Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel (talk | contribs) at 23:18, 14 November 2021 (→Babydoll9799: close, tban enacted.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    HK unregistered ip cult again

    Please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#Please instruct how to deal with ip hopping, meat and suspected offsite canvassing from a lot of ip ranges from HK first.

    • I think i stumbled them again by leaving this stuff in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dgtdddsx123#11 October 2021 as well as Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings (the rfc)
    • Suddenly, the ip range 210.6.10.X that related to the above IncidentArchive1058
    • despite the ip range is from Hong Kong, suddenly claiming i am offsite canvassing them (the ip user(s)) from Mainland Chinese forum (which i never did), which seem they mistook i am one of the "blue" political spectrum because i cannot agree on the "deep yellow" political spectrum wiki editing cult, so that trying to black mudding me
      210.6.10.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests Special:Diff/1050888402
      210.6.10.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings Special:Diff/1050889100
    • And then this guy, Dgtdddsx123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which i has stumbled in the SPI, unsure is genuine believe the ips , or WP:GHBH to try to enforce the controversy. Special:Diff/1051012890
    • A more generic issue. Evidence in the LIHKG forum there is recruitment thread https://lihkg.com/thread/2168907/page/1, and indication of channel and bot for Telegram existed, for off site discussion of wiki matter and offsite canvassing. The link to the channel is dead so that it seems went underground by renaming the channel, but i can still screenshot the bot https://imgur.com/L7qmaSa The forum do have other thread that warn them do not sock , but seems more people still unregistered and summoned to wiki by offsite canvassing. This just mini scale of off site recruiting, just not escalated to those Mainland Chinese level yet, which led to this meta:Office actions/September 2021 statement.
    • Just like @Ymblanter: said in ANI "[he] do not know what the best solution would be." The "ip union" coined by @Atsme: in the last ANI, just readily observable in Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings that i never saw a RFC has so many ips as SPA. So, what wikipedia should do on this off-site canvassing from the "deep-yellow" wiki editing cult? Matthew hk (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, Dgtdddsx123 just missed a block due to using sock, so that @Tamzin: should also leave the comment here that should give every new Hong Kong user an assumed good faith on they may not aware Sockpuppet policy of wiki, or not. Matthew hk (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Simple solution - the IPs need to register their accounts. They do not lose anonymity, they simply validate that they are not socking and are here to help build the encyclopedia. I'm of the mind that in the beginning, the advantage to IP editing was so passerbys could perform some quick copy editing on the fly without having to register but we're at a point in our history that it has become too much drama, and the ill-intentioned have made it an incredible time sink, not to mention what it is costing the project relative to credibility. Just my 2¢ worth, not calculating growing inflation. Atsme 💬 📧 11:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        This is not at all a solution. One just got to respect the many different ways people follow to protect themselves. In compact metropolitans it's easy to have access to free internet connections, from coffee shops to shopping centres, and from train stations to buses. If people create their accounts it would be much easier to track down all their edits. 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you mean IPs editing from Hong Kong or China with this edit summary - [1]? Would you please clarify? 118.140.125.85 (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The orgiginal problem (discussed in the link in OP) was meatpuppetry at Talk:List of lighthouses in China and several related articles dealing with HK. Because these POV-pushing IP-hopping editors are anti-registration due to privacy concerns w/re the Chinese gov't, we managed to protect the article by semi'ing, but because of the unbelievable level of disruptive meatpuppetry at the talk I eventually ended up having to semi the talk page too. Honestly I think semi'ing one by one these articles, and if necessary their talks, is the only way to solve this problem. I truly hate to semi a talk, but it was just unbelievable. —valereee (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Valereee: Actually not registered and expose ip is the opposite side of concerning privacy. Apart from the off-site recruitment thread, the same forum do have people to warn people that registered and building reputation is key (and then yet lots of gossip of getting more Hong Kong people to selected as admin in zh-wiki). Just clearly the same ip range from the last ANI's meatpuppetry , now try to black mudding me off-site canvassing which i clearly haven't , and trace record at all Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hong Kong i participated, there is no trace of any (pro-China) canvassing. And this accusation black mud me on my own political spectrum as well (I have one motive in wiki. Give me WP:RS; i am very supportive to use WSJ, FT to cite the Hong Kong protests, but pretty against to add POV bull shit that without RS or just propaganda. For the sake of Hong Kong democracy, not that way) . So, just leave the ip keep bad mud me, and the registered user as well that just escape the SPI block? Hong Kong people has the best thing to do as 惡人先告狀 (meaning), which over more than 10 years, I don't remember i was involved in any confirm canvassing, meat sock, and sock case, and the registered user just caught black handed. Note that the article 2019-20 Hong Kong protests was keep on WP:RM by different person that relatively new (~1000 edits), to try to POV-pushing that the protest is still live. Registered is still partially solving the problem. They will still act as a mob to try to POV pushing in rotation anyway. Matthew hk (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          @Matthew hk, I think you're saying these IPs who are refusing to register an account are actually making themselves more vulnerable to goverment surveillance, and that registering would make them safer? I agree. But it is hard to convince them of that. They seem to think we are either in on the conspiracy or are simply naive. —valereee (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Valereee that's just because people are coming from very different places and have very different life experiences towards censorship and privacy protection. 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          I don't think that was a Mainland China forum and I thought that was you, Matthew. It's fine if that wasn't you and dude I do understand the reason why you simply cannot confirm or deny whether that was be you. My possition remains and is clear: I agree with what was said here on Wiki and over there in the private forum and I thank that person for he brought this up. 210.6.10.78 (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • And yes I agree with Matthew and Valareee and Atsme that people should really listen to their leaders, obey them and abide by the law. Say no to political POV pushing. 210.6.10.78 (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            With comments like the above, I get the feeling that Matthew is being trolled here. @Valereee: Thoughts? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Tamzin we are indeed trolled by those people who are self-identitied “yellow” or the “umbrela” camp in the Hong Kong spectrum, as evident in the links Matthew quotes above. They do so in the name of so-called free speech, universal values and democracy. They just want to break law and politicizing all things. They don't know the public order and peace. 210.6.10.127 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Tamzin, quite honestly it's hard to decipher. I think some of these IPs are basically well-intentioned, but the vast majority are here to push a POV, and at least some of them are trolling Matthew and the rest of us. I do wish at least the well-intentioned ones would create an account, but for some reason there's huge paranoia about that w/re creating an account somehow making them vulnerable to discovery by the Chinest government. They don't believe anyone who tries to tell them creating an account will actually help prevent that rather than the other way around. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              @Valereee: Yeah, this seems to me like a case where a probably-valid filing is made a lot harder to parse by lack of clarity (which, before someone misinterprets me, I don't think is an EAL thing, just a matter of keeping things to-the-point). And then made worse by some of the responses being in less than good faith. Having booted this from SPI, I feel some duty to make sense out of things here, so, if I may, an analysis of the ranges in play here. We start off with the assumption that anyone accusing Matthew of off-wiki canvassing is trolling and is themself engaged in off-wiki coördination (or is one person hopping networks), which I think is a pretty justifiable assumption, but I'm happy to make the case for if you feel it's non-obvious.
              I see you've already protected Talk:List of lighthouses in Macau. I could also see a case for semi'ing
              Anyways, hope this is helpful. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              N.B. I linked 210.6.0.0/18 because it's the ASN range. Matthew is correct that all of the issues are coming from 210.6.10.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), so perhaps that's a better range, if a block is to be made. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              Hi Tamzin. Since Matthew hk has called me troll I don't think I want to be involve with him any more . I just don't understand why Hong Kongers (presumably Matthew is) can just walked away like this. I will focus on my own area of interests and expertees and I will relieve myself from the talk page of China border crossings and Hong Kong 2019/20 protests. I have not followed the lighthouse things and I am not interested. Please remove me from the bullet dots above. Thanks. 210.6.10.90 (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              My observation is that what's happening around Talk:Hong Kong protests 2019–2020 has had little connection with Talk:List of lighthouses in China, except that Matthew hk took part in both of them. It may not be reasonable to treat them as the same case. On the other hand don't think semi'ing any talk pages would be a helpful solution to the actual problem. It'd be just a way to pretend the problem don't exist (just because there'd be no way for it to be known). 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              Meanwhile would CU re Matthew hk be the way forward to look into whether those are people who Matthew hk recruited (and denied), Matthew hk's socks or meatpuppets, unrelated at all, or some people "blackmudding" him? 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              Hello Tamzin would you please help take a look at this edit request? 219.76.24.212 (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              Two cents from just another passer-by: You gotta look into their global contributions, not just en-wiki. The account Matthew hk for example is actually more active elsewhere (not to mention his IPs, and sock and meatpuppet handles). 118.140.125.85 (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commenting from the SPI side here, I don't currently see persuasive evidence that Dgtdddsx123 is the IP-hopper. I've marked the filing as {{moreinfo}}; if anyone sees good evidence, please do let me know at the SPI. I do think there's a decent chance of meatpuppetry or canvassing here, although I'm not sure I have the subject-matter expertise to opine, which is part of why I referred Matthew to ANI. This is the kind of meatpuppetry allegation that is hard to handle at SPI, since you may have legitimate editors who stumbled on something independently, or who were made aware of something from an off-site post but aren't actively colluding; easier for ANI to look at it as primarily a conduct issue. (As an aside, I'm not sure "Let's just ban IP editing" is a helpful take here; VPR is thataway.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh and as to the warning I gave Dgtdddsx123, standard practice for first-offense non-innocent sockpuppetry by a newbie is either a warning or a short tempblock. Since they hadn't actually !vote-stacked (just used one account on the article and another on talk), I elected to warn. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It just policy that i can't request CU to check the relation of IP and Dgtdddsx123 . Time will tell. Matthew hk (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That's too bad. 210.6.10.127 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any admin can just block the range 210.6.10.X from edit and account creation (and block account that used that ip range recently) I don't think there is any need to assume good faith of that ip range anymore. It just vandalism . Matthew hk (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • An interesting yet important point to note is that while Matthew hk, Atsme and Valereee believe that they have been doing the right thing the participants at Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings think quite the contrary. The same is true at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses. 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that the RfC discussion at Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings which Matthew hk started has been concluded not in his favour. With precedence cases like Talk:List of tallest buildings and Talk:List of Singapore Airlines destinations and now this one on border crossings I do hope that these people who act like in a way that they were behind the great firewall would back down and observe how the rest of the world function, and that there should be no need to bring anything like this again to WP:AN/I. 219.76.24.213 (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Matthew hk has so far never demonstrated how the non-English off-site canvassing he mentioned and referred to as "pro-Hong Kong" or "deep yellow" is related to the three talk pages identified. It is not even known if that was targeted at the English version of Wikipedia, or if there had ever been any canvassing effort in general which is relevant to this version of Wikipedia. Chinese involvement (or in words of their statement in September, "infiltration") in the Wikipedia project, in comparison, had been something investigated and publicly acknowledged by the Wikimedia Foundation[2] and reported in the press.[3] [4][5][6] In that statement Maggie Dennis of the foundation had called what had happened "security risks" and concluded there were "potential persecutions"; the foundation had noted the problem as early as mid-2020.[7] 219.76.18.201 (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      None of that is directly relevant to this discussion. What exactly are you asking to be done here, 219? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite
      @HandThatFeeds: The ip just show up to request a block too as self confession as one of the not constructive underground / offwiki mob. Matthew hk (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks 219.76.18.201. I didn't know Maggie Dennis' recent statement nor the one from the Wikipedia Foundation a year ago. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Such threats are a genuine matter of concern that Tamzin, Valereee, Atsme and other administrators here cannot simply disregard. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. 219.76.18.202 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Matthew hk can you please translate the screenshot you provided? Or at least copy and paste the text here so that it can be submitted to Bing or Google Translator? I just found it funny for anyone to suppose others can read in whatever languages. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Lihkg.com one appears to be just another message to encourage people to contribute in a certain topic/area. If you found anything problematic please elaborate and be specific. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The thread literally teach people how to use a mobilization bot, which this ANI thread and all the rest of the IP SPAs show there must be one place that can summon all of you as off wiki canvassing. You guys just boomerang yourself so hard. And if you able to point out which ip or account are my sock, please open a SPI, but if you are trolling again (just like the User:mathew_hk in the past), beware of a harder block. Matthew hk (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Please be specific. Quote the post number and the specific sentence. Translate it. Spell out in what way that's relevant to the Wikipedia articles in question on this version of Wikipedia. Prove that that's relevant and that indeed happened. 219.76.18.204 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • To 118.140.125.85, nice try on another black mudding. You just show the ips in this threads, almost all of them are SPA/ip hopper if counting in the same ip range, that without any edit in en-wiki except directly involve in the issues and articles in this ANI thread. Which clearly you just boomeranged all of your ip mob for a block. Matthew hk (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • What Matthew hk did above is precisely what's described in this BBC story.[8] (Jimbo weighed in in BBC Click's follow-up story.[9]) 219.76.18.202 (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Are you paranoid that every single admins or editor that report your cult is from China? Then you should have that ban for not constructive off site cult parallel universe or just mentally not stable? Matthew hk (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          I repeat my stance. Your ip cult is ip hopping to vote stacking or try to vote move or try to populate a "discussion" thread with yourself and may be one or two more people. That is not due to admin are from China, if you got blocked , it is your behaviour is not acceptable. Also trolling for accuse me off site canvassing is another reason for a block. I dig out prove you guys organize offsite wiki activity and you guys have no prove on me, which i always a lone wolf in en-wiki (Find me in POE wiki discord BTW for my other wiki edit in poewiki.net). Matthew hk (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          "...From China": No. Certainly not. It's always reasonable to believe everyone is they themself and acting on their very own behalf - unless and if and only if such people are working for somebody else when they edit. It was you who labelled people for being "(deep) yellow" and associate whoever editing without registered accounts to the Lihkg.com and Telegram posts you mentioned - with no evidence or proof whatsoever. You simply assert. (On a side note: Is it a "blockable" act for suggesting any editor is "mentally not stable?") 219.76.18.204 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Just seek medical advice if you (the ip hopper(s)) have persecutory delusion that Tamzin called 210.6.10.X as troll is because Tamzin is Chinese. Or Atsme ask you (the ips) registered an account because he/she (whatever non-binary) is a Chinese. You guy delusional really bad, for example, 210.6.10.X (or 219.76.18.X) has only 256 ips so that registered an account is a right choice, ip hopping and then vote stacking is not and blockable as illegitimate use of socking. Matthew hk (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          A definite no. But even if that were indeed the case, being Chinese isn't something necessary. Take a look at this AFP story.[10] Your way of deduction doesn't sound logical or reasonable to me. 219.76.18.79 (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Boomerang? 118.140.125.79 (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tamzin: Please consider to add 219.76.18.X to the block list suggestion due to this edit that claim i am off site canvassing (which does not exist) Special:Diff/1052291298. Matthew hk (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Matthew hk you don't seem to be familiar with Hong Kong although you claimed yourself to be originated from there. The IP range which I have been editing from belongs to the largest ISP in the territory. It's a service open for use by subscription at many restaurants, coffee shops, railway stations, buses, telephone booths, some retail shops, and so on. The diff you quoted was apparently done by someone else in a similar range. There are probably many other edits in the range and neighbouring ranges across global wikis. As for off-site canvassing which you alleged (yet all appear to be your staunch supporters, self-motivated or otherwise) from what I know they are across at least three ranges of different ISPs. Maybe more. Are you suggesting that all these ISPs should be blocked? 219.76.18.202 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, @Matthew hk:, back down. You're crossing some personal attack lines here. I get that you're frustrated, but Just seek medical advice if you (the ip hopper(s)) have persecutory delusion is over the line.
    That said, the IP hoppers do appear to be stirring the pot here, and not legitimately attempting to improve the Wiki. A temporary block on some of these IP groups may be in order. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for the reference to NPA. Meanwhile I myself don't actually hop. It's the network which asssigns random IPs to me (and many many others). As for "stirring the pot", one gotta understand what's actually happening in this territory and the extent that has spilled over all across Wikipedia and other wikis. What Matthew and some of the pushers (say, S 0524, Walter Grassroot) have been doing may or may not be coordinated but that undisputably serves the same outcome (as mentioned above). That's the background or backdrop against which the events happened. Editors from the territory are probably tired of defending fact and truth against these people, and blocks simply aren't the solution and would work quite the opposite way. 219.76.18.202 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @HandThatFeeds: Clearly Tamzin suggested a larger ip block range and then i suggested a smaller one and then there is no block actually issued. Ips from 219.76.18.X still spamming this thread. If you are an admin. Just do it instead of claiming there may be a block already in force. Matthew hk (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just do it instead of claiming there may be a block already in force.

