to the FBI, legal threats have been made, Wikipedia will no longer exist, Jimbo is going to prison... and it's only 03:51 UTC! jp×g 03:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Palmer Report Mischaracterization

The editor's descriptions of Palmer Report such as "Palmer Report is an American left-wing and conspiratorial political blog" and "the amount of misinformation stemming from Daily News Bin was comparable to that of InfoWars" is misleading and bordering on slanderous.

The editor quotes other writers, but does not provide the link to the sources. The criticisms of Palmer Report are unfair and unsubstantiated. One simply needs to read each article to see that every assertion references resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorraineevanoff (talk • contribs) 02:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This comment seems like it was put here by accident, and intended for either Talk:Palmer Report or the section about that dispute directly above. jp×g 02:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Well Talk:Palmer Report is semi-protected now. If you want to move it to the section above and remove my closure I have no objection. If so you can just remove this response from me. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I am a doctor and not a lawyer but I do believe in the right of free speech. If Palmer wants to seek help, I am happy to give it. I have been reading his reports for over four years. I tried to post some facts on the talk page but got a message saying it was closed. I would like to request it be opened again as I think new and maybe less emotionally involved people should converse.

2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:50F4:4E9F:D315:9D00 (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:50F4:4E9F:D315:9D00: I don't think there is anything that prevents you from creating an account and going there, but I would recommend reading WP:CANVAS (and possibly WP:V and WP:RS as well) before chiming in; since content disputes are resolved by consensus and not vote count, a larger number of people saying the same thing is not likely to affect the outcome much. jp×g 03:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not the venue to do so. Please discuss over at Talk:Palmer Report when the protection ends in a month. There is no legal right to edit Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

We might as well keep this in one place, reversing my close. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Request for IP range block

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

---

• 2001:16A2:78D6:3C00:D579:577:3976:8379 (talk · contribs)
• Archived report about this specific IP range and their edits, behavior, and activity
• Recently vandalized the articles of female pro wrestlers; changing the birth date as usual.[457][458][459]

Would an admin please disable "anonymous editing" for this IP range? Every time they return, they do the very same edits. Wario-Man ^talk 02:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Kinu blocked the IP range for 1 week. MiasmaEternal^TALK 03:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think 1 week is enough. After 1 week, same stuff would happen again because this IP user is obsessed with doing such things. Seems it's a hobby for them. Wario-Man ^talk 04:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll try raising it with Kinu on his talk page. MiasmaEternal^TALK 04:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

A week is fine. Blocking that /64 for longer than a week probably won't do much good because it will probably only stay allocated for a short while. The editor is going to bounce around on a much wider network, more like a /36. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

If you are interested in dealing with this case, please add these articles to your watchlist:

• Charlotte Flair, Nia Jax, Kelly Kelly, Maryse Ouellet (main target), Tamina Snuka, Taya Valkyrie (main target)

There are more targeted articles but the mentioned articles are their favorites. So when you encounter them, review all of their edits. Because they may vandalize some other articles (female pro wrestlers) randomly. Wario-Man ^talk 13:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Continuous disruptive editing from ip

The ip User:103.100.80.26 has been continuously been making unconstructive and disruptive edits to Shimpi. They have added unsourced content [460] [461] [462] [463] [464] [465] [466] [467], engaged in personal attacks [468] [469], and have removed sourced content [470] [471] [472] [473]. Their edits have almost always been reverted by editors [474], and they have received many warnings on their talk page [475]. The page Shimpi is dually protected by sanctions on pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanista, along with sanctions on South Asian caste groups. Administrative action must be made in order to prevent further damaging and disruptive edits the ip may make to the page. Chariotrider555 (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment). Alternating with a couple of IPv6s for variety; I'd suggest semi-protection. (They're very persistent - I deleted this vanity post by '26 on 5 February 2021, and my DABfixing colleague Lennart97 deleted it again on 13 February.) Narky Blert (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It's also good to note that this one contains a WP:LEGALTHREAT. Lennart97 (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I've semi protected the article for one week. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Chronic violations of MOS:COLOUR by User:Kannweame7961