    I don't think HandThatFeeds had ever suggested that "a block [is] already in force" in his or her comment at 16:17, 5 November 2021. 219.76.18.203 (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it is a genuine suggestion on seek medical advice. The ips still have zero understanding what going on and then blame the articles are protected (or potentially, blaming anyone that block them from editing) because wikipedia is corrupted and admin are Chinese spy, or anyone not agree them are enemy and anyone agree them are friend. They (most of them) still have zero idea on what is WP:V or WP:RS and still thinking not using talk page and then just spam for unprotection on List of lighthouses in Macau (just read above on begging someone to read their demand in this thread as off topic) and don't even read the talk page of Talk:List of lighthouses in China that what is the potential way to get what they want on splitting List of lighthouses in Hong Kong as child article. Zh-wiki do have infested so that no one has CU right, but it is delusional so bad that they truly believe trolling me by spamming joke that I am the one canvassing that a low-key /stupid way to think it would made me / the "stumbling block" of rock to get blocked. This is no difference than the Mainland China wiki cult that doxing other Mainlander and force them to join. They just really need to learn to use talk page and solve the matter in civil way. (Still WP:WPHK is a deserted place and no one ever open a meaningful real discussion thread for a long time). It is deranged so bad that a few days before posting trolling comment in talk pages as 219.76.18.X and 210.6.10.X and then totally act like they are angel and innocent in here the ANI. Matthew hk (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are talking about my request at 12:21, 3 November 2021, that's an edit request, a request to edit.. hm.. a talk page. Are you suggesting me to go to a talk page of a talk page? Meanwhile apparently it wasn't me who first referred to that talk page. It probably wasn't me who first gone off-topic if that indeed were off-topic. Medical advice, huh? 219.76.24.213 (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It really means you did not understand you, as an ip hopper, (or your cult that deals collateral damage) is the reason that the page including the talk page to edit protected. Please create an account (what i mean is one person, one account, no sharing, no multiple accounts per person. Also may need a lot of explanation if your household use the same ISP and both have accounts in wiki if alerted the Checkuser admins in SPI) and reach "extended confirmed user" status. You not only did not understand what you are doing and instead forum shopping in ANI for something that is in WP:RFP. Matthew hk (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On "medical advice" and "delusional": HandThatFeeds had asked Matthew to back down but he carried on. Would any admin evaluate and see what action(s) ought to be taken? 219.76.18.75 (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, are there any admin here? Ping @Tamzin: and @OhNoitsJamie: who accept the protect request. Yet another Hong Kong ip 203.145.95.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (now mobile phone ip that literally anyone easily ip hopping) still claim i am logout editing AND vandalism. Now the ip claim 210.6.10.X (which vandalized Shenzhen Bay Port) is my meatpuppet which i have no relation to the ip and Tamzin already said 210.6.10.X is a troll. Could any admin review this scheme that keep on using HK ip to organise vandalism and then name me as the mastermind as some kind of low quality black mudding. (Also, it definitely not me and I don't need to self request to reveal my ip to Checkuser i am in Australia, right?) Matthew hk (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence that 203.145.95.X range is yet another range that try to troll.
    The ip is in fact also involved in Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings that the ip is not agree on the rfc
    Matthew hk (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:203.145.95.177 has been given a warning for making baseless accusations. I'm not interesting in diving deeply into this drama, but I blocked 210.6.10.64/26 for disruption at Country. As far as the other range, the user(s) is/are using talk pages for discussing changes. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohnoitsjamie: Not really for other ip range that use talk page rightfully. At least for 219.76.0.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and use some time range , say, this thread is opened on 21 October 2021, let use +-7 days as example.
    The ip edit on Talk:List of lighthouses in China was still part of the issue of the last ANI and the ip other edit in Talk:List of lighthouses in Macau , has causing the talk page to be protected again as that talk page was also involved in the last ANI.
    The range another edit in Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (Special:Diff/1052291298) was trolling that made up something not exist.
    May be you can count Talk:Han Chinese#Edit protected as legit use of talk page. So that, more unconstructive edits than constructive edits in talk page for 219.76.0.0/19 in the time raneg 21 October 2021 +-7 days ? Matthew hk (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not about to read this overly long thread, and it's not clear to me what exactly the disruption is. If there is ongoing disruption, I'd suggest creating a new thread and being specific (with diffs) as to what exactly it is, and leave out words like "cult" etc. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To both Matthew and those on the other side, please stop pinging me to ask me to do things. (Reply pings are fine.) I'm not an admin. The only thing I can help you with is finding sockpuppets, and I've already made clear that I don't think there's anything here SPI can help with. Other than my initial comments explaining my decision at SPI, my comments here have just been as a regular member of the peanut gallery.
    @Ohnoitsjamie: FWIW, my takeaway, having looked through this a fair bit for SPI, is that the way forward is liberal semi-protections and maybe a few weeks' block of 210.6.10.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for POV-pushing and harassment [11] [12] [13] [14]. But I agree that the case for the latter would be much better made in a new section. (The cases for the former can of course just be made at RFPP.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pushers (and meatpuppets, if in case there is any concrete evidence) like 210.6.10.0/24 should certainly be blocked for what they did but we got to consider the collateral damages too if it's a broad range block. There aren't too many ISPs in this territory and range blocks often bring extensive damages. Range blocks should therefore be as short and as narrow as possible, and if they are already in place there's probably little need to protect the articles too (in this case Country and Shenzhen Bay Port). But then in any case blocks and page protection won't help solve the actual problem we've got on hand. The much much more important thing is that we need consensus, such as those I mentioned above, i.e. Talk:List of tallest buildings and Talk:List of Singapore Airlines destinations, and get them enforced. What has been achieved at Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings has so far been helpful too, although it wasn't properly kick-started in the very beginning. 219.76.24.215 (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A /24 is a quite small rangeblock, at least in terms of number of addresses affected. In some cases an ISP might have an unusually large number of people on a small range, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Every edit since New Year's Day appears to be by the same person. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have responded to Ohnoitsjames's message. I won't repeat here. 203.145.95.177 (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    I strongly advocate blocking these IP addresses where they crop up as this person (persons?) has been messing up Hong Kong pages for a long time now by constantly adding poorly sourced trivia, WP:OR, apparent hoaxes, extremely obscure place names, etc. Citobun (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would have a look but this thread is far too long and meandering. If someone wants to post a diff or contributions link with a brief summary of an actual problem shown by the link, please do so and ping me. Let's just start with one significant problem and not something like the disagreement at South Island line (West) which should be solved with a discussion and RfC if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Babydoll9799

    Per consensus in the section below titled "Proposal: topic ban for Babydoll9799", Babydoll9799 is hereby indefinitely topic banned for from categories and people from the UK, broadly construed.

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

    This editor Babydoll9799 (talk · contribs) is disruptively removing valid categories from articles and edit warring to keep them out, see edit history at Billy Balmer as an example. They are removing Category:People from District, on the basis that the bio is already categorised by both Category:Profession from City, but these categories are not mutually exclusive - if everybody was classified only by Category:Profession from City (footballer, actor etc.), there would be nobody in the Category:People from District category, and the category would be empty and pointless. But, it's not, which shows that it is a valid category.

    Furthermore, edits like this violate WP:SUBCAT, and I am concerned why this user is trying to place articles in less precise categories!

    A quick look at their talk page shows other users have raised similar concerns (regarding disruptive editing and edit warring) for a number of years now, and they have refused to discuss the matter with me, simply reverting and edit warring. Can somebody please take a further look? GiantSnowman 12:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Above person is missing my point. Please don't try to make this about myself being some kind of problem. My point is the birthplace and "People from" category. People are not actually from a district the are born in the city, IE Liverpool. The district can be noted on the individual's page and also the person can be noted on the district page.Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The category overlap with "Footballers from Liverpool" is taken out of context. This can co-exist with "People from Liverpool". If you wish. I don't have a problem with that. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The other user is the one choosing to edit war. The point is, the person is from (city) Liverpool. Not West Derby. You can see by my edits that this is exactly what I have been clearing up. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Also to say I have "refused" to discuss with him is a lie. I have not "refused". In fact you can argue that the above user has refused to understand what I have been trying to do. In view of "I am concerned why this user is trying to place articles in less precise categories! ".
    The the place of birth is the city, not the district a person is from. Also I have been checking where these people are from that I have corrected and a handful are not even from the places they are supposed to be. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User GiantSnowman stated to me on my talk page "Please do not remove categories - a player can be in both Category:Footballers from City and Category:People from District, they are not mutually exclusive.". When stating 'People from District' this should be clarified, as the general view I get is this means the city or town; and not the inner district within the city or town. I can assure you I understand the above point from GiantSnowman and this is reflected the person is both a 'Footballer from Liverpool' and 'People from Liverpool'. West Derby is an historical township but it has been within Liverpool for some time. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to be more succinct in your comments, I don't actually have a clue what your position is - especially with edits like this (removing category) followed by this (restoring the same category 2 mins later). If Burnham can be in both Category:Politicians from Liverpool and Category:People from Aintree, why can't Billy Balmer be in both Category:Footballers from Liverpool and Category:People from West Derby? You have contradicted yourself there.
    If you are saying that people can't be 'from' a district, then why do we have a long established category tree of that nature? Doesn't that tell you anything?
    You did refuse to discuss, you ignored WP:BRD, you continued to remove the category despite my revert, and ignored my talk page posts. GiantSnowman 13:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also no, a person cannot be in both Category:People from Liverpool and Category:Footballers from Liverpool per WP:SUBCAT. People get categorised into district and profession. I am growing increasingly concerned about your editing and competence. GiantSnowman 13:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you from Liverpool? Aintree is outside the city boundary but West Derby is within the city boundary, so a person from West Derby is from Liverpool a person from Aintree is technically, not from Liverpool. There is a wider consensus to promote Liverpool which is why I added politicians from Liverpool. But to call me wrong on another matter is just poor judgement on your part. You seem to be point scoring. Good for you. I am arguing that in the first two pages you chose to revert were a person from Toxteth and from West Derby. Their birthplace will still be Liverpool. Therefore they are from Liverpool. What more can I add? When you look at People by Districts it is Liverpool that is named not any inner district from the city. Whereas Aintree, is outside the city boundary. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    When did I refuse to discuss this matter? I have had diaglogue with you but again and again you are not listening to what I am saying. Stop talking down to me. Listen to what I am saying. West Derby is not classified the same as Aintree. West Derby is a part of Liverpool, Aintree is just outside the boundary. Just outside, technically a person will still say they are from Liverpool but for the purpose of this the city (or district) is Liverpool not West Derby. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England Liverpool is noted so to Knowsley, just like Luton. The district is the city for the purposes of this the person is from Liverpool. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As you quoted "No, you are just plain wrong - the issue is we do get as specific as Category:People from District, hence why those categories exist!". You are pointing something out to me but you're not understanding why I made the corrections. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As stated on the header: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England This category groups people by the 326 local government districts of England (32 London boroughs, 36 metropolitan boroughs, 201 non-metropolitan districts, 55 unitary authorities, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London). (See Category:People by city or town in England for people in cities and towns.) Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You state "People get categorised into district and profession" and yet immediately prior you say no, so what is it to be? Also "I am growing increasingly concerned about your editing and competence". You again make this a personal attack on myself. When all through this I have continually imformed you what my point is. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point, as expressed here, seems to be that "we don't need to be too specific like people from West Derby. The city is Liverpool". However, that completely ignores the long standing and well established categories of the Category:People from District series. This is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument and is therefore not valid. Like it or not, the categories exist and are in use. So, again, why have you repeatedly removed the Category:People from West Derby category when it is entirely valid? I really need a third party here to step in please, because this editor is disruptively removing valid categories from articles purely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GiantSnowman 14:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My partner's family always said they were from West Derby. They were also proud Liverpudlians. Both can be simultaneously true. If I was to create an article for my partner's grandfather, it could happily be placed in both "People from West Derby" and "Bakers from Liverpool" and still be correct. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 16:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it matters what Babydoll9799 or any other editor thinks about whether a person is "from Liverpool" or "from West Derby". The only thing that matters is what reliable sources (RS) say. If the RSes say "from West Derby", then we say "Category:People from West Derby". End of discussion. If the RSes say "from West Derby" and someone is changing "Category:People from West Derby" to "Category:People from Liverpool", that's disruptive editing and should stop. However, if the RSes say "from Liverpool" and someone is changing "Category:People from West Derby" to "Category:People from Liverpool", then that's productive editing and thank you for fixing that. I'm not sure which one this is but it should be pretty straightforward to figure that out. Levivich 17:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: - reliable sources confirming that Balmer was from West Derby include this and this and this. Therefore, in the absence of a Category:Footballers from West Derby (which would likely be OVERCAT in any event), the correct categories are Category:Footballers from Liverpool and Category:People from West Derby. Therefore, as you say, Babydoll9799's editing in removing Category:People from West Derby has been disruptive, has it not? GiantSnowman 18:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah this is just classic WP:RGW editing ignoring WP:V (and our category policy and what it says about categories being supported by the body, i.e. cats must meet V)... not the first editor to take the position I know the truth, sources be damned! If this disruption continues, a sanction may be necessary to stop it. And it should be mentioned that when it comes to the birthplaces and similar biographical details of pro athletes, entertainers, and others whose professions involve advertising biographical statistics such as birthplace, there will be an "official", advertised birthplace (or height, weight, age, name, etc.) that will be easy to source (because it was advertised, e.g. footballer stats websites), and since our articles are summaries of those sources, we would list the "official", whatever it was. Even if it's actually incorrect! If someone is known for being born in West Derby then we say that, regardless of whether they were born there or not. If their birth certificate conflicted with what RSes say, we'd go with RSes, not the birth certificate. This is an issue (truth v verifiably) as old as Wikipedia, and almost all our core content policies are aimed at addressing this. Levivich 18:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: perhaps therefore you would be kind enough to undo their edits at the Balmer article, given that they are unwilling to do it themselves despite admitting that they were wrong (although not for the right reasons). GiantSnowman 19:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No need, helpfully @Orangemike: has restored the correct edit. Many thanks both. GiantSnowman 19:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: I don't have an opinion on the main subject of this dispute, but it seems quite unlikely to me that it'd ever be correct to insist an article contain information that is known for a fact to be untrue. At the very least, it ought to be omitted -- especially in a biography. and especially especially in a BLP. jp×g 10:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it quite laughable and insulting the way I am being talked down to by GiantSnowman.
    In addition, Levivich. You are 100% disregarding the fact that West Derby in this example, is simply just a part of Liverpool. It is NOT I repeat NOT, a place where someone comes from as the place where they come from in this example is Liverpool. Of course like Trey Maturin has put it, we can come from places like West Derby. I was born in Everton. But my page would not say "People from Everton" it would say "People from Liverpool". Because the city is Liverpool my birthplace is Liverpool it is Liverpool in People by district in England.
    I often find (as in response from Levivich here) that when someone starts kicking up a fuss then there is someone else that will tell you the claim must be sourced or show what a source says. But remember, West Derby, Toxteth, Everton, unlike say Aintree or Bootle, are part of Liverpool since the 1800's. Therefore it does not matter what you say about the source, the fact is the person is born in the late 1800's or in the 1900's then if they are from West Derby their place of birth is Liverpool. It's a fact. It's not me being disruptive or petty. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    So from minding my own business and correcting categories to show where people are from, based on city, rather than a locality within the city, I am now being accused of being disruptive and changing articles because "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Please stop behaving like a dead behind the eyes robot and understand it is not always black and white. And, as Trey Maturin said both can be simultaneously true. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To that end I admit that West Derby did not become absorbed in to Liverpool until 1895 so technically, the page in question (Billy Balmer) would be born in West Derby, Lancashire. (Now Liverpool). Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you do not get it. Here on Wikipedia we do categorise by locality within the city. The sources say Balmer was from West Derby, so we categorise accordingly. You repeatedly removing the precise category for a more general category, for no reason other than you do not like it, is disruptive, and the fact that you still cannot understand that (and that you have also clearly misunderstood what Trey Maturin says), is concerning. Competency is required and you do not seem to have any. GiantSnowman 18:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I find your attitude stinks. You disregard anything I have stated, insult me and insult my editing. Calling in to question competency is very low indeed. I have given several pointers to where I am editing from. I even have the humility to admit that I got it wrong with this because in 1875 West Derby was not yet absorbed in to Liverpool. But you continually offer insults and point scoring. How very admirable. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not insulted you; I have criticised your editing, as have others. You now admit you are wrong - so the criticism was appropriate - but why have you not self-reverted and restored the correct edit/information? Also you seem completely unwilling to listen or learn... GiantSnowman 19:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Babydoll9799, please take some time and review our verifiability policy and category guidelines. While you're at it, you should also read up on BOLD, revert, discuss and how to use Talk pages. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so there's no such thing as minding my own business when you're being disruptive. Woodroar (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Woodroar now on the bandwagon. So I am being disruptive am I? Rubbish. I had a point and someone disagreed we've spent the day back and forth but guess what? I am not the one crying to other people to rat me out. I admitted my error on this specific edit but that does not mean I am either wrong or disruptive. I made my points quite clear the that my point was about the city as opposed to the district within the city. I have not been disruptive I have stood my ground as someone that knows Liverpool perhaps less so Wiki. So less of the insults please. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are being disruptive. Your argument boils down to "I'm from here, so I get to decide how everyone else from here is described", which is not how Wikipedia or anywhere else works. And you're edit warring to get your way. Your replies here aren't formatted correctly and others are cleaning up after you. Look, I don't know you and I'm reading about this dispute for the first time, so I'm trying to be neutral here. Please take my advice to step back and read our policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bingo. Babydoll9799, this is not a "bandwagon", this is consensus - multiple editors agreeing, and advising you how to edit. However, you are ignoring everyone and our policies/the sources, and viewing it as being personally targeted against you, which it is not. Please just listen to us and take on board our comments. GiantSnowman 20:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know anything about UK geography but I was wondering why we're seeing so many empty "People from..." categories at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion and I guess this is why, at least for some of the categories. Right now, it looks like 24 categories have been emptied (which is not how editors are supposed to empty categories, they should be nominating them for deletion at WP:CFD). And there's a bit of edit-warring over at the Billy Balmer article. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: - yes, this editor has made lots of these kind of edits over the last few days, removing valid categories from articles, resulting in an empty category (see this and this and this as some examples beyond the ones already detailed above - I think there have been over 100 in the east 48 hours) - as well as the disruptive editing/edit warring when editors like me have challenged the behaviour. GiantSnowman 20:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am very angry at the accusations being made by GiantSnowman. Making me out to be disruptive. Bringing my edits in to question. Witch hunt comes to mind. All I have tried to do is correct the pages for where people are from in the Liverpool area as they are from Liverpool (city) not district. I have given examples and yet you're getting on my back about this. Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    But everybody here is saying that your edits were wrong and that your editing was disruptive. Do you not understand that? do you still think, after all these comments, that removing the categories is correct? GiantSnowman 08:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    I have just noticed that this user has been canvassing, see this and this and this. They clearly do not get it and are not willing ti listen/change - their disruption will simply con tinge because they are so convinced that they are in the right and that all criticism is personal. GiantSnowman 09:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: topic ban for Babydoll9799

    Because of the disruption mentioned above, I propose an indefinite topic ban for Babydoll9799 from categories and people from the UK, broadly construed, until they can demonstrate an understanding of our policies and guidelines.

    How can you say this when I was correcting articles? Is Wikipedia not available for people who have only a passing interest in certain pages and wish to correct articles and information? Because another user has chose to disagree I am hung drawn and quartered? I spent time correcting articles and repeatedly explained why but I have been cast as a trouble causer, edit warrer being called disruptive, and also "canvassing" when I am asking for help. Seems you're all interested in calling out people rather than focusing on the articles themselves. Surely correct information is desired? When a person is from a city their birthplace it the city and not a district within; this is the entire basis of my arguement. However I am not even allowed to speak because people like the above user are whipping my ass. Amongst the other users Woodroar and GiantSnowman have refused to listen to my point of view and instead dismissed it. Instead making accusations.

    I don't accept this. I edit in good faith if I make mistakes I will accept that. However I will not back down if I know that I am right. (You will have already castigated me about this but yes I know my city do you?). I can say what edi is right and why but all I have is blanket faceless jobsworths telling me that I am in the wrong.

    I have stated several times that people from Liverpool should be categorised as the city not the district, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England and that the numerous pages I have edited all (but a handful) have contained incorrect information about their birthplace and the category of where they are from. But those edits have all been reverted. Babydoll9799 (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd recommend reading WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:CANVASS and agreeing to heed their advice going forward. Levivich 17:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would add three things and then I will break:

    This is about the [Category:People from Liverpool by locality] page which were set up by user Rathfelder in March 2020. Those pages seemed error strewn and I had attempted to restore them to [Category:People from Liverpool]. After all, the city (here Liverpool) is the primary place where the person is from, not the district within. As per [Category:People by district in England] This category groups people by the 326 local government districts of England (32 London boroughs, 36 metropolitan boroughs, 201 non-metropolitan districts, 55 unitary authorities, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London). (See Category:People by city or town in England for people in cities and towns.) .

    1 When making these changes there were a number of errors in the birthplace of various people. The birthplace is not an inner district it is the city of Liverpool. 2 When making these changes I found a handful of the pages were not in the correct category anyway. Either from the wrong district or not even from Liverpool. 3 When making these changes I tried to establish when those known people had a specific occupation I recategorised them from [Category:People from Liverpool] to occupation such as [Category:Footballers from Liverpool]. A person can be both categories but most pages are by occupation when it is a more specific occupation.

    The above edits were all correct. However some consternation arose because some of the edits were unsual. Taking in to account what (districts) were within Liverpool and also when they were absorbed in to Liverpool (mostly in the 1800's). It is a question of both correcting the birthplace of someone and identifying where they are from. I gave an example Ibou Touray the page said he was born in Toxteth and the category was [Category:People from Toxteth] yet Toxteth is part of Liverpool and has been for some time. Which means this person's birthplace is Liverpool, and should be categorised as [Category:People from Liverpool]. Equally [Category:Footballers from Liverpool]. Finally as the page currently states "Born in Toxteth,[3] Liverpool, " ... However since GiantSnowman objected to this incorrectly I might add, and chose to air his grivences here, I am portrayed in a very negative light by both GiantSnowman, and others including Woodroar. Because I am not playing the game they want.

    Above I provide reasons why I have edited. I don't think I should have had to jusitfy this but because of being called amongst other things "disruptive" because I have tried to stand my ground, I have had to do this. Perhaps I do need to understand Wiki more but I am not a professional editor, and that does not justify being hounded like this. I have not had any one wanting to discuss this with me; to ask just complete disregard. I assume you have read the above and will consider the reasoning for my edits. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Further points (regarding WP:DROPTHESTICK ) Quote from an earlier comment " Yes, you are being disruptive. Your argument boils down to "I'm from here, so I get to decide how everyone else from here is described", which is not how Wikipedia or anywhere else works. ".