I recently encountered Kannweame7961 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) creating a series of articles titled Country Name at major beauty pageants (all of which are linked on {{Countries at major beauty pageants}}, the tables of which violated the colour section of MOS:ACCESS. I discussed these with Firefly and changed Angola at major beauty pageants to a MOS compliant format. I then dropped a note to them at their talkpage (User talk:Kannweame7961#Country Name at major beauty pageants formatting) about the issue in the hope this would solve it. Unfortunately enough they haven't responded and have continued creating these articles, as well as reverting the changes on several of them. While I hoped to avoid having to make this formal the rate at which they are creating these means I can't fix them quickly enough. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Why does this sound familiar? Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure, except that tables violating MOS:COLOUR are probably more common than tables which don't -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The colour choice is a bit yucky (to use a technical term) too ...i am placing a few {{Overcoloured}} guiding notices on top of some of the articles today, hope that is ok. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Canterbury Tail, anyone specific in mind? I'll tell you already that I could not find anything, though I thought I saw a possible candidate in one of the articles. Asartea, thank you for reporting this and bringing this very important issue to this board--it is a good thing if more people start thinking about this. I propose that this post, following previous warnings and concerns, serve as a final warning to User:Kannweame7961, who seems loath to engage in discussion. The next violation of our accessibility guidelines should be met with a block. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I just could have sworn we had a thread in the last year or so on country colours in beauty pageants. Canterbury Tail talk 16:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I don't remember that specific discussion, but I've come across any number of {{overcolored}} violations in things like reality shows, election results and genealogies (a non-exhaustive list) which hurt my eyes (and I have perfect colour vision). They need to be stamped on, very hard indeed, especially for the benefit of readers who don't have perfect colour vision. If I want to see what an explosion in a paint factory looks like, I'll try YouTube. Narky Blert (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Editor back to edit warring one minute after edit warring block expires

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

---

BrightOrion (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) was blocked for 24 hours on the 12 July by Bbb23 for edit warring at AA battery. Exactly one minute after the block expired, BrightOrion once again reverted back in his preferred article version. 85.255.237.114 (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Have attempted to notify user but notice template is not working for some reason. 85.255.237.114 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

When substituting a template you need to use a colon, rather than a bar. The correct markup is {{subst:ANI-notice}}, rather than the {{subst|ANI-notice}} you used. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

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

User:RajasthanBot

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

I just came across this account checking on the requests made at WP:RFUD. The bot message on the user page says This user account is a bot that uses AutoWikiBrowser, operated by RajasthanBot (talk). A bot operated by a bot? They appear to be making minor edits, but there's also at least one page creation. Also the account is not listed as approved for using AWB and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RajasthanBot does not exist. I'm going to block the account for impersonating a bot. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a confirmed sock of DM Shankar Patel, which is what I was expecting. I still don't quite understand where the whole "bot" thing comes into play, but, in my opinion, it's not worth spending a lot of time thinking about why socks do the things that they do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, all we can do is react. Thanks for checking into this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by User:Yeti Dai

User:Yeti Dai is continuosly making edits on Third Oli cabinet and KP Sharma Oli. This user made article Third Oli cabinet which fails WP:Notability. He seems to be biased in all his edits. When deletion discussion was added he removed. He removed it multiple times when added by me and others to discuss. There never existed Third Oli cabinet. Fifth Deuba cabinet, 2021 succeeded Second Oli cabinet as you can see on the above articles. So, I also suggest either to delete or merge the articles if anyone concerned sees this. This user has been linking this article on various other articles vital in Wikiproject Nepal. So, I request for a block on him. Please see his contribution list to verify.103.10.29.85 (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