    Surely instead of telling me off for portraying "I'm from here, I know best" point of view, that you verify that I am wrong? Surely the article needs to be right? Right? I refer to my earlier examples of both the Categories and the person pages that I had edited/correct. I stand by that. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - These lengthy and multiple responses from Babydoll9799 make it very clear that they do not see what is wrong what their behavior, and that they intend to continue their disruptive behavior. A topic ban is warranted. - Aoidh (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support this idea, whilst also knowing that it's not going to gain traction. The problem here is that Babydoll is not wrong, per se, but also not right. They do have a point - to the outside observer (which is the majority of our readership and the majority of our editors) it does look weird. How can someone be both from West Derby and from Liverpool? But that's how much of European society is organised, with our towns and cities growing organically over 1000+ years, swallowing up neighbouring towns and villages. It's hard for most readers to see that someone can - happily - enthusiastically - fully sourced - be both from Acklam and Middlesbrough, or, conversely, from Rainhill but not from Liverpool.
    Nevertheless, the main issue here is that Babydoll clearly doesn't grasp how we work here. We work on the basis of consensus. We work on the basis of verifiability not The Truth. They have their own opinion on what the articles should say, and the people who disagree are wrong, as are the sources they quote. We're being ignorant about something that is obvious to them. It must be intensely frustrating and I really do understand. It sucks. But it's how things are done here, and until they can demonstrate that they understand, and stop posting huge screeds explaining how everybody else volunteering here is a fool for not grasping their point, they need to stay away from the articles in question. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 19:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for all category-related edits, broadly construed, with the exception of talk page posts. It is clear that Babydoll, for whatever reason, cannot see or understand the relevant policies and lacks competence in this area. If a topic ban does not work, then extend to indef block. (NB I've only just seen this discussion on my watchlist; would have appreciated a ping!) GiantSnowman 19:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry about that, @GiantSnowman! Woodroar (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Woodroar: not an issue! GiantSnowman 22:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot rule by consensus but be incorrect with the subject. I have asked several times for people to challenge me on this matter and you have not. Making it about Wiki rules and regs is all very well but I made edits only to correct certain information. I make a few points very clear.

    1)This is not about me saying I am right and those that disagree are wrong. I am providing factual elements to the arguement. Where some places (obviously this is in the pages I have edited) the city of the person's birth (IE Liverpool) overrides the district where they are from (IE West Derby). They can be from both, however. I have given examples of this. 2) The category that I was removing was for pages created in March 2020 (People from Liverpool by locality) but again the city (Liverpool) overrides the district. As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England it clearly states we are talking about city's and boroughs. This is clear. All the districts (like West Derby) would be classed as Liverpool. For historical purposes West Derby in the 1800's may have been a township in its own right but in the 20th and 21st century this is part of Liverpool; as too other districts mentioned. 3) Some of the pages edited were incorrect as some of those people were not from the Liverpool district mentioned or from the wrong district. This means just because I have made numerous edits do not mean I have been disruptive or lack compentency. It is something I have done for over a decade. In fact I have expanded the Liverpool pages massively over the years. Many pages owe their existence to myself. As I have asked in a polite way, are you from Liverpool and why are you taking such interest in articles about Liverpool if you are not from Liverpool? Babydoll9799 (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Re "These lengthy and multiple responses from Babydoll9799 make it very clear that they do not see what is wrong what their behavior, and that they intend to continue their disruptive behavior. A topic ban is warranted". First and formost, please state what my disruptive behaviour is, and how I am continuing it? Is the fact I am requesting for some discussion re my good intentions (as in my last post) being seen as disruptive behaviour? Am I not allowed to challenge you guys or are you just happy to weed out certain individuals who don't spend all day reading WP rules and regulations? I am sorry I am only editing in a small way. My lengthy responses make it clear what I am debating here. Have all my edits been checked to see that every single one of them was wrong? Because I can assure you that 99 percent of the edits were done in good faith and some I have to question if I should leave them as they are but sorry if I am saying 99 percent of my edits were correct then how can I be disruptive? Because I disagree with you guys? Funny you don't question whether you are wrong just that I am wrongBabydoll9799 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh dear. We're moving from WP:TRUTH past WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT into WP:CIR territory. That's unfortunate, but all the words above indicate that Babydoll just doesn't get how an encyclopedia like ours works. Ho hum. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 20:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There is clear consensus for a topic ban in my view - please can an uninvolved admin review and close? GiantSnowman 19:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If I don't get what the problem is then enlighten me? No one has addressed my points just simply been roughshod about why I don't fall in line with your thinking. This is blatently being ganged on. I can see that this will fall on deaf ears. So be it.
    As for the response from Double Cross "and they are just not getting what the problem is. Someone can be listed in both [[Profession from city]] and <nowiki>People from district". This is madness. This is one of my arguements and you're making it appear that I do not understand!!!!! Utter madness. Of course a person can be both a profession and from a district. I never disputed this, it is the wrong point. My point is the "district" in this instance is replaced by the "city". Couldn't be more simpler. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the problem. On Wikipedia we do not replace more precise categorisation (district) with wider categorisation (city), which is what you have been doing. You have been informed about WP:SUBCAT and this has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors and yet you still don't get it. GiantSnowman 21:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Babydoll9799: you say "You cannot rule by consensus but be incorrect with the subject". But we can, and we do. You need to accept that the majority of your fellow editors do not agree with you on this, and therefore you lose. I know they're wrong, as you see it, but... that's how an encyclopaedia like ours, based on collegiate and consensus editing by a community, works. You are not going to be able to change that, certainly not on your own and certainly not by the methods you're trying now.

    Indeed, what's happening now is that we're collectively trying to keep you as a valued editor here, by simply excluding you from an area where you won't - can't - accept consensus. The alternative is that we show you the door entirely, and nobody here wants that. But it's coming if you won't drop this damn'd stick.

    I know this is hard. I've been there. I tried, as a single editor, to change the abhorrent, inhuman and incorrect phrase "committed suicide" to phrases recommended by mental health agencies worldwide - things like "died by suicide" or "took their own life".

    The consensus was against me. My fellow editors didn't agree. My edits on the subject were rolled back en masse. And do you know what I did? I walked away and edited in other places, on other subjects. I know I'm right on this, and I know that all the others are completely wrong. But I didn't win the argument, so I walked away. It sucks. But it's what you need to promise to do now, or things are going to get shitty for you and I'd be very sorry if that happened, truly I would. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 19:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate the additional comments and I will read WP:SUBCAT as pointed out by GiantSnowman. Even with a brief check on WP:SUBCAT This is NOT my arguement.

    Trey Maturin states "You need to accept that the majority of your fellow editors do not agree with you on this, and therefore you lose. I know they're wrong, as you see it, but... that's how an encyclopaedia like ours, based on collegiate and consensus editing by a community, works. You are not going to be able to change that, certainly not on your own and certainly not by the methods you're trying now."

    I try to understand what other users are telling me. I have tried to provide a reasonable "arguement" but I think we're at loggerheads.

    If it is me that is not understanding what you're all trying to say, then fine. I can learn. I have not been editing in the interim and I am wanting to remain free to edit in the future.

    Whilst I may have plenty to learn and understand and I may have "lost" this arguement; I am sorry I have to challenge because I think we're at cross-purposes, I still have a questions unanswered. This is not about me challenging the consensus, it's about trying to put my point of view across so that you can understand why I am upset by this. Babydoll9799 (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe me, we get why you're upset. But, and I'm being completely frank here, your arguments about how to categorize people based on your own personal knowledge don't count on Wikipedia. And, for that matter, neither do ours. We're here to summarize what reliable, third-party published sources say about people and then we categorize based on what the sources say, period, full stop, end of sentence. If reliable sources say that your next-door neighbor lives in an adjacent borough or city, that's what we're going to write. It may seem wrong to you, but real life is messy and where we come from isn't always so clear. A border town near me has changed names and jurisdictions multiple times in recent memory and the people there have strong opinions on where they're from. That can change from person to person and it doesn't always line up with any legal definition, current or historical. As I said, real life is messy, which is why Wikipedia is based on verification and not "truth".
    I hope this makes sense. And, for the love of all that's holy, please please please read WP:INDENT start formatting your messages properly. I sympathize with screen-reader users who will have no clue what this is about because your replies are all over the place. Woodroar (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Tepkunset

    (non-admin closure) No action necessary at this time. Everyone here seems to be acting in good faith and this is less a behavioural than a content issue. Tepkunset is advised to perhaps be a little more conservative in applying WP:OL to contexts involving internal links to the articles of nations where such links are found in articles detailing aspects of those self-same nations, since quick reference to the target article may be something that readers of the link-hosting article would find useful, in general.

    In the alternative, if Tepkunset feels this standard is inconsistent with WP:OVERLINK, I would advise that they at least seek feedback on this view at a relevant policy or MoS talk pages before proceeding with mass alterations (even the proposed one-on-one discussion would be a valuable exercise if Display name 99 is interested). However, I read Tepkunset's response below as already admitting of the fact that reasonable editors may vary on this question, and indicative that they were already planning to scale back such delinking, or at least give it more consideration in the future.

    In any event, nothing in Tepkunset's response here evidences an intractable, noncollaborative, or otherwise disruptive attitude on their part, so this is not presently the place for this discussion. Indeed, I am inclined to observe as the closer that Tepkunset's comments suggest they are approachable, reasonable, and open to input, and that Display name 99 probably should have considered broaching the subject of the delinking directly before bringing the matter here. Still, as ANI discussions go, this is as benign as they come, and no community restraint is required on any party as things stand.

    On your way out, please collect your commemorative medallions denoting that you have taken part in one of those ANI threads per every 10,000 which has ended on a more or less pleasant note for all participants. SnowRise let's rap 15:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I apologize if this is not in the right forum, but I have concerns regarding recent edits made by Tepkunset. This editor has gone through dozens of articles removing links. Most of these links are to countries. In all of the instances that I have seen, these countries have not previously been mentioned in the articles and they are relevant to the articles and should be linked. I am willing to assume that the edits are in good faith, and I don't support any sanctions, but I do believe that they should most likely be reverted and that the editor should be asked to cease such4 behavior in the future. Display name 99 (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks to me like he's just applying WP:OLINK. If you have examples where the user is going overboard, please provide diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [15] This diff from an article about a language spoken in a part of France. Because France is so closely related to the language, it should clearly be linked. He removed the links of some countries but left others behind here, here, and here which in my view is totally nonsensical. In an article entitled "Economy of Botswana," he removed a link to the country of Botswana. [16] In an article entitled "Geography of Kuwait", he removed a link to the country of Kuwait, as well as to neighboring countries, which for obvious reasons are of high importance to the article. [17] Does this meet your definition of going overboard? Display name 99 (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those look reasonable to me as they are all well-known geographical terms. Generally, countries do not need to be wikilinked. I certainly don't see any misbehavior in this area on the part of the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Botswana is not especially well-known. Countries should definitely linked in articles about those countries. It's inconceivable to me to have an article about the geography of Kuwait and not link to the articles about countries that surround it, and most especially to Kuwait itself. When countries are mentioned in passing, true, they generally do not need to be linked. But when discussing something that is relevant and connected specifically to one particular country, it is important to link to it just as it is to anything else. Display name 99 (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) Can you identify Botswana on a map of the world? (2) What was its name before it gained independence, and when did it do so? (3) Who was the colonial power, and why did that power take it over? (The reason was unusual, and possibly unique.) Answer those questions, and I might begin to be persuaded that linking Botswana is WP:OVERLINKing. (I sometimes despair at the unnecessary links to countries and cities everyone knows about.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OL asks "does reading the article you're about to link to help someone understand the article you are linking from?" I would think anyone reading Economy of Botswana already knows enough about Botswana to understand the article. Regardless, I know editors disagree on this but it is clearly a content dispute to be discussed elsewhere. MB 23:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of such links is not just to identify the country. It also helps the reader go the the main page for the country if they want background. If I were reading the article mentioned, I maight, for example, want a quick way of finding the history of Botswana. I know it's in the Navbox, but how many general readers will realize that? Even for countries like the United States. If I were reading Housing discrimination in the United States, I might quickly want to find some demographics. Thee's not even a Navbox to help. -

    I think the principle invovled is that nobody should make wide=reaching edits enforcing MOS [points of style acrosss a very large number of articles without being quite sure of consensus. They're too much work to undo. - DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)``[reply]

    Hello, thank you for everyone's thoughts on this matter. First a little explanation...Reading and learning about new things is wonderful and very interesting to me and many people. Articles that have many links are often distracting to me and others and take away from the article, I did some research and found the Manual of Style/Linking page and found that country names are listed as the the number one major example/violation of overlinking. I have attempted to clean up many articles and bring them into a more standard and excepted format, some times I run out of time or just miss some of the links but I do try to standardize the entire article. Everyone doing their own little part is what builds these articles into what they are, a great resource for everyone. Also Wikipedia's own research has found that most links are never clicked. I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that someone reading about the geography of Botswana, does not have ability to easily search for other facts and articles about Botswana. That being said, I do see how some links to countries can help the understanding of the reader and I do leave those linked. Alas, not everyone has the same background or viewpoint in these situations. It is my view that unlinking the country of Botswana from an article about things in Botswana does not undermine the readers understanding of Botswana. Also is my behavior really so heinous and intractable that the first step is a topic on this admin/incidents page? "Never use a cannon to kill a mosquito" - Confucius, WP:BITE. @Display name 99, I would happily discuss my edits with you in a civil manner for the purpose of finding common ground on what is best for Wikipedia and the many users and readers, maybe you could reach out to me directly next time? Tepkunset (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Chicdat and disruptive editing at WP:RfP

    Per consensus in the below PBLOCK/TBAN discussion titled "Proposal: Chicdat is partial-blocked from editing in the project space", Chicdat is topic-banned from editing pages within projectspace ("Wikipedia:"). He is still able to edit the talkpages of these pages to make any requests and engage in discussions. Chicdat is additionally prohibited from editing redirects to pages in the project space, for the same period. These restrictions are appealable at this noticeboard (WP:ANI) no sooner than 6 months." Note that there was division around whether to enforce this with a PBLOCK vs a TBAN, and in the absence of a clear defined consensus either way, I elected to go with the lesser of two impositions. The choice of a TBAN rather than a PBLOCK allows the exceptions listed at Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Exceptions_to_limited_bans to be used. I would strongly recommend that, if the exceptions are misused, this TBAN be converted to a PBLOCK. Daniel (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Wikipedia:RfP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Could someone have a look at Chickdat's behaviour with regards to this redirect please?

    This redirect spent 15 years targeting WP:Requests for page protection until retargeted to WP:requests for permissions by chickdat last year. I objected to their retargeting and reverted it a few weeks ago, which they in turn reverted while lying that they had consensus to retarget it.

    I therefore took the redirect to redirects for discussion Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_21#Wikipedia:RfP, where consensus was unanimously against their retargeting and resulted in the redirect being restored to it's original target.

    They are now continuing to disrupt this redirect by attempting to convert it into a disambiguation page, falsely claiming that I need talk page consensus to implement the consensus of the RFD discussion and that their edits fall under WP:BOLD (which does not apply to contested edits and cannot override a formal community consensus building process like RFD).

    This page should be turned back into a redirect to WP:Requests for page protection per the outcome of RFD discussion, and fully protected to prevent any more disruption from this editor and to match the fully capitalised redirect WP:RFD 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I was making a WP:BOLD change on the page. This IP however, instead of approaching me on the talk page, jumped straight to ANI. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because we already had a discussion about this redirect at RFD, which you damn well knew about because you participated in it. You know that the community decided that this should be a redirect to WP:Requests for page protection because that is literally what every single person in that discussion apart from you agreed with. WP:BOLD does not apply to your edits there, WP:DISRUPT does. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And instead of friendlily attempting to reach consensus on the talk page, you went straight to ANI. The disambiguation revision was intended as a compromise version, pointing to both project pages. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't need to reach consensus with you personally because the community already reached a consensus through a formal process at RFD a few weeks ago. No-one agreed with your proposed compromise, there was unanimous consensus that this should be a redirect to WP:requests for page protection. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, I didn't propose the compromise until three days ago, when I WP:BOLDly edited the redirect. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You made the bullshit claims that there was consensus to disambiguate it at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_21#Wikipedia:RfP, where not a single person agreed with you. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not let other users comment on this discussion, rather than just the two of us? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I objected to their retargeting and reverted it a few weeks ago, which they in turn reverted while lying that they had consensus to retarget it. - by consensus I meant WP:SILENCE. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You nominated it's fully capitalised brethren WP:RFP for discussion less than a day after you retargeted this redirect, and again the community disagreed with you Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_7#Wikipedia:RFP, it was obvious that the community did not agree with retargeting. WP:SILENCE stops applying as soon as someone reverts your edit, so reverting my revert claiming consensus under WP:SILENCE shows you fundamentally misunderstand that essay. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe you saw this discussion. I'm clearly not the only editor supporting a retarget of RFP. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean another discussion which closed with consensus that it should remain targeting at WP:Requests for page protection? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So you don't see that 5 editors supported disambiguation/retarget? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't see the closure? "The result of the discussion was keep" 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see the closure; I just wanted you to see that I'm not the only editor that supports this change. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, I propose a compromise. WP:RfP and WP:RFP redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, however, a page, WP:RFP (disambiguation) is created linking to other uses of RFP, like Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Additionally, a hatnote is added to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection saying "WP:RFP redirects here. For other uses, please see WP:RFP (disambiguation)." 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is about you poor behaviour and general disruption with regards to that redirect, it isn't a place to decide on what to do with the redirect - that was already decided at RFD. Your proposed compromise is terrible and makes no sense - you'd add a hatnote to each article that links to a dab page with two entries, one of which is the page you just came from? that's stupid - just include a link to the other page (which is what is already there). 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes my proposal stupid? I'm trying to reach a consensus here. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus was reached at redirects for discussion, where multiple editors discussed what to do and decided that this should be a redirect to WP:Requests for page protection. I don't need to reach a consensus with you personally because you disagree with the result. I'm going to leave this for an admin to look at now, because you clearly don't care that the community disagrees with you on this redirect and are going to continue to disrupt and bludgeon it until you get your way. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of what you're saying, IP, is right. Just because one editor disagrees with a consensus doesn't mean that it needs to be changed. However, at least 5 editors here believe that the page should be disambiguated. That might mean that the consensus must bec changed. Even so, look at WP:RfP! I turned it back into a redirect shortly after this discussion began. That doesn't look like I'm disrupting and bludgeoning it until I get my way, does it? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    However, I will leave this to the admins, too. If they decide to block me, I'll go quietly. Either way, I'm dropping the stick now. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) IP is correct in saying consensus was reached at redirects for discussion; both recently and on previous occasions. WP:RFP pointing to Requests for Page Protection has several times now been agreed upon re-litigating it without new, strong evidence that it should change (ie, concrete proof that a majority of users are using the redirect to find another page) is not a good idea. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I'm involved here as I participated in a couple of the RfD discussions, but the IP editor is correct that multiple discussions have found consensus against Chicdat's proposed/actual retargetting and they are also correct about WP:SILENCE and the lack of need to gain consensus to implement the consensus of a recent discussion. Chicdat: it's beyond time to drop the stick, if you don't do it voluntarily it will have to be dropped for you. A topic ban from discussing or editing any redirect, disambiguation page or hatnote that links to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and/or Wikipedia:Requests for permissions (directly or via a redirect) is the narrowest I think that would work. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Chicdat: I don't see the point in a tban from retargeting those redirects when it appears you are already under a voluntary restriction from that exact same thing since May. Instead of adding more restrictions to the pile, try being less gung ho in certain areas of the project. Isabelle 🔔 14:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That list of voluntary restrictions is getting long... Levivich 15:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. I would say that this discussion should be closed with a very strong warning to User:Chicdat. If they really think that they were making a bold edit against consensus, rather than a tendentious edit, then their inability to understand when they are in a known minority is a problem. They should be warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • [Not the same IP as OP] Considering the fact that they already have a restriction about retargeting project-space redirects, I would concur and that at the very least a final warning should be lodged. The fact that they edit-warred against 163.1.15.238 (OP), though, makes me think a short block might be in order to get the message across (since this isn't the first time they've had issues with retargeting project-space redirects). 68.193.40.8 (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While unrelated the RfP topic at hand, I would also like to point out where Chicdat went against the consensus that was established Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Archive_47#Merge_Provisions here (he participated in the discussion). He decided to modify the WikiProject Weather template against that consensus here when he clearly was in the minority. He also moved a page in a similar manner here. Additionally, they engaged in multipage edit warring across a sanctionable topic in October at: 1234. Im deeply concerned considering their mentor, MarioJump83 is at semi-retirement and is no longer active per their userpage. I think we need to establish formal restrictions since it is clear that the involuntary ones are not keeping Chicdat out of trouble. I don't advise blocking Chicdat at this time, but I think they need formal restrictions to keep them out of trouble, especially considering their mentor is no longer active here and this is not the first time they have been brought here for their actions. NoahTalk 14:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since Chicdat doesn't seem to understand consensusmaking processes I'll try to explain the norms around it. Not all consensus making processes are equal; "better" consensus processes cannot be overriden by "worse" consensus processes. In order from worst to best, it goes from WP:BRD (making an edit and nobody challenging it), to an informal discussion on the talk page, to a structured local discussion like an RfC on the talk page, and lastly to a structured "global" discussion like an RfC at a noticeboard or RfD. This isn't really set in stone (e.g. WikiProject consensii are weird and can be before/after a structured local discussion), but that's more or less how things work in practice. If a consensus has been established at a higher level, you cannot overturn it by trying to establish consensus at a lower level. You need to engage at the higher level because that's where the discussion is at. For instance, now that the issue over redirects has gone to RfD, you can't try to use BRD to challenge that consensus, nor can you try to start an informal discussion with another editor on the talk page. The way to challenge the consensus would be another RfD discussion, although repeatedly starting new discussions is an issue of its own. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are limits to the number of trips to AN & ANI which can be endured while waiting for Chicdat to acquire Elephants. Cabayi (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, as noted above, Chicdat is already under a myriad of 'voluntary' restrictions, and this edit-war retargeting violates one of Chicdat's existing restrictions anyway: I may not ... Retarget project-space redirects without a discussion at RFD. Thing is, this many formal restrictions would be unheard of, and it's probably hard enough for the editor to keep track of themselves for one. A few months ago, Chicdat's mentor said: Chicdat is currently not competent enough for administrative decisions I don't think that state of affairs has really changed. Besides, there are various issues that have never really reached this noticeboard. Some are in Chicdat's user talk archives, and some weren't even worth mentioning there. It pains me to say it especially as it's not really due to any intentional fault of Chicdat, but it's clear we'll end up here again and again, and so I agree with Noah that formalising a broad restriction from the areas of concern is probably appropriate, which (based on the evidence/discussions linked above and the few user talk discussions I remember reading) seems to be more or less across projectspace, bar WikiProject participation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Chicdat is partial-blocked from editing in the project space