IP did not notify Yeti Dai. I did. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't see anything inappropriate with the user's edits. Yes, they removed an AfD template from Third Oli cabinet; however, there was no discussion, so removal of the template was appropriate. As far as the content dispute about starting an article for the third cabinet, that is a matter to be discussed at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User TrangaBellam repeatedly editing my comments without my permission

Despite notifying them of WP:TPO and restoring my original comment[476][477], TrangaBellam has once again edited my own comment without my permission,[478] and again while posting this incident.[479] Viewsridge (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is a fortnight-old editor who is extremely well-versed in Wiki policies (and wiki-syntax) since the very first edit. He has been adding hoaxes to the article (by citing sources which don't support his claims), overriding relevant RfCs happening at other talk-pages, and trying to be as disruptive as possible. This disruption also includes giving out-of-place replies to me in a different subsection, where it makes no sense. WP:IAR is applicable. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Viewsridge, read further down on TPO, specifically WP:TPO#Non-compliance. TB did the right thing in moving your comment to a more appropriate place rather than out-of-place on the bottom of the page responding to something that has nothing to do with that thread. It is completely allowed to keep conversations organized, and there was no malicious editing that I see; the context remains as you intended. Nate • (chatter) 20:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Why can't I do a toolbar at mobile

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

---

?How do mobileOasis goy | Bruh 21:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User is CU blocked. Meters (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Ninenine99 back again

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

---

• Ninenine99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:8000:B03:5D32:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Ninenine99 was indefinitely blocked earlier this year and has been periodically returning to disrupt with a new IP range each time. This one has been active for a couple months now with identical areas of interest (automobiles and professional wrestling) and identical behavior (changing specifications, adding OR, and the fixation on vehicle size classification). --Sable232 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Since he was screwing around with templates I'll let someone more familiar with the subject determine what needs to be reverted, don't want to use mass rollback and accidentally blow up a bunch of pages. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

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

HOUNDING, TAGBOMBING, etc.

Timtrent has been hounding me since March 19. I am a declared paid editor and have followed all of the Wikipedia guidelines carefully, including immediate upfront articletalk and userpage declarations.

Prologue

I have created three new-article drafts (titles are the bold sections below), all submitted to AFC over a two-week period in February (along with userpage and article-talk disclosures). All three AFC submissions were declined in rapid succession [480], [481], [482] (even though the last two were unrelated to the first and were two weeks later in the AFC queue) on March 15 within the space of 35 minutes [483], by User:Kashmorwiki, an admitted sockpuppet of a globally locked editor [484], whose account is also now globally locked [485].

Greg Fleming

When I asked for help regarding these rapid declines, specifically regarding Draft:Greg Fleming (businessman), at the AFC Help page [486], Timtrent tagged the draft as containing paid contributions [487] and commented at the top of the draft that it had a WP:CITEKILL problem [488]. I corrected that problem [489], [490], [491], removing all "extra" citations for single facts, and reducing the total number of citations used by 14%. His comment also said "We need to know what makes him notable" [492], so I added a summarization of that to the lead: [493]. Five days later Timtrent left a negative and somewhat threatening comment at the top of the draft: [494].

To address his concerns, I addressed him at length and in good faith on the talkpage of the draft [495]; however he did not reply helpfully or respond to any of my points, but rather brushed me off by saying only "AlI can offer is advice. I hope you are correct. I suspect I am." [496] When I resubmitted the AFC draft two months later, Timtrent declined the submission within less than 14 hours as being insufficiently notable: [497]. When I demonstrated on the draft's talkpage, with dozens of major news articles and a number of well-known books, that the subject has been nationally and internationally notable since 2006, Timtrent did not respond helpfully, and in fact added a personal attack: [498].

Mike Salvino

Two hours after leaving a personal attack on the talkpage of Draft:Greg Fleming (businessman) [499], Timtrent TAGBOMBED Mike Salvino with five undiscussed tags [500] three minutes prior to nominating it for AFD [501] and recommending that the article be salted (bolding in original) [502]. The AFD passed unanimously as "Keep" [503].