    Given my comment and those made by others about Chicdat unintentionally and chronically causing disruption in project space areas, I propose that Chicdat be partially blocked so that he is unable to edit pages with "Wikipedia:". He would still be able to edit the talkpages of these pages to make any requests and engage in discussions. Chicdat should be prohibited from editing redirects to pages in the project space as well. I believe this would provide a balance between keeping the encyclopedia safe from future disruption while also keeping Chicdat out of trouble. This restriction would be appealable at this noticeboard after a minimum of 6 months pass. NoahTalk 02:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support per my comment in the previous section. In spite of the voluntary restrictions, there have been recurring issues and violations. In fairness, it is hard to remember a long list of restrictions like that -- last time we were here this was proposed, above we have this proposed, then there's frequent modifications like this (and others), etc. It's just too much even for any editor to reasonably remember, much less actually adhere to strictly (as is expected for bans). This is far simpler, appropriate in scope, proportionate to the issues, and unfortunately necessary. Also helps the editor stay out of trouble and focus on the areas where they're an asset. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Per Levivich & Iri, prefer topic ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about instead of a partial block, I adhere to a 0RR in project space? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      For me, the issue isn't just the edit war, it's general judgement in administrative tasks. Just as in the previous case the issue wasn't just the single tightly-scoped area under discussion. When you look at all the different discussions (at AN/ANI and on user talk), then the proposed scope becomes the most minimal one that encapsulates most of it. Also, I note there's already 7 voluntary restrictions and 5 areas of caution. I don't feel compounding the list is effective (I'm not even sure the current list is); I think it's better to replace the entire list with a new software-enforced scope, and also easier for you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • After all, please consider my productive contributions in project space. I'm a helpful asset to WikiProject Tropical cyclones, and I have nominated many articles about old people for deletion. I also make many helpful comments on all areas of the village pump, et cetera. The only problems I have in project space are those that stem from my WP:BOLD, revert, revert, revert editing. Therefore, a 0RR would be much more productive than a p-block. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, with regret. I might be an IP editor, but I'm not a newbie, and this isn't the first time I've noticed issues with chicdat's editing in "behind the scenes"/administrative areas. The distinct impression I have always had from their contributions in the Wikipedia namespace is that they are overenthusiastic and often overconfident, often to the point of mild rudeness, which coupled with major gaps in understanding and as Cabayi puts it issues with Elephants is always going to be a recipe for disruption. They're already under a voluntary restriction from large chunks of activities in this area, and a look through their talk page archives will show a history of disruption in this part of the project in a number of areas. It's a shame that in the almost two years they've been editing here they haven't been able to acquire Elephants in this area, so unfortunately I have to support a namespace block. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Their comments in this discussion have convinced me that they completely lack any understanding as to why their editing is disruptive or that what they were doing is wrong, so I'm revising my !vote to an unqualified support. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The proposed restriction makes sense and is simpler all-around than the voluntary restrictions targeting project space. Mackensen (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This should be seen as a last warning by Chicdat. As the IP in the section bellow comments, there are serious WP:CIR issues when it comes to administrative areas of the project. I hope Chicdat can see the conversation here as a learning experience, and understand why he was wrong when he tried to be WP:BOLD. Isabelle 🔔 13:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose partial block from W: namespace. Wrong tool. Support TBAN from Projectspace maybe except WikiProjects instead, per nom/above. Levivich 13:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I would like to note that some of the disruption mentioned above involved the moving of a WikiProject page and the modification of the project's template against consensus. The premise of this proposal was to prevent disruption across all the areas mentioned above. I have concerns that Chicdat may try to further involve himself in the merger process of the weather wikiprojects which is a long-term process. The page move and the template change he did were against part of the consensus involved in the merger. NoahTalk 13:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Point taken, I updated my !vote. For me the important thing is that it should be a tban from projectspace (not just WP: but also templates, files, etc.) and not a pblock from just the Wikipedia namespace (I don't think they should be in WT: pages either). We'll never technically restrict someone into becoming a productive editor; this would be a tban to force them to focus on mainspace and nothing else, the idea being it's a last chance to be productive and not disruptive. I don't think they've been tban'd before, and if they violate this tban, the remedy should be a full block. It seems weird to exclude someone from participating in wikiprojects (it's like tban'ing someone from collaboration, like some kind of "solitary confinement"), but maybe there should be no exceptions to the tban. I could go either way on that. Levivich 14:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      What? You say I should not edit in WT? @Levivich: Please give three diffs of my disruptive editing in the Wikipedia talk: namespace. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Others above say it much better, but it is clear that Chicdat is a net negative in project-space. -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from all pages beginning Wikipedia:, oppose using the partial block tool to enforce it. There's overwhelming evidence that Chicdat is being repeatedly (and unintentionally) disruptive across a broad swathe of project-space, but there are too many occasions in which there would be a legitimate exception to the ban, and as such using a partial block would itself be disruptive. (A partial block would render Chicdat unable to participate in an Arbcom case even if they were the named party, for instance.) As in almost all the cases where people propose partial blocks against a named editor, as long as the wording of the topic ban is unambiguous there's no need to use a partial block to enforce it; if the user isn't willing to comply with the topic ban then we should be going with a full block not a partial one, and if the user is willing to comply then any partial block would just be a waste of time. ‑ Iridescent 19:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban. 163.1.15.238's impression has been mine as well: this user, while obviously well intentioned, simply lacks the ability to edit competently in administrative areas at the moment. Perhaps that will change in the future, but his participation in project-space is – and has been for a while – a clear net negative. I would tend to concur with Iridescent that a partial block would likely do more harm than good: a duly-enforced topic ban should be enough to resolve the crux of this problem. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support PBLOCK from WP:, perhaps limited to 1 year. Oppose TBAN which is just setting a trap given Chicdat's inability to stop himself. Cabayi (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Unfortunately it seems that their inability to understand community consensus isn't limited to shortcut redirects, and given that their latest actions in that sphere were a violation of at least one of their myriad voluntary restrictions I think at TBAN is just setting them up to fail. This shouldn't be viewed as a harsh use of partial blocking but as a final attempt at avoiding a full WP:CIR ban - Chicdat, take this as an opportunity to demonstrate in other areas that you can learn to be a productive Wikmedian. Thryduulf (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My observations

    So I've been dragged to ANI once again. I apologize for my prior absence from the discussion, I was grounded. From my knowledge, here's what's been happening. 21 October 2021 12:16: An IP reverts my retarget from July 2020, saying that in prior discussions, RFP was unanimously against being retargeted to PERM. 12:18: I revert with the untrue statement that I did gain consensus. 15:44: The IP did not revert, but instead nominated RfP at RFD.

    During the RfD, I meanwhile got myself involved in a content dispute about a man's death date.

    29 October 2021 3:16: The RFD was closed as retarget, and RfP was retargeted to RFPP. 31 October 2021 13:03: A longevity dispute I was involved in, with many edit wars, was resolved by Blablubbs, who threatened to sanction both of us. 6 November 2021 11:23: I WP:BOLDly turn RfP into a disambiguation page. 9 November 2021 11:29: An IP reverts me. (The IP is the same one who reverted earlier.) 11:30: I revert the IP. 11:30: The IP reverts me. (2nd time) 11:32: I revert the IP. (2nd time) 11:34: The IP reverts me. (3rd time) 11:35: I revert the IP. (3rd time) 11:47: To avoid breaking 3RR, the IP reports me at ANI.

    Now it is being proposed that I am partially blocked. However, I have good contributions in project-space, too. WikiProject Tropical cyclones. The village pump. XfD. Discussions concerning adminship. Why can I not adhere to a 0RR in project space instead, with the condition that if I violate it or exhibit any tendentious editing, I am indefinitely blocked? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that you are still claiming that your edits fall under WP:BOLD shows the issue here. You cannot just BOLDly decide to override a community consensus built through a formal process that closed a week prior. Have you actually sat down and read WP:BOLD or are you just throwing it around hoping that it says what you think it does? You really need to read the sections on WP:RECKLESS, the need for careful editing in the Wikipedia namespace and that you need to take your edits to discussion after your "bold" edit was reverted. Also I did not bring you to ANI to avoid breaking 3RR, I brought you to ANI because you were being extremely disruptive, were engaging in Tendentious editing and were refusing to accept multiple community consensuses that were against you. If you cannot understand this then this really reinforces the need for a partial block until you do. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. My edits were bold at first. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you trolling, are you looking for an excuse, or are you legitimately unable to understand the concept of consensus building? We had a discussion a week prior at a centralised venue, where everyone on Wikipedia with an interest in that redirect could comment, and not a single person agreed with your theories on why this should be disambiguated. When the community has universally rejected your proposal you don't then get to disambiguate the page a week later claiming "WP:BOLD!". If you aren't trolling or trying to use BOLD as an excuse and legitimately cannot understand this then the closing admin should consider my !vote revised to "Support Site Ban, per WP:CIR". I'm going to leave this for others to comment on now since this just seems to be going round in circles. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I know how people create consensus. They start a discussion, and what is generally accepted becomes consensus. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody wants you to be indefinitely blocked. To make such a restriction on you even if you are the one suggesting it would be punitive rather than preventative. The issues I have are more with your overall judgment in the project space. It's far more than simple reverts and a 0RR restriction wouldn't cover the array of issues presented here. Your list of self-prohibited items is growing significantly too long as problems have cropped up. I felt the best option to keep you from being dragged back here again was to do a partial block. It prevents any future disruption across the whole project namespace. The goals here are protecting the encyclopedia and keeping you out of trouble. You would still be able to participate in discussions on any talk page as the Wikipedia talk namespace would be unrestricted. NoahTalk 12:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    I don't think anyone doubts your good intentions. It's the repeated poor execution that's the issue. A partial block would help keep you on track and hopefully ensure there isn't a "next time". There have been too many "next time"s already. Cabayi (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I never have once thought that Chicdat has been acting in bad faith. However, there have been too many "facepalm moments" that have required cleanup from other editors. I think Chicdat could be a good editor eventually, but he just needs more time to learn, and hopefully, a restriction would help with that. NoahTalk 20:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block review requested

    Given the consensus here and Doug's OK, I have unblocked Hatto0467. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    After three earlier blocks User:Hatto was indefinitely blocked in April 2008. A few weeks later they created User:Hatto0467 who has been editing steadily since, including the creation of articles. On the 6th of this month they logged into Hatto and redirected Talk:Hatto to Talk:Hatto0467, which gave the blocked account ECP and was noticed in a discussion about ECP. I note that one of the issues with the original account was misuse of the minor edits tickbox - they still seem to have a bit of a problem with this. I've CU blocked them as they are clearly block evading, but I'm not going to lose my cool if someone wants to unblock them although I personally don't like to see block evaders get away with it. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They've been editing for 13 years without incident? That kind of proves that a block in 2008 was not necessary to prevent disruption. I don't see how a block today is necessary to prevent disruption. Unless Wikipedia is the kind of place where "rules are rules" and if you broke one 13 years ago, you should be blocked today, regardless of how much good you've done in the last 13 years. I don't think that's what blocking policy envisions. Unless they've done something disruptive in the past decade, let's unblock them. Also, editors whose second accounts use the same name as the first account aren't really trying to evade anything. If nobody noticed/cared for 13 years, why notice/care now? Levivich 15:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep him & his sock(s) blocked. I fatefully served my 1-year ban, so why can't he. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are contributing usefully to the project now, then why spit in their face for some long-ago transgression? Clearly they aren't causing major disruption sufficient to warrant permastomping. As GoodDay notes above, sometimes long ago mistakes were made in blocking; in that case it should have been permanent. I'd like to see some acknowledgement of the old sin and a pledge to keep on contributing. After all, it's not as if he's flying under the radar now; he has eyes - unwinking, unforgiving eyes - on him. --Pete (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Out of curiosity, how does redirecting the original page piggyback the EC status of the later account? (Although, admittedly, I also don't see the point—the current account presumably has that right already (with >1K edits)).
    Regarding the point at hand, I'm tempted to echo Levivich; while I'm usually the first to demand that he editors log into their original accounts, realistically, after 13 years of no-mishaps surely we make an exception...? As for the minor edits thing, I haven't looked closely, but the numbers are pretty clear that Hatto467's minor edits are <20% of their total, compared to his earlier rate of (gulp!) >60%. ——Serial 15:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: how does redirecting the original page piggyback the EC status of the later account? it doesn't. Extended confirmed status is given either when you make your first edit after your reach the threshold, or your first edit after 5 April 2016 (the date EC went live on en.wp) if you reached the threshold before then. The redirection was the first edit made by user:Hatto since 2008, but they made nearly 4000 edits between 2005 and 2008 so they go the status automatically. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I seeee, Thanks Thryduulf: so EC wasn't retroactive when it was introduced, but would kick in on the first edit since then—of which that was the one on the 6th! Check. Thanks for resolving that. A harder question to resolve might be... why?! It seems a curiously pointless action, tbh. ——Serial 16:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some might say that redirecting your old account's talk page to your new account is disclosing the earlier account. So after 13 years of editing without being blocked, the editor gets blocked after linking the accounts on-wiki. I wonder what message that sends to block evaders... Levivich 16:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree with Levivich, SN, and Canterbury Tail here, there's really not much value in blocking them at this point. And the message, as with most long-after-the-fact cases of block evasion, is "if you keep your nose clean people aren't going to notice". SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 16:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't have happened in an ideal world, but it's been 13 years without any issues from the user. Trout them and then unblock as an WP:IAR interpretation. They're productive and blocks shouldn't be punitive. Talk to them on the minor edits thing if we think it's still an issue, but I think the block should be lifted. Canterbury Tail talk 16:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 13 years of good behavior certainly merits WP:SO qualification, even if it is a bit unorthodox. I'm okay with the WP:IAR unblocking here. The rules are meant to stop disruption, and clearly this person has made it 13 years without disrupting Wikipedia. I'd say they've proven themselves. If we had caught them right away, perhaps a block would be in order, but Wikipedia stands to gain nothing over keeping them blocked. --Jayron32 16:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question is - How many more socks is he operating. I assume they'd be more creatively named. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • He does need to stop using the minor edit tick box so much IMHO. I didn't do a thorough check so don't know about more socks. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I've checked. I see a lot of editing logged out. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Obviously he's being dishonest with the community. His IP(s) should be blocked, too. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Doug Weller: Is it abusive logged-out editing, or the sort that would normally be handled by a {{uw-login}} or such? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't have blocked under these circumstances and I think the user should be unblocked absent additional evidence. I have some questions about the original block from 2008 and I doubt it would withstand review if done today. Mackensen (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, any block placed by Rodhullandemu should probably be vacated on principle, or at least reviewed with a jaundiced eye. ——Serial 16:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Tbh anytime I read "block from 2008" my initial reaction is "it was probably a bad block". Those were the Old Times, when Titans roamed the encyclopedia, devouring mortals. Levivich 17:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Their earlier blocks: 02:50, 3 March 2008 DragonflySixtyseven talk contribs block blocked Hatto talk contribs with an expiration time of 2 days, 48 minutes and 48 seconds (autoblock disabled) (Ignoring warnings on abingdon boys school and related articles) (unblock | change block)
      14:30, 12 March 2007 Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington talk contribs block blocked Hatto talk contribs with an expiration time of 24 hours (anon. only) (removing replacable fair use tags despite multiple warnins and notices, and gross incivility and personal attacks) (unblock | change block)
      3:11, 29 June 2006 William M. Connolley talk contribs block blocked Hatto talk contribs with an expiration time of 8 hours (3rr on Masashi_Tashiro) (unblock | change block)
      @Tamzin:I haven't examined their IP edits carefully, but the problem for me is that there are a lot of them. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Levivich and SN54129 said. This is a punishment looking for a reason. Unless anyone has any diffs of any actual disruptive behaviour from, say, the last few years, then unblock as "time very much served" and move on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, unblock. If WP:SOCK becomes the end, not the means, then we've stopped trying to build an encyclopedia, and are just playing Sock Hunting the Video Game(TM). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Support Unblock per above. A trout and informal warning (for minor edits) are all that is needed as they can clearly edit constructivel. The block was also placed by an admin who is now banned. dudhhrContribs 19:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an odd situation. I think an unblock probably is merited, although it seems like there ought to be some closure to the prior indef. Rather than unblock unilaterally, why not suggest that they file a nominal unblock request and then approve it? Someone who is willing to constructively edit Wikipedia should be able to come up with a cursory justification for doing so.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we're now at consensus standards for unblocking, with just some differing on the nature of the warning that should be given alongside. Per "NOTBUREAU" I don't believe we need a "nominal unblock request". However, this is technically a CU block, and I'm not sure whether but I'm not going to lose my cool if someone wants to unblock them is "CU permission for a regular unblock" or "permission for another CU to unblock without further query to the blocking admin". Thus, any CU please process. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Paging Barkeep49 on aisle 5 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can unblock. Please mention minor edits again though, I've already dealt with editing logged out. Doug Weller talk 12:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Not entirely sure why I was paged specifically and as I am not Batman I make no promises to always turn up at ANI if the signal goes up. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll just note I think it's a bit concerning to see CU blocks used when there is obvious block evasion just from behaviour (username, in this case). It limits unblocking to CUs and slows down the removal of bad blocks, since not every admin can review them, or at least it seems other admins feel cautious about undoing them (as seen above in Nosebagbear's comment). Also think an admin should show a bit of discretion when the original block apparently being evaded was for improper use of minor edit indicators... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ProcrastinatingReader: I agree, and would go further and say that {{checkuserblock-account}} should never be used in the event of a purely behavioural link between accounts. This is intimated by the template itself: Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively... (my emphasis). Clearly, in cases such as this, technical logs didn't come into it initially. ——Serial 11:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblocking a sock-master who's claimed his english isn't very good. Very well, then. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "Sockmaster" is a little inaccurate don't you think? If an admin looks at the editor's contributions and wants to block them for a substantive reason - disruptive editing, perhaps related to their English ability or something else - then they could do that. But blocking them for being a 'sockmaster' or for 'marking edits as minor' are both obviously bad blocks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My feelings on sock puppetry are well documented, but essentially I asked for diffs of recent disruptive behaviour (on the grounds that a sock will "revert to type" eventually and do the things that caused them to get blocked in the first place) and there were none forthcoming. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I could swear I posted about two hours ago, but something failed. Anyway, what I wrote more or less is that in hindsight I agree it should not have been a CU block - I think it was a desire to be overcautious in checking I was right, but that wasn't necessary. Not my best block but please note that I immediately came here for a block review. Of course the most important thing is the result, which is what I hoped for or better. Hatto has his old username back which he's very happy about, another Admin and ProcrastinatingReader have advise him about minor edits, I've told him he can always contact me and I've shared a good website with him. Because of the name change the CU block doesn't show up in his blocklog. As I assumed Ritchie read the block log I didn't see any point in analyzing the frequency of minor edits - there was no question in my mind of reverting to type (ignoring warnings etc, the reasons for the earlier blocks ), I have no idea why that was mentioned other than his negative feelings . Doug Weller talk 12:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Echo1Charlie's disruptive editing