Rockefeller Capital Management

1.5 hours after Timtrent's last edit to the Mike Salvino AFD [504], he declined Draft:Rockefeller Capital Management [505], claiming that the subject lacked significant coverage, that the draft was written like an advertisement, and that it suffered a bombardment of citations, even though the subject has abundant independent reliable-source coverage and even though over a month previously I had carefully cleaned up, copyedited, and trimmed the draft plus removed all unnecessary citations [506] and commented out the infobox [507], and had so stated at the top of the draft [508].

Summary

At this point, after the hounding, stalking, threatening, tagbombing, bad-faith AFD, personal attack, and refusal to discuss, I feel I have no choice but to file this report in order to remedy this situation. I feel I have acted in a good-faith and civil manner to all legitimate issues involved, but have been met with stonewalling and further attacks. Thank you for your time and consideration.

--TerryBG (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• @TerryBG, the editor Timtrent, is easily the kindest and most accommodating anti upe editor I’ve ever encountered, so this ANI thread is a major anomaly, what I can see here is you were making too many errors and they added you to their watchlist, it isn’t hounding if you are on their watchlist and they correct you if you err. Articles by declared Paid editors are scrutinized under a larger microscope, what you are experiencing isn’t solely applicable to you but a universal approach when dealing with articles that were created by declared Paid editors, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, any article retained on mainspace has to speak for itself on why it is encyclopedic and deserves to be published on mainspace. Being notable, and being of encyclopedic value are different things, anyone can be notable, but how is it encyclopedic? Every thing Timtrent has done is in accordance to policy. If you are unsatisfied about this, then it really becomes a “YOU” problem, Timtrent isn’t mandated by policy to clean up after you or help you source your article better, the onus lies on you. Prior creation of the aforementioned articles, did you read and internalize WP:RS? Celestina007 (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Celestina007 Neutral editor here. One of the articles which Timtrent attacked from on high and nominated for deletion was overwhelmingly "kept". Why would that be, I ask? doktorb _words^deeds 23:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk, I’m entirely NOT sure how this comment correlates with the topic of thread if or not it was overwhelming kept does not validate nor prove hounding, hence my confusion on what your comment has to do with the topic at hand. Furthermore you can’t be “neutral” and in the same comment use the word “attacked” it is contradictory. Celestina007 (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Celestina, I'm reporting actions (hounding, stalking, threatening, tagbombing, bad-faith AFD, personal attack, and refusal to discuss), not character or disposition. AFC reviewers are required to have "a willingness and ability to respond in a timely manner to questions about their reviews" [509], [510], and Timtrent has repeatedly failed to do that. In addition, after my demonstration that Greg Fleming has been notable nationally and internationally since 2006 [511], Timtrent refused to discuss and added a personal attack, even though AFC guidelines state at least three times (in WP:AFCPURPOSE and WP:AFCSTANDARDS) that "Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and published to mainspace." I would ask that you put aside your personal experience with and opinion of TimTrent and respond specifically to the specific actions I have reported, and that if you are referring to policies, please name and quote the specifics of the policy(ies). Thank you. TerryBG (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Just on the content: Fleming is certainly notable. Bit lazy to check it thoroughly to see if the draft is puffy, but I'd note that even articles at HQRS (eg Reuters) about the subject read a bit puffy too, so... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• TerryBG, not sure you picked up on this, but payed editors aren't too popular on the project (with it being a volunteer project and all). I'm surprised, then, that you'd opt for such a long-winded report, one which repeats multiple diffs and incidents, including about a purported personal attack that isn't one (being a bit testy is not a personal attack). Anyway, please be more succinct.