    User Echo1Charlie is engaged in disruptive editing and edit-war with multiple editors on multiple pages while giving misunderstood policies as rationale for reversion and large-scale content removal (see 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5). The editor also questions reputable RS just because it comes from a certain country (see 1 & 2). The user doesn't understand what WP:PRIMARY means (see 1, 2 & 3) or what WP:LONGQUOTE means (see 1 & 2). Calls a print magazine a WP:SPS (see 1 & 2). The user has already been warned for such behavior. Tagging @Satrar and Samee: for more input. --119.157.254.153 (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins should also note that this user was also warned here earlier. 119.157.96.86 (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Says someone who routinely engages in meatpuppetry. 119.157.126.39 (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Echo1Charlie doesn't have to edit via his IP, all his edits are via his user ID :) because all edits I make are reasonable and the reason would be normally provided in the edit summary and the editwar regarding samee and satrar. I'm curious how do you know about the incident regarding samee and satrar? I was trying to find the diff I made in that editwar report , to prove which was a false accusation, but I lost among 2000+ edits I made, I couldn't find it (but will add here later), being an IP how did you know that incident??! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh you mentioned mentioned that here, thanks for doing that. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's begin with reputable source argument you made -
    1. [24] - if you came with your user ID I could've pinged you, I provided the reason in detail here and a Pakistani news paper in India Pakistan matter especially regarding Kashmir is a biased source, violating the policies I mentioned in the talk section. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    2. WP:PRIMARY is not generally encouraged to cite on articles, especially when it comes to controversial subjects like Kashmir issue it's not acceptable at all (I think so). —Echo1Charlie (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Globalvillagespace - "The reputable print magazine" (are they actually print magazine in the literal sense) - in their about it reads - "Global Village Space (GVS) is an initiative of few friends from Columbia University Alumni Club of Pakistan." - now my question is it a reliable source regarding India - Pakistan issue? Or Kashmir conflict? To me it sounds like a potential WP:SPS —Echo1Charlie (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Regarding your this reply [25] accusing an editor calling him meatpuppet sounds so familiar to me [26] Satrar calling an editor Thewolfchild who put a comment in that report - a meat puppet! Coincidence?!, also calling Satrar and samee here [27] could be a coincidence too right?! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Long quote quote farm - [28] Long quotes were removed but the citations retained including that of Dawn.com at the bottom, also it's a WP:QUOTEFARM - just look at the number of quotes they've put in that singe sentence - starting with "There was also.." to "It was at the centre of..." - that's 5 quotes in a row! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    6. And about the first 5 diffs your provided - I think edit summaries I provided there would speak for me. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My Observation : It's interesting to note that IP editing is increased on India-Pakistan/Kashmir related articles recently, see here [29], [30], [31] - content of this well cited article was completely removed by an Ip on 4 November 2021 [32] calling WP:OR WP:POV - this incident came to the light only because we discussed the matter on my talk page here. I think these are done by experienced editors, (IP Sock??), I request these articles should be protected from IP editing. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Echo1Charlie, there is no requirement that otherwise reliable sources be completely unbiased. If we eliminated all pro-Indian and pro-Pakistani sources from coverage of the Kashmir dispute, we would have very few sources left to cite. It is the task of productive Wikipedia editors to accurately summarize the full range of reliable sources. So, a pro-India editor should be willing to cite a pro-Pakistan reliable source, if it makes a cogent and relevant point about the conflict. And vice versa. My edits that I am most proud of are to defend articles about people I do not like off-Wikipedia, from edits that violate WP:BLP policy. Every living person deserves that protection, even if I think Person A is a jerk. The same general principal applies to articles about controversial topics. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point Cullen328, actually we're on the same boat see my arguments here [33] under subtitle Neutrality Issues. I'm against attaching Dawn as an external link [34] as I have stated here its a violation of
    1. WP:ELPOV - it reads " avoid providing links... to one point of view"- here the external link provided is that of a Pakistani national daily - the dawn, known to push Pakistani narrative
    2. WP:LINKSTOAVOID - it reads - " Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject" - here external link provided is a news link
    hence in my opinion news site as an external link can't be allowed. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also in this article 2019–2021 Jammu and Kashmir lockdown under reaction section, Pakistani dailies like dawn, pakistantoday etc are cited, I haven't removed them with this judgement! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: Interestingly, the consensus early on in the development of 2020 Delhi riots was to cite only third party international sources (especially those with journalist agents in India), rather than Indian sources, because it was such a divisive event that even Indian sources normally considered reliable (including The Hindu I recall) were found to be unreliable for reporting about that event. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not clear from the discussion above just what you object to, Echo1Charlie. Are you saying only that Dawn (newspaper) is not appropriate as an external link, but that it is otherwise acceptable as reliable source? I want to be sure that I understand you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Dawn is not acceptable as an external link (I can't comment on its reliability though, in general), also in my opinion we need to use user discretion in citing these sources, example here [35] we don't know the accuracy of this information here, hence a neutral source is needed with the Dawn.com ( I think reuters cover these kind of news) —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Echo1Charlie, are you equally opposed to the use of pro-Indian media sources? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't generally rely on Pro-Indian sources, I mostly cite WP:HINDU, Diplomat.com, Reuters etc on my edits, also if I came across Pro-Indian unreliable sources like -WP:TOI, DNA news, republicworld etc, I remove them and the claim associated with it, if I can't find a reliable source for example see here [[36]], I don't even cite India Today!, also I rarely edit controversial subjects like this but if I do, I do it with non-Indian source, see for example - [37] —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I opined about Dawn as external source on the said article's talkpage [38] but it may have went unnoticed so commenting it again here.
    "I disagree as to Dawn (newspaper) pushing Pakistani narrative. It's the most revered newspaper in South Asia and is Pakistan's Newspaper of record. It is often criticized in the country for being against the state narrative, an example of which was Dawn leaks controversy. So you can't really say that it pushes Pakistani narrative, it is rather quite neutral on it." USaamo (t@lk) 13:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh you sure about that USaamo? Let me read one line from the said link [39] which the Ip was trying to add there as an external link -"Security operations against Kashmiri fighters have accelerated" 4th paragraph, calling terrorist organisations like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Hizbul Mujahideen, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, Al-Badr (Jammu and Kashmir) - freedom fighters?? or do you have a different opinion regarding these UN listed terror outfits??! This is the very reason why I object to it's listing as external link! —18:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Echo1Charlie (talk)
    PM calling Osama Bin Laden - a martyr [40] and countrymen celebrating Taliban takeover in Afghanistan [41].., I'm not surprised! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well now that's a nationalist attack and is unacceptable here. What if I say that they have elected a murderer of thousands of Muslims as PM of India [42]] and the government party leaders in India want Muslims to be skinned alive for cheering up Pakistan Cricket Team. [43] Should anyone be surprised or it's normal in this regime? USaamo (t@lk) 19:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Echo1Charlie: your comment can easily be interpreted as racist. I suggest you strike it out. @USaamo: please don't engage in this kind of rhetoric.VR talk 21:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concern Vice regent, I just quoted BBC news and Washington news, also these are not my opinion, invention or allegation! Also I didn't racial profile them, I didn't mention any religion or country's name, did I? How mentioning news with link be offensive? I don't understand that. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to quote Mr Khan from the news link "I will never forget how we Pakistanis were embarrassed when the Americans came into Abbottabad and killed Osama Bin Laden, martyred him," Khan said." - I'm not guilty but those who, worshipping and hailing a terrorist responsible for the death of 2996 innocent lives is guilty. Why should I strike out my comment for that?? Even their Opposition leader criticised him for this remark! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is going downhill fast. After taking a look through, I'm still not entirely clear what administrative action anyone is looking for here, and unless that's forthcoming I'll put this thread out of its misery and suggest everyone here deal with the content dispute through appropriate channels. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    203.145.95.X harassment, personal attack and possible part of off site canvassing behaviours

    Ok, i have been asked to make a shorter thread. Here is one thread for one ip range. If you like to read the previous drama: here.

    The ip made groundless claim that 210.6.10.X ip range was my meatsock on 21:46, 8 November 2021 by this edit (Special:Diff/1054238016). Which the ip has received warning by User:Ohnoitsjamie

    However, way before that edit, the ip already trolling me by false claim I have suggested something (offsite) somewhere by this edit (Special:Diff/1052306852) Agree Matthew. As you suggested elsewhere, which exactly the same disruptive edit as the edit of 210.6.10.X ip range (Special:Diff/1050888402, Agree with Matthew. It's all about how. I saw his message on an online forum and I agree with his reasoning.) on the same talk page. SPI clerk user:Tamzin simply called 210.6.10.X ip range as troll (mentioned in previous ANI October thread) or in blockable conduct (mentioned here). But i am not sure other admin would consider 210.6.10.X ip range and 203.145.95.X (this thread) are meatsock, or same person that ip hopping with another ISP, or else. Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings's RfC attracted a lot of unregistered ip from different HK ip ranges as apparent off site canvassing , just i fails to dig out the exact thread, only their possible point of contact in Telegram (app) (Read the above ANI thread for details). Or, may be people may not agree there is any off site canvassing, so that this thread talk about edit inside wikipedia.

    The ip range also harassed other registered editor, and matching the pattern of yet another ANI thread back in January 2021, which either harassed other people's English level, or other editor not Hongkonger enough to edit wikipedia's Hong Kong content.

    In specific, now the 203.145.95.X ip ranged harassed user: Citobun in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong

    On a side note, Citobun does not appear to be adequately familiar with some Hong Kong topics Special:Diff/1054239450 on 21:57, 8 November 2021


    So, any thought? Matthew hk (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added a link to the range ([44]) at the top of this thread. I see that the user responded to my warning here, where they agreed to stop making accusations. Do you have any examples (with links to the diff) of harassment from that IP range since I warned them? Claiming that another user is not "adequately familiar" with a topic may be a bit uncivil, but it's not harassment or an attack. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohnoitsjamie: For the record, this is a quote from an ip ( 1.64.46.X) from the January 2021 ANI thread, but since it is from different ip range so that never able to actually verify it is controlled by same person or just coincidence or not: With such a level of proficiency in the English language, as well as reference to "To Ka Wan" (as opposed to To Kwa Wan) I would have much reservation towards his claims that he's a Hongkonger residing in Australia and that he's familiar with the Hong Kong-related matters he edits on Wikipedia.. So, would you think use today or 8 November or date that someone send a user talk message to 203.145.95.X ip range, that "from Hong Kong is not a mandatory requirement to edit Hong Kong -related topic" Able to show WP:RS to allow other people to WP:V is more important" ?
    BTW Citobun did say this to the ip gang already in January 2021 thread Third party comment: If you (singular? plural?) created an account and cut down on all the snide remarks regarding English proficiency then I think it would be much easier to have a constructive discussion regarding the issues at hand Matthew hk (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Diff/1052070292 by 124.217.188.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Special:Diff/1054164236 by 203.145.95.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 1RR
    203.145.95.32 did stop and not having 2RR and instead made this Special:Diff/1054230185
    But the problem is, you can't add placename that was used in 100 year ago. Hong Kong place name changed from time to time (See Ma Tau Chung#Geography) so that such stuff need WP:RS to verify the modern place name of the area.
    Matthew hk (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like a content dispute in which all parties are participating in talk page discussions. If the dispute comes to a statemate, please follow dispute resolution procedures. I have no further interest in this, please don't ping me about it again. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Matthew hk for opening this thread. Sorry that I am busy in real life this week and can't contribute very much to this discussion. But I would say: Hong Kong subjects have had, for a long time, problems with disruptive IP editors whom I suspect are the same person as there is a great deal of subject overlap among the IPs. I last opened a discussion about this here. Their common editing pattern can be summed up as persistently adding obscure place names (e.g. Staunton Creek, New Kowloon, etc), other obscure/incorrect names (e.g. "Harbour Crossing Tunnel"), highlighting obscure geographic trivia that usually consists of WP:OR (example here, and so on. Instead of providing WP:RS, they just start revert wars and make personal attacks. It's hard to address the problem since they are constantly changing IP addresses. Citobun (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair 124.217.188.X ip seems linked to the creator of Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin, a globally locked user (see Afd, 124.217.188.X ip vote stacking to try to keep the article, and no other user and ip really agree it) of which probably a lock evasion, but CU will not do the check for ip and locked user linkage anyway.
    124.217.188.X ip and 203.145.95.X seems different person as there is edit war between them in City U article. Just 124.217.188.X probably won't able to open an account or else it will escalated to SPI quickly, while the latter chose to personal attack and voluntarily not registered to enjoy the collateral damage of edit protection of articles (or may even worse, may mistook as the same person as 124.217.188.X ips) So that you may need to open thread for 124.217.188.X ip range as people want to read concise thread and don't want to spend time to know that really happened. Matthew hk (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Cite-spamming tendentious IP sock

    Dealt with a tendentious editing serial-sockpuppeteer that was also a serial cite-spammer. When its last accounts User:Chathu69 and User:Chathuwr were banned and I purged most of the cite-spam and self-work/self-promotion but then a IP sock 212.104.224.5 suddenly appears and tendentiously edits Age of Information page to restore the content. Then right after it did three reverts it shifts to 212.104.231.67 and continues restoring the self-work and then 212.104.236.95 comes and tries to restore the content proving that the sock tried to lure me into falling into 3RR violation but didn't know removing WP:SOCK material is an exception to 3RR rule. I cannot tag the page for speedy delete because it was a redirect page existed before sock took it over. They are pretty much in the same range of IP socks used by Chathu/Basnayaka. SPI couldn't ban them because they are dynamic. Thank you -UmdP 06:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Another IP of the range hits other pages too all trying to bring back the refspam of the sock. Then the IPs loses it and tries to revert my edits in other pages throwing accusations like vandalism-UmdP 09:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    And another day and the same angry loser keeps on harassing me. 43.250.241.6 and 61.245.171.110. -UmdP 14:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Iyo-farm repeated block-evasion

    Iyo-farm is indef blocked on Wikipedia and has been evading his block by using o2 mobile IPs to post on the Vegan Society talk-page and at British pet massacre. There is a current SPI about this user [45]. Many of these IPs trace around the UK to four or five different locations, so this individual travels a lot which makes it easy for him to get a new mobile IP.

    These IPs he has used today.

    And before that, these and many others (he often signed his comment on these IPs with his username)

    I want to point out this has been going on for 1 month now. I don't know if a range block is possible or not, I did suggest it to an admin but another opinion is needed because such a block would stop many others from editing from o2 so it is probably not fair but recently this user continues his block evasion on these IPs almost daily. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Iyo-farm had many problems, but definitely wasn't 89.241.33.89. I should now because that was me, a fact I even had on my user page for awhile. The IP address isn't even in the same range, try not to tar all IPs the same. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Actively, I agree with you. 89 was not him sorry, it got lumped in their by mistake. I added it by mistake when looking at the history of British Pet Massacre. All the others are definitely him. He is currently using this o2 IP to edit these same articles and his SPI [46] Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest partial blocking the 82.132.0.0 range from Iyo-farm's usual targets, I doubt the collateral will be that great. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    British pet massacre has been semi-protected for several months. Definity the right move. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Their range appears to be 82.132.128.0/17, if a rangeblock is ever needed. wizzito | say hello! 23:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's go back to first principles here. What's really going on? Psychologist Guy wants to discredit the Vegan Society with a length paragraph that fails on the grounds of NPOV, NOTNEWS and WEIGHT [47]. I reduced it to a couple of sentences retain the references [48]. Since then, he keep reverting to his NPOV version. All of the rest of it, is just obfuscation, & character assassination in an attempt to "win". It's all diversionary tactics.

    Let's go back & examine his edit on the basis of those policies, & see if it actually works. As I pointed out on the talk page, it doesn't because of the brevity of the topic. The short version is better. --Iyo-farm (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.217.0 (talk • contribs) [reply]

    More of the same. Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Something interesting here is that Iyo-farm appears to be the same o2 mobile user that has been vandalizing the macrobiotic diet article. Firstly in his edit summaries and comments on his account Iyo-farm and many of his o2 mobile IPs listed above, he doesn't like using the word "and", he uses "&" which is rare to see in long edit summaries. He nearly always leaves a long edit summary or the "&" in his comments. Other behavior evidences are apparent including his obsession with using brackets which you can see on the talk-page. Iyo-farm also usually edits from 11-12 at night, then 6am in the morning then 2-3pm in the afternoon, this matches all the IPs on the macrobiotic diet. Iyo-farm also seems to have an interest in traditional Japanese culture, for example he significantly edited the Masanobu Fukuoka article, edited Mokichi Okada and created nature farming. The o2 mobile IPs are arguing that "fad diet" should be removed on macrobiotic diet and claiming it is a traditional Japanese diet. This fits Iyo-farm's editing interests. Last night at nearly 12:30 an o2 mobile IP 82.132.213.189 put an image on my talk-page [49]. Why would someone randomly do that? It was obviously Iyo-farm because all his other target articles have been locked. After this IP left a comment on my talk-page they edited the macrobiotic. Iyo-farm on o2 IPs had previously vandalized my talk-page a few days ago, no other IP has done that. These o2 mobile IPS have all vandalized the macrobiotic article:

    I have no doubt that 82.132.218.73 is Iyo-farm as a comment he left is an exact match of his argument and writing style which you can see on the talk-page [50]. I can not cite a diff because he re-edits his comments but to see his full comment check the comment he left at 14:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC) to user Alexbrn. Based on what I have seen this is a deeply disturbed individual who is moving to different articles because his other target articles are locked. I would support the range block for 6 months or a year. As of yet no range block seems to have been done. This user is one of the worst trolls I have seen. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It's hardly vandalising when it's removing content that is not supported by the given reference. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". Look, all of this drama is just about Psychologist Guy attempting to defend his ownership of the Vegan Society page, & his drama is causing a huge waste of time energy, as with false sockpuppet allegations[51]. Once you start by accepting that, it'll all start to make sense. --82.132.186.1 (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's block evasion because your account has been indef blocked on Wikipedia and vandalism because its well known in the medical and nutritional literature that macrobiotics is a fad diet but you have removed that term about 5 or 6 times from the article on multiple IPs. A range block is clearly needed here because you are still dicking around on talk-pages. As for the SPI, yes I did file it because this account is suspicious [52] a throwaway account that hasn't logged in 4 days and uses the same writing habits as yourself. Even if that account is not blocked and an admin disagrees with what I have suspected, you are evading your block on all these mobile IPs. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User Wennradio

    Wennradio has a coi[53][54], is a spammer ([55] [56][57][58][59][60]...), and a SPA with less than 150 edits over 13 years, attempting to control the content of the BLP article Tariq Nasheed and related topics. --Hipal (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Doug Weller: [61] --Hipal (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hipal: I'm busy right now but I think this belongs at WP:COIN. I see that your coi links show that Wennradio says they are a representative of Nasheed, who they are indeed spamming. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting subpages created by banned user

    Hello, following some images I found that a banned user created many user's sub-pages (some are huge, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FlamingSkateBoard) with repetitive content and images deliberately confused and manipulated.