That having been said, Timtrent, maybe let another AFC reviewer attend to TerryBG's submissions for a while. I think that would be good for a number of reasons. But I'll stress that overseeing 3 pages from the same user is not hounding, and that a reviewer may assess (follow up on) such a page repeatedly. That isn't hounding, either. El_C 02:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi El_C, I appreciate your comment. Could you also comment on the refusal to discuss (in violation of AFC reviewer guidelines which state that reviewers are required to have "a willingness and ability to respond in a timely manner to questions about their reviews" [512], [513]), and on the undiscussed tagbombing? Thank you. I realize this was a long report but I couldn't figure out any way of shortening it without leaving out significant details. TerryBG (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

TerryBG, I think what I already said suffices, for now. El_C 02:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• I will let my edits speak for themselves. I'm interested in article quality. I believe that an editor who is paid for their contributions has a duty to earn their pay by getting it right. I have no interest in this editor, and had forgotten completely about them. I have nothing to add. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous6348 does not appear to be here to help build an encyclopedia

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

---

Anonymous6348 (talk · contribs) doesn't appear to be here for any constructive purpose. Perhaps the account should be blocked? I apologize if this is not the right place for this. Quale (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is fine. User blocked, probably screwing around trying to get extended-confirmed or similar and obviously being unhelpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Troll

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

---

This troll 172.218.144.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) needs their talk page access pulled. I forgot that reporting them at AIV doesn't work since they are already blocked. The edits and summaries could use r.d as well. MarnetteD|Talk 04:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 05:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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

User Tom.Reding operating an unapproved WP:MEATBOT to perform useless tasks.

Tom.Reding has been operating a MEATBOT from his account to add the template Authority Control, a template specifically designed to direct readers to off-wiki resources, to redirect pages in a singular display of complete uselessness. Redirects are not pages for readers, you will only see the redirect page if you use the Wiki search and select the redirect directly, rather than the more prominent link to the article its redirected to. In all situations (google etc will provide the article target first and so on) a reader will not know the redirect page even exists unless they are an experienced wikipedian.

BAG have confirmed there is no approval for a mass addition of a template to redirects and that there is nothing they will do. Tom.Reding has confirmed they will not stop this and are saying that the AC template page gives them the authority to make hundreds of useless automated edits. I manually reverted approx 50/60, and of those the entirety of the template consisted of a link to Musicbrainz, a site which is neither a reliable source nor should be used as an external link per WP:ELNEVER.

There are multiple problems here. Firstly Tom.Reding is editing in a bot-like manner despite no clear consensus for the task. A task they know is controversial because they have previously been involved in a conversation about this exact issue and link. Redirects are pages specifically designed not to be seen. AC is a template specifically designed to be seen on articles to direct people elsewhere. Adding a template that contains external links we should not be linking to, to pages that we dont want readers to see, is possibly one of the most useless examples of automated editing in recent history.

Secondly BAG seem to be under the impression that no approval is required by them for bot-like editing on editor accounts, despite the very first line of BOTPOL saying the policy applies to all automated editing, and MEATBOT specifically addressing editors rather than bots.

Thirdly, I challenged by reverting approx 50 of god knows how many edits Tom.Reding made, these were subsequently reverted. One of the reasons for BOTPOL is to make sure that mass-edits have community approval before they are made, precisely because it is difficult to revert an editor using automated editing. Its editing behaviour that edit-wars in a fait accompli and is a massive pain to deal with after the fact. If BAG are under the impression that bot-like editing doesnt require bot-approval because its from an editor account, there is little a normal editor who doesnt use automation can do to counter this brute forcing of an editors actions. This precise "I'm going to make my automated edits regardless of the lack of consensus to do so" is exactly the behaviour that Betacommand and Magliotis were sanctioned and ultimately banned for. And it took absolutely fucking years of disruption to deal with them.

I am requesting that 1. BAG are informed by the community that per the wording of the policy, yes they are required to approve all mass-edit tasks regardless of which account makes them. 2. Tom.Reding is banned from making automated edits without an approved BAG submission and clear community consensus (not pointing at a template talkpage, an actual discussion) they should be made. This is not their first rodeo here, much like Mag and Betacommand before them. 3. Someone mass-revert Tom.Redings recent AC template additions. I do not use automated tools, but in the absence of any action I will make a point of installing or writing my own to counter this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

As I said there, I'm of the opinion that this is effectively an unapproved bot. It's indiscriminate mass-addition of templates to articles, which, per the bot policy, does require BAG approval. I think BAG would deal with an approval request that came its way, but it doesn't deal with enforcement of unapproved bots on human accounts, which is an administrative issue, so I don't know what you're getting at with #1.

For #3: This issue stems way beyond just redirects. The only community consensus and bot approval was that it may be added to biographical articles (RFC, BRFA). That's ~1 million articles. Yet the template has 2 million transclusions, and Tom has been adding it to non-biographical articles for quite some time. To the best of my knowledge, this was done without any bot approval. Those edits cannot be reversed without making 1 million more edits. In my eyes this is a fait accompli. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW this is technically indistinguishable from a bot. That's 12 edits per minute of very routine stuff, done for years (?). His editing session of this task yesterday lasted hours. I'd be genuinely surprised if Tom.Reding has the patience to sit at his desk for hours each day and just keep clicking "Save" 12 times per minute in AWB, and think it's more likely a modified copy of AWB is being used that allows for fully automated use without a bot flag, or some kind of autoclicker. Regardless, per WP:MEATBOT it's irrelevant whether this is actually a bot or not. Those edits are indistinguishable from bot edits to me, and their very nature is one that should require prior approval and community consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

What on earth is even the point of adding authority control templates to redirects??? I agree with procrastinating reader that this is practically equivalent to an unapproved bot.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

After reading up a little more on the subject, I realize that the templates could be useful on certain redirects, but that still does not excuse running an unapproved bot.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Change block settings

Can someone deny 5.149.15.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) talk page access please? DuncanHill (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill:  Done - TheresNoTime ^😺 09:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we both got there at the same time. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So efficient we did it twice eh HighInBC - TheresNoTime ^😺 09:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Great minds something something... HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @TheresNoTime: and @HighInBC: DuncanHill (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Dabdibdub1000 adding unsourced or made-up content

• Dabdibdub1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nearly all of this user's edits consist of adding unsourced info (example), changing statistics "in my opinion" (example) or adding made-up sources that link to 404 pages (example). This user has been warned many times, although those warnings seem to have all been ignored. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Localhost83

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

---

• Localhost83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has only about 50 edits, but they seem to have been quite enough to demonstrate that he/she has no interest in collaborative editing. Some examples:

• I don't win out of stubbornness, I win because you are too braggart to acknowledge my changes were factual.
• I'm not here for cooperating with truth-hiders and abusive admins. I stay on my side until the end and I won't accept any more compromise with you dictators.
• I don't care of your bans, I'm fighting to let truth win.
• clearing the bullshit of an ignorant (that's me, by the way)
• ... you are too lazy to search and too discriminatory to ask for sources only to me ... (that's to HighInBC)

I propose that we give this editor an indefinite vacation. I'd have done that myself if I hadn't reverted his/her edit at Kingdom of Italy. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed for not here. Obviously here to insist on "the truth". RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Good block. Insisting on adding unsourced information because "it is known to them" while lashing out at anyone holding them to verifiability standards. Edit summaries and talk page comments littered with bad faith accusations and personal attacks. After a 1 month block went immediately back to the exact same behavior. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Some tags on change lists coming up with Welsh language instead of English.

Not sure of the correct place to log this, but [514] is currently showing the first 3 tags with a Welsh translation rather than English. noq (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Noq: you probably want WP:VPT, although I personally am seeing them all with English translations -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually has already been reported, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Tags -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)