    - It seems that the main user was "Favoritismo", banned in January 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Favoritismo

    - Later he re-created identical confusionary sub-pages as "Rallyismo": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rallyismo

    - Then "FlamingSkateBoard": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FlamingSkateBoard

    - Then "CrabsPlankqon": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CrabsPlankqon

    - Then "QutanRawr": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/QutanRawr

    - Then "EggYolkLol": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EggYolkLol

    All the accounts have various of these sub-pages, and there may be other accounts that I have not found. I think that they should be all deleted per G3, G5, and G13.

    Thanks for the attention.--37.160.160.89 (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that you failed to notify any user you have reported as required. Chip3004 (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The accounts are abandoned, however I have now notified them.--37.160.160.89 (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the OP/IP (thank you, 37.160.160.89!), these accounts show closer behavioural similarity than can be explained away as coincidence. I've deleted some rather large user-space pages, but – since this seems to be fairly old history – have neither blocked the sock accounts nor started an SPI. If anyone else wants to do either of those things ... or else this can now be closed. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jengaboot just here to push a negative POV

    This is a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Please follow the instructions and steps on WP:DISPUTE. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

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

    User:Jengaboot appears to be here just to push a negative POV on Antioch International Movement of Churches, including using weak referencing and loaded language [62], placing undue emphasis on living persons leaving the church [63], edit warring over negative coverage being removed [64], and removing content for not being critical of the church [65]. Their latest edits to the article came after I cautioned them on their edits, and it seems they've been copypasting my edit summaries. Their only talk page edit was to accuse another editor of bias [66]. As such, I can only conclude that they are an SPA here to turn the Wikipedia page into an attack page CiphriusKane (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CiphriusKane (in user's words) "nuked" my established contributions instead of constructively working and editing to maintain them. A "nuke" is a name for a reckless indiscriminate means of destruction. To accuse me of negative bias is a subjective accusation. My entries have been quite matter of fact. If you feel there is bias and loaded language, the proper edit would be to make it more matter of fact instead of blowing the whole effort up. I don't have a large expertise on the intricacies of Wikipedia's rules but there are ways to fix an entry rather than senseless and baseless mass deletions. User:CiphriusKaneseems to have an overly positive bias towards [67] to completely eliminate some of it's controversially noted entries. User:CiphriusKane has an intent on attacking me and my contributions. One such example is insisting on a copyvio on an entry that was already deleted by CiphriusKane . You can't have a violation when the entry is already "nuked". A "nuke" is a name for a reckless indiscriminate means of destruction. That vandalism is exactly what has taken place byCiphriusKane's actions . I would address the "problems" these entries have myself but, if user User:CiphriusKane were truly an unbiased and productive editor, it would be better for User:CiphriusKane to add back the entries in a format you deem correct. (talk)10 November 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by talk:Jengaboot (talk • contribs)

    I removed the controversies section because it was an indiscriminate and poorly sourced attack section, including implicitly trying to link the actions and beliefs of individuals to the church. I am neither in favour nor against the church. Also, the copyright notice is an alert to administrators that there is a copyright violation in the page history that needs to be deleted, which is still there. If there is legitimate and reliably sourced criticism about the church then it can be added to the article. To clarify, the criticisms sections took up half the article, and included the departure of pastors, and comments such as this edit summary indicate that this is largely built off Jengaboot's personal views.
    Also, I would ask Jengaboot to assume good faith about my edits. Accusing me of vandalism and of bias for cleaning up a badly sourced and indiscriminate list of "controversies" which was frankly too long to go through individually is quite rude. That comment is actually a recurring theme in Jengaboot's repeated readditions of their criticisms, that any attempts to clean up the section is pro-church bias [68] [69] [70] CiphriusKane (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CiphriusKane your egregious "nuking" behavior and reverts were only destructive and seem to indicate you to believe certain privileges apply to you for some reason don't apply to me. You believe you can "nuke" entire sections claiming bias, but when I do this, for some reason, is not according to your biased preference. The controversies I recorded were matter of fact. Incidents occurred, I reported and cited them. Again, if there is any fact you found "loaded" or "bias" why not edit it to report in a more professional or unbiased manner instead of destroying the entire page? This is nothing more than effort to conceal and eliminate reports about this church and the truth. To "nuke" something entirely simply because you dislike or disagree with, and attack me with baseless accusations it is lazy, mean spirited, and extremely non-productive. For you to claim there is absolutely no value of authenticity to the contributions I carefully made is simply incorrect and if you were worth your salt, you would agree, reinstate, rework to maintain the page's controversies and accusations in a more professional manner than totally destroying it in the child-like manner you have chosen to carry out. (talk) 10 November 2021 (UTC)

    Please provide examples of your claims against me or redact them. This is entering personal attack territory. As for the reversion I made, it was blatant removal of content for the sake of removing content, including using false edit summaries and copypasted edit summaries taken from my own edit summaries CiphriusKane (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CiphriusKane You created this incident against me. You "nuked" ALL my articles, just because you felt like it. You made accusations against me on my userpage. Yes, YOU User:CiphriusKane are making these offense actions and personal attacks against me. When it comes to this page you haven't contributed anything, you've only worked to destroyed it. That's a fact. Why don't you take me up on an effort to contribute, to make the format work, or inform me how to do things properly when done wrong. Even better, aid the Controversial and Allegation contribution sections to preserve it. Not follow an abusive pattern of wanton "nuking" and destroying the page's articles, attacking me, based on your personal bias.  You have contributed absolutely nothing constructive nor productive to the page.  You have helped nobody by doing this. Everything I contributed seems to be wrong to you, I simply don't believe every single contribution I made is flawed. If you're so useful, instead of trying to wage a verbal war with me, why don't you go back and show me you can actually do it right? Restore a Controversies and Allegations section. Add back every single one. Because if you don't, every single thing I just said is right about you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengaboot (talk • contribs) 04:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide examples and evidence of these accusations or rescind them. I have explained all my edits. And I will not be readding "every single [section]" to that page because the sections are designed to present an overly negative image of the church based on what seems to be your interpretation of the church's own sites and blogs rather than what has been said about them in reliable secondary sources. If you are just going to keep up with this type of comment, then I will just ignore it CiphriusKane (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CiphriusKane Summary: I've been very reasonable with you but here you are, refusing to take accountability for your destructive poorly backed actions. Yes, it takes a lot of work to write and research these solid facts that you so casually and easily destroyed in a few clicks. You are the overly negative person here. Don't "NUKE" every thing you have NO effort of contributing constructively and NO intention to discussing constructively to.

    Jengaboot is now trying to refactor this discussion and refusing to provide any evidence for their claims and attacks against me, despite repeated requests CiphriusKane (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    CiphriusKane continues to personally attempt to smear me, fails to explain his casual deletions of this page while ignoring stated evidence. CiphriusKane can choose to be constructive on the content of the page he completely destroyed just because he felt like it but instead chooses to focus on personal issues and refute reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengaboot (talk • contribs) 06:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither have discussed any of this on the article talk page. I do think that deleteing the entire controversies section, because 'some of it is a copyright violation' then trying to get the revision deleted from history based on a claim of copyright violation does look an awful lot like whitewashing. Especially concerning, considering that much of the material removed was not found in any sources directly, and much of the material that does look to be a copyright violation remains in the article JeffUK (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a simple content dispute that didn't need to be escalated to ANI so quickly. JellyMan9001 (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @JeffUK: @JellyMan9001: I removed the entire list for being elongated, poorly sourced, and indiscriminate, as assessing each individual section would have taken too long (I believe the relevant essay is WP:TNT). At least two of the sections were lifted directly from the sources. Furthermore, I did attempt to open a discussion with Jengaboot on their talk page, and their response was to copy my edit summary and start removing sections for not being critical enough. Given their past behaviour, which includes slow burn edit wars going on for nearly a year and spurious accusations against any who disagree with their version of the page, I felt like it was pointless discussing further, and brought it here as I felt their behaviour was a chronic issue of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN (see "You "nuked" ALL my articles"). I have made no comment on their behaviour, only their edits, yet I've been accused of bias, being childish, wanting to destroy, and being "overly negative" without any evidence of that being provided CiphriusKane (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Jeff. I really don't know what 'copyright violation' User:CiphriusKane was referring to anyway. It just seems like something he's making up. And holy crap, [71] his own violation citation [72] says there is a 0.0% similarity to a copyright violation; violation unlikely. That's all User:CiphriusKane has got. And look, I've been saying even through his false claims, let's work together to make it work. Why is this way bad and how can we make it good besides just broad "nuke" deletions. I'm the only one saying that. But clearly User:CiphriusKane sees things that are not there and won't back down. Can't reason with that. The Controversy and Allegation sections deserve to be reverted in full. This was a baseless biased hit job mass deletion and nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengaboot (talk • contribs) 07:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    [73] The actual comparison, which shows a 49.5% likelihood and a passage lifted straight from the article in question. Jengaboot's version shows a 0% copyright violation because I removed it CiphriusKane (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You mean you removed the copyright violation because there was no longer a violation. And I edited to remove the violation because there was no longer violation. But then you edited to reinstate the violation because you wanted to burn in a violation that no longer applied? Sounds like suspicious behavior to me. A 49.5% check; a tossup analysis, on a single subtopic entry sounds like a horribly abusive excuse to delete an entire largely unchecked section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengaboot (talk • contribs) 08:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Kindly stop misrepresenting my actions. I've already stated twice on this page why I removed the entire section. The copyright violation (there were 2 that I personally saw) was only a minor part of it. Secondly, the purpose of the notice is not to signify copyright violations on the page, it is to indicate copyright violations in the history that need deleting. They have yet to be deleted so I readded it CiphriusKane (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I just explained this on the user's talk page. If there were copyright violations on the page then they still need to be revision deleted form the history. Meters (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jengaboot, please sign your talk page posts (I explained how on your talk page). They should also be indented the appropriate amount. Use one colon per level of indent. Meters (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    CV gone. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Meters: Thank you for teaching me to sign. I'm still learning. I'm not perfect here. But if nobody teaches me how to do things right, I'll repeat my "mistakes" because I don't see anything wrong. User:CiphriusKane make the effort. Show me what's salvageable for a Controversies and Allegations section, describe exactly why an entry doesn't work and how it can be edited to make work in an appropriate way. Something like "loaded wording" can be fixed incredibly easily. But I honestly don't even see it in my entries. Their leader and founder endorses spanking children. How is that not significant to his church? The belief of the individual who is the founder and current head of this movement is totally relevant and significant. A pastor was legally charged with prostitution. How is that a smear? It's not a lie. It factually happened. These were described by jellyman9001 as "simple content disputes". There have been too many subjective removals. If you're too offended and want to move on, alright, but whitewash nuking and taking subjective issues with every word isn't helping me nor has it been productive. Please demonstrate in a fair and balanced manner. Thank you. Jengaboot (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    7&6=thirteen’s behavior hasn’t improved

    13 was warned about this earlier I believe, but they haven’t improved their behavior:

    Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron

    Redirecting the Article Rescue Squadron:

    Prop: Conspiracy mongering about “stifling reasonable minds” with “prior restraint” Prop 2: Calls editors he disagrees with “trollish” “sharks” who “pounce” (a bizarre triple mixed metaphor) on AfDs, without evidence Prop 4: General passive-aggression

    Is ARS still here?: Conspiracy/persecution complex mongering, unprovoked haranguing/canvassing-lite of prospective new member, I’m a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” for wanting to reform ARS, the “inquisition”, importing the below-mentioned drama from AfD as “evidence”

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination)

    Disruptive personal attack conspiracy mongering in the middle of an unrelated discussion

    Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) Dronebogus started the nomination with Nomination a few days ago closed as no consensus and was tied up in ARS drama so I’m renominating in hopes of a clearer consensus. But not one regular member of the Article Rescue Squadron voted there, although two did discuss things in the AFD and also edited the article to make improvements. Dronebogus seems determined to blame the Article Rescue Squadron for things they didn't do. Also why don't we have a rule that if you don't like how a deletion discussion ends, you can't just renominate it less than two days later? Isn't that a bit disruptive? Or gaming the system? In that AFD instead of focusing on the article, he keeps making accusations against the Article Rescue Squadron. Dream Focus 15:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • What rule? Where? And why can’t I re-nominate it after it closed as no consensus? Dronebogus (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • IMO, referring to the re-nomination of no-consensus AFDs as disruptive is one of the tactics ARS use to badger nominators. Similarly to the practice of referring to no-consensus results as a "keep" (and recording them as such on the rescue list). Thus, they make the argument we see in this AfD that this article was kept twice and a third nomination is therefore disruptive. But of course it isn't: re-nomination is the natural thing to do after a no-consensus result. Similarly, ARS will badger post-AFD merge/split discussions, saying that if the article was kept (even if it was actually no consensus), any efforts to merge/split is "back door deletion" (or similar). Let me know if anyone wants diffs of examples of these tactics being used. Levivich 17:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I've seen rapid renomination labelled as disruptive in the past. If it is okay, then what is the point of WP:DRV? Just keep nominating until you get the result you want. NemesisAT (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recall being told calling someone "paranoid" is not acceptable. Dronebogus does that in his rant. [74] I'd also like to point out his previous rant against the ARS when he nominated it for deletion at [75] He seems determine to cast accusations against "its four dominant members". Please list specific evidence against individuals you believe are doing something wrong, and stop making vaguewave accusations. Dream Focus 15:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is about User:Dronebogus's wilfully disruptive behavior at WP:ARS and at various deletion discussions. He never misses an opportunity to cast aspersions on me and WP:ARS. The whole fiasco at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) and its predecessor was apparently intended to make a point. He should be WP:Topic banned from the ARS pages and participation at articles for deletion. I have not called on him directly, but I have been firm in my expessed belief that ARS should be allowed to conduct its business withhout the saboteurs taking over. Indeed, I should not be personally harassed, which this is. It is time for a WP:Boomerang. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You’re the one who made the snarky overly personal remark about this discussion at the ARS talk page, not me. You’re the one who has ended up here at least two unrelated times, not me. You’re the one who immediately walks in here demanding sanctions, when I just wanted a review of your behavior and offended no comment. Dronebogus (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You think admins are just going to do what you want because you demanded it? The first admin who showed up wasn’t even on either of our sides. The fact that you respond to any criticism by WP:HOUNDing me and ranting about Deletionist conspiracy this or that is telling. Dronebogus (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Res ipsa loquitur. Topic bans are required. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed interaction ban between Dronebogus and 7&6=thirteen

    This argument is not going to cease and will continue in ARS and across various AfD's. I propose a no-fault, time limited, interaction ban between Dronebogus (talk · contribs) and 7%266%3Dthirteen (talk · contribs) to prevent further disruption. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes. Please. Dronebogus (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I propose that Dronebogus stay off the WP:ARS page. And his participition at AFDs likewise. He proposes and supports a lot more AFDs than I participate in. I do not interact with him but I should not be curtailed from parfticipating in AFDs by his broad brush. That we are going through serial nominationsd at the ARS School demonstrates the problem.

    And while you are at it, ban the bomb throwers from the ARS pages. Read them and you will understand that this has been going on for years. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Boomerang Dronebogus is being disruptive. They have followed, and grave danced, and repeatedly brought editors to ANI. Their behavior has been POINTY. They also pulled me back into ANI last week for essentially more drama and harassment. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Here here. I hadn't heard of Dronebogus before a month ago, now it seems their name is all over these boards. That's not a good thing. Seems like they're trying to stir and are going looking for trouble. How about avoiding the drama and concentrating on editing and improving the project? Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note for admins. Isn't this a violation of Lightburst's topic ban?[81] This discussion is focused on behavior at AfDs and ARS. No one with such a topic ban should even be thinking of commenting on those discussions. The whole point of that ban was to keep Lightburst from continuing in the battleground mentality related to this subject or related editors. KoA (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think so. The wording of that topic ban is "Lightburst is banned from deletion-related activities for 6 months. This includes but is not limited to XFD, deletion review, PROD, and CSDs that are not covered by WP:BANEX." and this isn't a deletion related discussion. As someone with no prior knowledge of this topic ban, coming across this ban criteria wouldn't make me think they cannot participate in this particular discussion as it's about user behaviours, not deletion. Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Canterbury Tail: The topic ban included things related to ARS. Which this discussion has to do with. Also, [here] he commented on an AfD. Even if this isn't technically a violation the other comment clearly is. I still think it is though. Plus there a few other things like him participating in an ARS discussion and comment about deletion related topics on his talk page. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The remaining text of the topic ban was "Two important caveats. This does prohibit Lightburst from notifying ARS members of deletion discussions as it is "deletion-related". That said, it does not prevent Lightburst from improving articles that are nominated for deletion as long as Lightburst does not participate in the deletion discussion." I don't see that this is constituted in that. It was not generally related to ARS, and doesn't prevent them from participating in improvement discussions etc. I make no comment on their edits elsewhere, and I'm not looking at this, just on this discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 13:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow I'm surprised your reading of the TBAN discussion is that the community wanted to ban LB from from deletion-related activities but still allow him to comment in a thread about how a fellow ARS member behaves in AFDs and suggest sanctions against the reporting editor. That reading doesn't make much sense to me. To me, this is a deletion-related discussion because it's about an ARS member's behavior in deletion discussions. I can't think of another example when someone was TBAN'd from "Foo" but allowed to comment in ANI threads about someone else's behavior in articles about "Foo". The more I think about it, the clearer a tban violation this becomes. Levivich 13:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's literally no other way to interpret this discussion then being "deletion-related" and there's zero reason he would have participated in this if it had nothing to do with ARS and (or) AfDs. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually yes you're right, looking to the top section. I didn't sleep well last night, so this is probably my que to exit this thread. Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Canterbury Tail is correct that I am not banned from discussing any matters in this "community". I am not surprised that Levivich and Adamant would want me shunned or would want to remove my voice from this "community". I am not participating in any deletion related activities at all. I am free to comment on sanctions for editors who have been entirely unproductive, and have been following, needling and harassing me on talk pages. DB has brought me into ANI twice in a week just to be disruptive. But they already caught a one day block today I see. Lightburst (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Canterbury literally just said it did apply. You need to take this seriously Lightburst. Keep in mind you are also engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS at this point without diffs. You can be blocked for that. If you truly want to make accusations, then provide diffs relevant to this ANI. Keep in mind since you are posting in an ANI about behavior behavior in deletion and ARS topics you should already know that providing diffs related to that would also be a violation of your topic ban. It should be clear as day to you that you should be avoiding discussions like this with your ban, not jumping into them. KoA (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @KoA: I agree that the accusations are WP:ASPERSIONS. I've defended him and other ARS members multiple times since this whole thing started. Apparently it's harassment to not show 100% undying deviation to them and their cause in the interim though. Otherwise I'd like to see some evidence of the harassing behavior and the agenda that he's repeatedly accused me of having. I'm not sure how I could have an agenda when I've been defending them, but whatever. I'm willing to see his evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I propose that (1) Dronebogus, at any time that you feel that 7&6 and/or Dream Focus has said or done something you object to, just ignore it. Let it go. No matter what it is, just let it slide, and move on to something else. And (2) 7&6 and Dream Focus, at any time that you feel that Dronebogus has said or done something you object to, just ignore it. Let it go. No matter what it is, just let it slide, and move on to something else. And the rest of us, let's bring down the hammer on whoever breaks that silence first. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a support or oppose, just a note that if, after just 2500 edits, you find yourself repeatedly embroiled in conflict without even getting into DS topic areas, and have more than three times as many edits just to ANI as to the entire talk namespace... you may want to experiment with helping out in different parts of the project. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Tryptofish, Rhododendrites and others! Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    {{yo:Dream Focus}} You talk above about those who had a wikiproject. But note, a project is not owned by its "members", each project belongs to all of us. Paul August ☎ 01:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I should've wrote "those who are active members of a Wikiproject". Note I wrote "I would be great if those who had a wikiproject were not allowed to bother it this way." So obviously I didn't proofread or think it through before writing. I just fixed it so now it sounds more coherent. Dream Focus 01:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban of Dronebogus from ARS, per their own recommendation above. The pattern of behavior here is simply unsustainable. This AN/I thread about an ARS member comes a scant four days after Dronebogus' previous AN/I thread about ARS members, created while they were in the middle of a heated argument with said members (in which they made posts like "Why do you think that the founder of this website wants to hear you complain about some drama at ANI? Why are so self-important as to think that your personal disputes warrant the Immortal God Emperor of Wikipedia’s direct attention?"). No action was taken. That thread itself came just a couple days after this AN/I thread about the ARS (one of the longest in the history of AN/I), which Dronebogus also started. The degree to which they seem to be fixated on these editors is concerning. I think that it may be more productive for everyone involved if Dronebogus and ARS members simply did not interact. jp×g 07:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at this in a little more depth, I find bizarre conversations on WT:ARS, with Dronebogus contributing posts like "this is the reason ARS has so many enemies. Not because we hate you and articles and Wikipedia or whatever, but because the first thing you tell new users is that you’re victims of an evil Deletionist conspiracy and everything you hear from outsiders is filthy slander" and accusing ARS members of "paranoid hostility". In what way is this intended to be a constructive discussion? jp×g 07:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with those who dont yet think topic or iBans are needed. DroneBogus seems a smart editor & hopefully has begun to learn the importance of winning gracefully. Their original ANI caused the first substantial damage to the squad in almost a decade, despite many other attacks & plotting. Even some who found it woefully misguided can respect the achievement. But while understandable they let the success go to their head, these further ANIs are having the opposite effect, and just wasting the communities time. I agree with giving them perhaps a one month block if they launch any further attacks. And also for a similar block in the unlikely event any ARS editor goes out of their way to harass Dronebogus. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 13 called me thin-skinned a few days ago on the Article Rescue Squad talk page when I was making a good faithed effort to discuss the problems they have been having. Which was after the civility warning. Also, LightBurst posted multiple messages on Jimmy Whales talk page related to deletion discussions after he was tbanned from talking about the subject. He's also participated in this ANI complaint against the t-ban. Sure, we could all just ignore it, but then there could also be consequences for their actions. Seriously, which one of those is good for the project and which isn't? In the meantime "Is ARS still here?" is a perfect example of 13's continuing poor behavior and attitude about this. In it he compared ARS to Jean d'Arc and accused other people of being part of the Inquisition. He also said people who have issues with his behavior are gaslighting, and making deliberate hollow threats to disrupt the project. Is all that really acceptable behavior for someone who was just warned to be more civil? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sure, we could all just ignore it, but then there could also be consequences for their actions. Seriously, which one of those is good for the project and which isn't?" Ignoring it allows you to forget about the problem and concentrating on improving the encyclopedia. In your case, Adamant1, I notice you have made one edit to the entire mainspace in the last month (at least that one edit was a good one!) while, conversely, you have spent quite a bit of time chatting at WP:JIMBOTALK. My advice is for you to ignore 7&6=13, Dream Focus and Lightburst, and in return I'd like 7&6=13, Dream Focus and Lightburst to ignore you. We might then be able to get on with more interesting things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to be rude, but that seems like a rather dismissive handwave of serious problems. For one I haven't been involved in 99% of the problems that 7&6=13 has had. Including his comments on the ARS talk page that I added a reference to where he said this whole thing was an inquisition. So it's ridiculous to act like me ignoring him has any bearing on his uncivil behavior or resolving this. Nor do I have any issue with DreamFocus. I didn't even mention him in my comment. So I don't know why your bringing him into this. Outside of that, I find your insinuation that working on AfDs doesn't improve the Encyclopedia rather insulting. If you really want us to get on to more interesting things then sanction 7&6=13 for his lack of civility and LightBurst for discussing an area he's t-banned from. Then we can all get on with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happily editing main space. I am improving Tuskegee Airmen articles, and I even started three articles this week. I am not missing the friction. You on the other hand are seeking friction - the proof is in the pudding. My talk space conversation at JW is about this ANI process and not as you say. Your own involvement at JW is needling and following and essentially NOYB. Lightburst (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I empathize with Adamant1 and would also like to state that it’s hard to edit in mainspace when you’re in the middle of a long in-depth discussion, heated or not. I understand I’ve been uncivil lately and should stop bashing the ARS but 13 has been warned about this multiple times over several years and shouldn’t just get away with it yet again because the’ve been around longer and “two wrongs don’t make a right”. Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh if only there were some way not to keep starting or joining or commenting in long discussions .... --JBL (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a six month timeout for Dronebogus from deletion-related activity. That's not a TBan proposal, but really: go make content, do something else on Wikipedia that you find enjoyable. There will be articles to delete later after you've taken a break from the activity, and other people will likely be less tense and AGF-strained than they are now. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not support this. I have civil interactions with most other users at AfD; it’s just I don’t get along with 13 and the ARS. A functional “voluntary” topic ban, especially one-sided against me and for six months, seems drastic for such a narrow issue. Dronebogus (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course you don't, and no one would expect you to, but that's what external input is for--to encourage things that you're not seeing. Everyone takes voluntary, informal topic bans if they linger around Wikipedia long enough: interests change, people give up, admins ragequi... err, retire for a while after their decisions are questioned. That's a natural part of the interest lifecycle, and if you want to hang around for a while, you need to develop a sense when doing something else is necessary to help you rediscover your joy in volunteering here. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't support Just sanction the person that's already gotten a recent warning for civility and be done with it. Outside of that, it's ridiculous to sanction someone for bringing his behavior to ANI just because the warning was recent. 7+6=13's behavior was an issue long before Dronebogus got involved and will continue to be after Dronebogus is sanctioned. By not dealing with 7+6=13 now we're just kicking the can down the road. Are we going to T-Ban everyone going forward that he gets into it with? ARS isn't an exclusive club or fraternity house either. Anyone should be able to participate in it, without having to worry that they will be T-banned from doing so if they don't kiss the rings of the main contributors. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a six month timeout for Dronebogus from deletion-related and ARS following activity. Dronebogus has been following, harassing, needling, grave dancing and engaging in POINTY behavior. Dronebogus has been especially disruptive. Also as Ritchie has pointed out Adamant1 is heading in a similar direction with unproductive following. Neither editor is contributing to the project. Lightburst (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey wait, why you are trying to cancel me and Dronebogus? I thought you were against that and ANI because it's unfair and just about trashing people. I guess that whole thing only applies when your being sanctioned. Go figure. I knew I should have created some G7 articles before commenting on this. Darn it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'm just a part-timer that got pulled into Dronebogus' deletion frenzy. Their behavior has been WP:HARASS for anyone that votes against theirs in AFDs. I'm talking about WP:HOUNDING on talk pages and running to ANI when people get miffed, including several significant editors who make enormous contributions to WP (just search the archives for Dronebogus and you'll see how aggressive this person is). I echo JClemens suggestion that they find a project where they can actually contribute to WP, rather than simply tearing down others' work. There is a need for weeding out bad articles, of course, but it's been an exhausting few months in the AfDs because of this user. I, for one, had to step back from WP because of how much time it was eating. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose taking action exclusively against Dronebogus; insufficient evidence of a long-term problem to justify something like this, especially since it's clear the problem is not one-sided. --Aquillion (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose banning Dronebogus from AfD. They seem to be one of the very active members, like Lightburst, and just because they are very unpopular in some quarters and have done their share of whatever they are accused of doesn't mean they or anyone else should be cancelled without totally grievous cause. As a wise man once said, "Can't we all just get along?" Randy Kryn (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randy Kryn: While I fundamentally disagree with you that anyone is being canceled, I respect that your consistent in the believe and don't just use it as way to excuse one sides behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support timeout from AFD. As confirmed by others, Dronebogus has been disruptive at AfD recently. Their first edit to Wikipedia was a "gnome" userbox template, then began noming articles for deletion. From the start they showed in-depth understanding of NOTE. They are obviously a very quick study of how Wikipedia works, with a focus on controversial deletions and user blocking. They can leverage that intelligence to do something else for a while, such as content creation/improvement, AfC needs help. -- GreenC 17:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to state that this seems like a biased party-line vote since GreenC and LB are both ARS members and I reported TM for disruptive behavior a while back after we had a dispute. I explicitly supported an interaction/topic ban from ARS but a one-sided “restraining order” against one of my primary interest areas for scattered fights with certain users (who I repeat are now voting against me) feels vindictive. Dronebogus (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanction, support warning - I agree there is battleground behavior per above, but as I believe this is their first time being at ANI for it, it should be a warning and not a sanction. Levivich 00:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and warning the problem here is 7&6's battleground behavior as detailed below. Dronebogus has been drawn into that battleground behavior but should receive a warning as it is their first time at ANI. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems like no one is commenting on the original proposal in this section? I think there are several reasonable proposals above to deal with Dronebogus's highly combative approach; I think a topic bad would be more effective than an i-ban, but I would support either. --JBL (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for dealing with AFD disruption at ANI

    From this point forward, let's handle ANI reports of AFD disruption thusly:

    • 3 recent diffs of disruptive edits in AFDs brought to ANI = warning
    • A 4th diff for anyone who's been warned = 3-month tban
    • A 5th diff for anyone who's been tbanned = indef tban
    • Editors who make these reports can just post the three diffs (or the 4th or 5th with a link to previous warning/tban), and editors reviewing the reports can just comment whether they agree/disagree the diffs are disruptive

    Same rules for everyone; doesn't matter if they vote "keep" or "delete", are an ARS member or not, or how many great edits they've made elsewhere. Levivich 18:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Personally I'd TBan (permanently) any editor who persistently votes "Keep" or "Delete" at many AfDs with continually shitty rationales. It shows they're not here to actyally improve the content on Wikipedia , but to push a POV, whether that be "inclusionism" or "deletionism". Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that would be an example of "disruptive edits". Under my proposed system, five times would get an editor indef tbanned. Under our current system, as it's worked historically, editors have done it many more than five times before being tbanned. Levivich 19:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        And how do you define a "disruptive edit"? Bear in mind you may have editors making "bad" arguments simply because they're not aware of the guidelines, or interpret them differently to yourself. NemesisAT (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        If it occurs repeatedly then the person should know better by then. No one is going to be sanctioned for making a single ignorant vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:DE defines "disruptive edit" and as stated in the OP, editors reviewing the reports can just comment whether they agree/disagree the diffs are disruptive, meaning whether or not the diffs are violations of WP:DE. Levivich 21:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I feel like we might want to define that somewhere and reach a clear consensus on it, especially if we're going to make it a guideline that a user !voting similarly on large numbers of AFDs without reasonable individual rationales should be considered disruptive and merits a ban from AFD if the behavior continues. That's the real crux of the debate - editors should approach AFDs on an individual basis, and if there's a reason to think they are approaching them as part of some larger battleground over the nature of AFD or deletions in general, then they need to be told to stop and shown the door if they refuse. Given that this is such a long-running problem and has caused so much bad blood, a guideline to try and put it to rest seems reasonable - it'd just be a guideline at most, so people could (and would still have to) decide on an individual basis, but a guideline would be important both to establish the general consensus and to warn people who do that sort of thing that their behavior is generally viewed as inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Would be best to let AfD closers evaluate whether a 'keep' or 'delete' vote, should be dismissed. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated bad voting can still be disruptive to the process if the closer ultimately disregards it. I don't think the good faithed users who are here to improve the encyclopedia should have to suck it up and deal with the ones who aren't just because the closer will eventually ignore them. Closers disregarding bad votes does nothing to curb the behavior either. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know about this specific proposal, but I have thought for a while that there needs to be some kind of neutral mechanism for addressing misconduct at AfD. The main problem with dispute resolution, to me, seems to be that the main venue for it AN/I; threads here tend to be created about one person (or a couple people) engaging in the same type of behavior. That is to say, there are no AN/I threads about rapid-fire, low-effort "keep"s and rapid-fire low-effort "delete"s, so people will participate mostly along "party lines". Of course, both forms of drive-by voting are obviously bad for the deletion process, and both cause people to become extremely mad. One idea I had was to simply write a tool that performs database queries (similar to the ones done by AfDstats.py) and indicates the interval between each !vote. This would make it very easy to tell if any given !vote was made, say, thirty seconds after the user's last edit. Perhaps there could be a version of the {{canvassed}} template automatically applied to AfD !votes made in less than a minute. Of course, there are other ideas: per my analysis of all AfDs, the rate of deletion discussions has declined markedly over time, from a peak of 54,000 in 2006 to around 18,000 in 2005 (i.e. from around 149 per day to around 50). Perhaps it would cool things down a bit if discussions ran longer -- it would certainly make it less important to argue quickly and forcefully before the close. jp×g 22:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't personally see the rapid fire nominations as that problematic or anywhere near on par when it comes to being disruptive as low effort, party line voting. Maybe some research multiple articles ahead of time. I do that myself sometimes. If so there's zero reason they shouldn't nominate them all in one go. It might also be possible that there was already a discussion about the articles as a group that would warrant it. I think that happened with the articles about Tuskegee Airmen. Whereas, there is no legitimate reason to do low effort, party line voting. As far as resolving disputes goes, I've always thought the AfD guidelines make it sound like are suppose to be self-regulating to a degree, but that clearly hasn't been effective. So something else is needed. I'm not sure what the best solution would be though. I like Levivich idea, but then I'm not sure if a random ANI complaint is the best venue to decide on it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It takes seconds to make an WP:AFD nomination. Especially when WP:Before is ignored or poorly done. A statement of fact when that occurs. But I've been told that pointing that out is a "personal attack." Responding and doing article and source improvement takes a lot of time. Figure it out. You think that deletion discussions are being instigated and voted on in a "party line". We agree, but your accusation is misdirected. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I could really care less if you say the nominator didn't do a WP:Before once in a while when it's warranted and you have evidence. The problem is that you say it as a generic vote rational without providing evidence and then brow beat the nominator about it multiple times after they and other people tell you that one was done. Like you did in Articles_for_deletion/Daniella_van_Graas where the nominator and another user told you they both did before multiple times and you refused to get the point. For whatever reason you keep obfuscating this into me just having a problem with you saying it in the first place though, when that's never been my issue. If you didn't use WP:Before as a generic vote rational and cheap way to discredit nominators then I would really care less about it. I don't think anyone else would either. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the sources to the articles, which proved the statement. And the deletionists remove them, which does not evaporate them. It is a fact. And I don't care how you "feel". Your open hostility is admitted here and elsewhere. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You finding a reference or two isn't evidence of anything except that you found a reference. It's almost like your so paranoid and prejudiced against people who nominate articles that your unable to accept basic facts like that people get different results when they search Google. I can use the main Google sites search right now and will get different results then if I click the links in an AfD. It doesn't mean the nominator lied and didn't look for references. As far as your accusation of "open hostility", I've defended ARS and it's members, including you, multiple times since this whole started and I made suggestions to improve the project that were ignored. Sorry I committed the heinous crime of not throwing palm branches at your guys feet in every single message wrote. The only thing you and other ARS members will accept is 100% undying deviation and adoration or the person is out to get you and destroy the project. Seriously, get over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the source of apathy, not antipathy.
    If you defended ARS and me, thank you.
    Otherwise, own what you said. And give it a rest. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll own that I defend people when it's warranted and I don't when it isn't. That's it. I'd expect the same from everyone else here. Otherwise, we are just playing a quid pro quo game of hide the ball. I rather not. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Against, AfD is not a closed club or shut to the rabble. Myself, I only vote Keep, and only enter discussions where I'll keep. Just my style. And my style would qualify for cancellation? Ridiculous (Harry Potter reference). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Against also, but like Randy, I only vote Delete, and only enter discussions where I'll delete. The Keepers can deal with the obvious keeps, and now that we are in a post-brouhaha era, I note that ARS members are behaving a little better, having had some casualties, and a few close shots across their bows. I still think that it is too soon to evaluate ARS' new behaviour, but community eyes are on them like never before. The community should be commended. Barnstars all round. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Against just a handful of extraordinarily stubborn and zealous users, not a documented contemporary phenomenon. Making a systemic solution for an individualized problem. Dronebogus (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I generally vote delete, and (apart from times when I'm among the first participants) almost exclusively enter discussions that are controversial and where I don't know where my !vote will land. I think it would be helpful if closers explicitly said they ignored the low-effort cookie-cutter !votes and closed against numerical consensus more often. This would encourage better AfD behavior in the long run, hopefully... JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That there is such a thing as "disruptive editing" in AfD to begin with suggests that the problem ultimately lies on those responsible for closing the discussions. Per WP:NHC, arguments that that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue are to be disregarded. And yet many closers don't do so, and it becomes possible to change the course of a discussion simply by having enough pure votes, even when the argument accompanying each is clearly bland or disingenuous. The only admin at AfD whom I've seen regularly weighing votes in a dispassionate, objective, efficient, and clear way is probably Sandstein. Maybe the NHC standards should be increased or better enforced; perhaps closers should be forced to give more than a superficial vote assessment ('the result was keep/no consensus/delete', followed by nothing else) when closing contentious discussions; maybe a stricter burden of proof should exist for those providing sources, in order to prevent the common occurrence of an article being kept but not subsequently improved. Avilich (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Along with Sandstein, I've seen Black Kite, Nosebagbear, Randykitty, Missvain, Spartaz, and Seraphimblade make well-reasoned, against-numerical-consensus closes in athlete and other BLP AfDs. This should be the norm everywhere. JoelleJay (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Whatever we can do to improve conditions I'm all about it. AfD closing is a thankful task and I've been disrespected by newbie and experienced editors repeatedly and I think I do a very good job - even if I have occasional slip ups (I am human, gasp!). It causes burn out and is one reason so few of us participate in the closure process. (It's even worse on Commons...!!! The closure backlog is like 3 months LOL) Missvain (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Block

    I have blocked Dronebogus for 24 hours from ANI for persistent bludgeoning of the debate, despite being asked not to and after being advised that a block might occur. I want to emphasise this is not an endorsement or criticism of any other editor's behaviour, which I have not looked at. As per usual, any administrator is free to lift the block without needing to consult me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting for the record that per xtools Dronebogus has about a fifth as many edits to ANI alone as to all of mainspace and a grand total of 5% mainspace edits this month compared to 63% projectspace (70% WP+WT). There seem to be some priority considerations here. Vaticidalprophet 22:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You should do the same for LightBurst since multiple people agree that his involvement in this is a violation of his topic ban and he is still contributing despite it being pointed out. I guess I could start another ANI complaint for it, but I rather not be straw manned for grave dancing, harassing him or whatever other nonsense people on his side decide to invent to excuse his behavior. Adamant1 (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple editors meaning you and Levivich? Got it. I will leave you to it. Lets all go back to main space now. Lightburst (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm no Lightburst aficiando and I think his chart could be a lot healthier too, but hell, so could yours (0% mainspace twice this year?). I think you could all do with finding something better, and in the specific case of Dronebogus, a relatively inexperienced user (2.5k edits), a pretty serious warning that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write articles and not to make 63 comments in one AfD. Vaticidalprophet 22:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I find the whole thing about how many mainspace edits someone has made a rather pedantic way to dismiss someone's opinion by citing meaningless credentials. I'm sure if I had a bunch of mainspace edits people who are acting like it matters would just move the bar to something else. In the Jimmy Whales discussion Lightburst tried to say I had no room to participate in the discussion or have an opinion about his behavior because I haven't created any G7 articles like he has. So there's always going to be some arbitrary bar. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adamant1, You only need to search for "Malleus Fatuorum" or "Eric Corbett" on this board to see that having a large total of mainspace edits lets you be excused or justified for a hell of a lot worse than any behaviour on this thread, up to and including throwing the "c" word at Jimbo Wales. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Vaticidalprophet I am certainly going to very quickly back out of here after I said my piece. Lightburst (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Multiple editors meaning the user who first made the observation, the one who agreed it was a deletion related discussion, and then yes me and Levivich. It wasn't just me and Levivich though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was myself and Canterbury Tail you allude to from the above section initially pointing out the violation. I'm pretty sure we're both relatively uninvolved too with myself mostly only being around from the last ANI (Lightburst's topic ban) when I commented after seeing how much space it was taking up on the board. It's definitely not just heavily involved editors "out to get" Lightburst who are concerned here. KoA (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that it is an obvious topic-ban violation as well; obviously the ban was intended to cover Article Rescue Squadron (as the crux of the deletion-related behavior that led to the ban), and clearly discussions about the actions of one of Article Rescue Squadron's most active members, taken as a part of Article Rescue Squadron's activities, with Article Rescue Squadron mentioned at the top of the section would fall under that scope. --Aquillion (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No matter how broadly this line is define: "banned from deletion-related activities" ...commenting here is not a deletion related activity. This is a TBAN discussion. I am not debating the merits of any content which is what a deletion-related activity is. I am not making deletion rationales. The TBAN does not extend to discussions on this board as long as they are not discussing deletion of content. But as I said at JW talk, all you need is enough editors with grievances and you can further an agenda. Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    commenting here is not a deletion related activity. This is a TBAN discussion. TBANing from what? From deletion. Levivich 23:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblock all of them, that's my two cents. As for Lightburst, they're looking more and more like a hero, wounded but not fallen. I can see why some want LB gone, a voice quieted. I literally heard of (or at least got my attention drawn to it) ARS very recently. Seem like a fine bunch who've done a lot of good. If they enter en masse sometimes to save an in-their-eyes worthy page, good for them, because that doesn't put more than a dent in the seemingly daily waterfall of deletion attempts of articles, categories, templates, and other Wikipedia user creations. AfD is certainly the tar pit of Wikipedia, and if a few of the herd can be saved with concentrated effort, nothing spectacularly wrong with that. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333, I agree that Dronebogus had to step back (block or not) as it was clear they were getting too riled up by other pot-stirring going on. That said, can we get enforcement of the existing sanctions here as Aquillion points out? This is an ANI about behavior in deletion and ARS articles. Those like me who've seen this on the periphery at ANI have been getting exhausted from seeing this subject repeatedly, but when already topic-banned editors like Lightburst jump back into it, that only exacerbates issues (and blows up the ANI boards even more).
    The whole spirit of Lightburst's topic ban is that they stay away from these deletion-related behavior disputes whether it's AfD itself or commenting on behavior in those discussions on other boards in any plain reading of normal topic bans. I've seen editors try to test the limits of their topic ban or thumb their nose at warnings they were crossing the line with much less and still get blocked. Like Dronebogus not stepping back, skirting topic bans like that is just destabilizing this topic even more for those of us trying to sort through this all. KoA (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    KoA, I have dropped a warning on Lightburst's talk page to stay away from ANI; for now, that will suffice. If he comes back here and continues badgering, a think a block would be justified. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate Ritchie's issuance of a warning, but I also think that we are getting to the point where the testing of the limits of the deletion/ARS tban, noted by others here, is getting to the point of just about no "rope" left. I've had some discussions with Lightburst just before this newest ANI began, about what I see as stepping over the line, where I attempted to treat it as AGF and tried to give helpful advice. But Lightburst took a pretty clear position of thanking me but disagreeing that the deletion restriction was "in the broadest sense". Here are the relevant diffs: first, at ARS: [82] (later revised, after my advice), [83], and [84]. Then at his user talk: [85] and [86]. And then at my talk: [87] and [88]. It's all very cordial, from my reading of it, but nonetheless there's a real resistance to accepting the extent of the existing restrictions, and if compliance does not end up happening voluntarily after Ritchie's warning, I think that a block will be inevitable. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously this block was insufficient in getting the message across, which is exceptionally disappointing; since the badgering has continued, perhaps something broader or of longer duration could be applied? --JBL (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    7&6=thirteen received a final warning on 3 November. Recent inflammatory comments on the ARS talk page after that date demonstrate an ongoing battleground mentality and continued unwillingness or inability to participate in a civil manner.

    1. [89] - Decribing ANI thread as a "purge"
    2. [90] - Comparing delete !voters to great white sharks in a feeding frenzy
    3. [91] - Calling someone "thin skinned"
    4. [92] - "There are a lot of folks now participating in this talk page whose avowed objective is to kill off those who might oppose them at AFDs. And euthanize WP:ARS."
    5. [93] - The "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" comment mentioned above, along with a comparison to the Inquisition
    6. [94] - Something about firearms on the table?
    7. [95] - When an editor discusses revisiting prior AfDs potentially affected by ARS, 7&6 accuses them of seeking "do-overs" because they didn't like the results.

    These comments show that 7&6=thirteen has repeatedly assumed bad faith and failed to remain civil, hindering the efforts of other editors to refocus ARS in a more positive direction and repair some of the damage that has been done. This is the same attitude that Andrew Davidson and Lightburst were sanctioned for. It's also not limited to their interactions with any particular editor, so an I-ban will not suffice. –dlthewave ☎ 23:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support per the history and what's happened since the last time:
      • 2019 ANI, 2020 ANI, 2021 ANI (closed 10 days ago), and now we have our second 2021 ANI. Each of these was brought by four different editors, and involved 7&6 having disputes with different editors. The common thread here is 7&6.
      • Canvassing the Arabeyes AFD [96]; discussed at User talk:7&6=thirteen#AfD notices (7&6 notified everyone except the two editors who !voted delete)
      • Canvassing ARS Public School AFD: [97];
      • Canvassing this discussion at ARS with a non-neutral heading (see WP:TALKHEADPOV) [98]; when another editor makes a neutral heading, edit warring to revert to the non-neutral heading: [99] [100]; warning the other editor for neutralizing the heading: [101]; complaining about it: [102]; and saying "I own this comment" [103] (compare with WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN: no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading)
      • Reverts when an editor hats a discussion: [104]
    Combined with the other diffs linked above in this proposal and the OP, and the prior history, it's a pattern of persistent disruption surrounding deletion, for years. Levivich 00:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to point out that less than two days after the previous AFD ended, Dronebogus started ARS Public School (3rd nomination). Everyone who participated in it should've been told it was restarted again. As for the section heading being changed on a talk page, after someone pointed to where the rule is about that, he didn't change it again. And there is nothing wrong with unhatting something if you are one of the people who is still having a conversation in the hatted section. Dream Focus 02:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, take everything you're pointing to out of the equation, and what's left is still a pile of problematic diffs from the last ten days. Between each of these ANI threads over the last two years, there has been little or no improvement in behavior; the only thing that changes is who is complaining. Levivich 02:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this is an ongoing pattern of Battleground behavior from 7&6, here are just some of the cases that I have experienced with them:
    1. [105]
    2. [106]
    3. [107]
    4. [108]
    5. [109] Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Today he left this message on the ARS talk page in response to me saying that we should try to find a clearer consensus on the more contentious AfDs that have closed as no consensus and were posted at ARS. I've been clear in multiple places that I could really care less what that consensus is, but that we should find one. His response to that, as well articles that are closed as no consensus chronically being called "keep outcomes" by him and other ARS members, makes me think that he is trying to use no consensus outcomes as de-facto keeps. Which is why ARS members (including him) always have an issue with articles being re-listed, the ARS Public School AfD being one of many examples. Treating no consensus closes as de-facto keeps is battleground behavior. It also shows an utter lack of caring for the notability guidelines and AfD process. Plus he called me thin skinned after receiving a civility warning, but that's not my main issue or why I support this. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support an indefinite topic-ban from AFD, ARS, and any discussions related to them, broadly construed. Looking over their history they have been a consistent source of AFD-related WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior for literally years. Given the confusion Lightburst seems to have had about their topic-ban above, the wording should place a particular emphasis on extending to discussions of ARS, its activities, or any sort of allegations of misconduct related to AFD by any user, in any forum - that ought to be obvious, but it doesn't hurt to be sure. --Aquillion (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Evidently has not taken the final warning seriously as demonstrated above. This was probably a good opportunity to take a break from deletion activities but the battlegrounding has continue. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I consider myself a moderate inclusionist and the evidence for that is the list I maintain on my user page of articles I have learned about at AfD and helped save by improving then substantively. But I consider extreme inclusionism and extreme deletionism to be disruptive editing behaviors if they continue after warnings. This editor should spend a year or so actually improving articles without any participation in deletion discussions, and then explain to the community how they are prepared to contribute to deletion discussions without engaging any any knee-jerk and poorly reasoned inclusionist misbehavior. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen honestly I can't imagine anymore who has done much more to improve articles than 7&6, their work has been prodigious. They take on the really hard AfD projects that require deep research and days to find sources, build out articles and take through DYK. The lack of recognition for his work in this regard, and blinkered singular focus on Keep votes is mostly a fun-house mirror view. -- GreenC 07:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is truly the case, then participation in AFD, or the lack of it, will not be needed for them to continue improving articles and their work to improve sourcing and quality can be done independently of that process, which would alleviate any concerns of battleground mentality. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This is the third attempt in 10 days, if it fails there will be a fourth until it succeeds. Mostly by the same users. Nothing significant has happened since the last topic ban failure, 10 days ago.. 2 days ago. The diffs presented are old, or ARS talk pages, elective reading, for many a place to vent including for non-ARS members whose history of disruptive behavior there is long. Come on, if 7&6 was really that bad he would have been blocked long ago, would not have support from other editors. When you deconstruct what happened in these diffs, they are complex multi-page multi-editor interactions. There are provokers and provoked and he is often responding to provocations. -- GreenC 07:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    His "The firearms are on the table" comment was made in response to Dronebogus alerting him of the ANI complaint. Can you point to anywhere that Dronebogus has made similar analogies? Because there's a point where this whole "both sides are at fault" nonsense doesn't hold up to scrutiny anymore and he's long past it. Same goes for your assertion that this doesn't have any merit because he hasn't been blocked yet. No one is blocked until they are blocked. You should really have more valid reasons to oppose this then the same circular talking points that ARS members have repeatedly given to defend each others behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any block longer than 6 months. The only reason I don't oppose a 3-6 month block is just to give the community a break. As GreenC says, if this attacks fails, we'll very likely see round 4 very soon. 13 is clearly too honest to do the tactical thing and bob & weave in the face of the persistent baiting they've received since two of their colleagues were taken down. To be clear, I don't see merit in the diff pile here. If anything 13 is to be commended for their apt use of figurative language. To address the first diff: The original Halloween ANI sought to take out all four of the squads active article defenders. How was it not a purge? I've never seen such poor conduct by the attacking side in all my years on Wikipedia. Sure certain squad members have been engaged in frequent banter/minor attacks, so cant blame the community for piling on with calling us arses, etc. But never have I seen an ARS editor give out an insult any where near as mean spirited as "disturbingly obsessive". And talk of confronting editors in real life, would normally guarantee at least a stern warning. Oh don't worry, its the ARS, they are too noble & kind to ever fight back! At least the spotlight on the ARS has drawn attention to lesser known editors like 13 & Lightburst, showing they warrant a place in the Wikipedia half of fame. Whatever happens to them, at least while perceptive editors still draw breath, their names and deeds will never be forgotten. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • legitimately cannot tell whether you’re being ironic. I wouldn’t exactly call the above diffs “noble and kind” by a long shot. This kind of exaggerated, hagiographic language is going to weaken rather than enhance your arguments. Dronebogus (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yub yub. Anyone who votes keep on AfDs is a luminous being of angelic purity, no matter what else they get up to. I mean, Feyd still worships the likes of Ikip and A Nobody who- well, they're long before your time but you can look them up in old archives if you want to see what a disruption the Squadron was in its heyday. Reyk YO! 13:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Hopefully people will click on the differences presented and make their own decisions, reading not just what he said but what he was responding to. This editor has done quite a lot of editing on articles to improve them, and is thus a valuable member of the Wikipedia community. Dream Focus 11:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef ban. They haven’t improved their behavior after multiple warnings over several years, and think they can demand harsh unilateral sanctions against a user one minute while mocking and antagonizing them the next. Also note that so far the only “oppose” votes are from fellow ARS members. Dronebogus (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just waiting for one of them to say the user from India voted delete because they have an anti-ARS agenda. They are about at that point with this whole thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support because of blatant canvassing. When I pointed out the issue with his selective notifications for the Arabeyes AfD, I assumed it was an oversight. But two days later, 7&6 repeated the same selective notifications for the ARS Public School AfD, failing to notify two "delete" editors from the previous AfD. At this point, it just seems intentional. Schazjmd (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose Describing an event as a 'purge', editors as 'white sharks in a feeding frenzy', or complaining about a 'daily flood of AFD nominations' sounds more like a harmless PoV description of recent events than actual disruptive behavior. Not much can be said of these minor examples of canvassing, considering nothing has ever been done about ARS itself despite that it serves no purpose other than asking low-standard inclusionists for backup. Conspicuously belligerent behavior for someone who has just been warned, of course, but very little of this so far will translate into AfD discussions being actually derailed: the original cause of complaint. 7&6=13 doesn't like 'deletionists', and 'deletionists' don't like him: inevitably interactions between these two parties will be, according to some definition or another, battlegrounds. I certainly don't like how he has handled sources and voting in the past, and to that effect I submitted diffs against him in the last discussion, though I stopped short of supporting any concrete sanctions. Both the nomination and closing statements against 7&6=13 in the last ANI were poorly conducted, but there's little justification for changing the final verdict – a warning, not a block – a mere days after. Unless, as per the warning, he's doing actual vote-stacking or mishandling sources – which result in actual disruptions, and which are more objective grievances than 'battleground behavior' or 'assuming bad faith' – then maybe he can be allowed to enjoy the chance he's been given. Avilich (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Within days of being warned at ANI, 7&6 blatantly canvasses AFDs, notifying past keep voters with non-neutral messages but not delete voters, and you want to give it a pass because it was ultimately unsuccessful. I'm surprised anyone would say 7&6 has to successfully disrupt AFDs, and not just attempt to disrupt AFDs, before 7&6 should be excluded from AFDs. Levivich 16:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed the Schazjmd's cmt due to edit conflict. It's not strictly accurate, since 7&6 does (correct me if I'm mistaken) seem to have given appropriate notifications for the Indian public school discussion: user The Banner, of the deletionist party, was apparently the first one he notified. As for the Arabeyes one, eh, perhaps. He did post both noms on the ARS list, which is arguably a form of canvassing itself, but nobody has until now successfully taken serious action against this, and lack of enforcement has allowed it to become standard practice. Anyway, the main complaint here is 'battleground' behavior, which I don't consider to be good grounds for a permablock. Avilich (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support' This thread highlights everything wrong with their approach, and swiftly followed by what may be termed inflamatory to say the least, indicates that they are congenitally incapable of approaching deletion discussions objectively. Everything must always be personalised—and usually uncivilly as the numerous recent threads collected above show. ——Serial 16:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per dlthewave and Levivich's diffs. Their canvassing and battleground behaviors are clearly not going to improve. JoelleJay (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I was honestly going to just ignore proposals at this particular ANI as I was hoping giving the topic some space to settle down after the recent topic bans would be best. The diffs on canvassing, battleground, etc. after the last warning though tell me that isn't feasible and this sanction is now needed. I personally tend to give people leeway after a warning, but this degree of doubling down is clearly not going away now without sanctions. It comes across as 7&6=Thirteen just working to waste community time whether intentional or not, and that's where my hard tolerance line is crossed. KoA (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    *Very weak support: (and I am very seesawing on weak opposed): Real concerns was set up on a WP:SEALION especially given the POINTy nature of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) and perhaps the "Is ARS still here?" section at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron which was a real trouble magnet of a heading (I AGF it was not a SEALION). The keeper biased WP:CANVASing is however a different matter and while not referenced at the 3rd November 2021 warning should have been considered. While discussion on deleted related discussions DRV/AfD's should be banned the placing of a {{rescue list}} on a discussion should be permitted with a neutral statement. Its ugly, very ugly, the way this discussion has been set up and a possible victory for SEALIONing Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support, per the convincing evidence that the combative approach has not abated following the previous monster ANI thread. --JBL (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as the user hasn't been given any breathing room. Can anyone seriously argue that this is a separate discussion rather than just a continuation of last week's? I suggest that all those opining there be ping'ed, lest this be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of everyone except those who thought the matter might be left alone for a while. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This vote and Djm-leighpark‘s vote seem like they’re relying on technicalities to discredit the discussion rather than addressing the actual issue of 13’s behavior. How many minor guideline violations can dance on a pin and whatever, when it’s obvious that 13’s behavior is a persistent problem that they’ve already been warned about. Dronebogus (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Why should they get away with things like the above because I renominated an article for deletion too early, or a discussion from a few weeks back didn’t arrive at a consensus against them for unrelated reasons? Dronebogus (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dronebogus I consider between this recent comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) and what I see as your resumption of your bludgeoning following your block I am choosing to remove myself from these discussions and strike my !vote above. Thankyou. 22:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Support Whoever closes this will find that there is a fair amount of party line voting so should look closely at the reasoning for the votes. For me it is the refusal or moderate in any way their rhetoric aftef a severe warming and the partisan canvassing that shows that 13 has learned nothing and needs to step back and restore their perspective. Battlefield anything in any discussion is poisonous to effective consensus building. Spartaz Humbug! 20:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, albeit with some ambivalence. I did support the previous proposal that ended in "no consensus", but I looked at all of the new diffs as well as my own observations, and I think that anything based only what has happened post-the last discussion is borderline, but just over the line. Some of the diffs raised are not as bad as they look at first glance, when one looks at the context in its entirety. But I won't belabor that, because there is also enough here to conclude that this is a net-negative situation. (Personally, I am especially bothered by the "love letter" section referring here, and the edit warring over it.) So I come down on the support side. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as there is too much political voting going on here in favour of removing editors from AfD to aid their own objectives. If thirteen's behaviour is sufficiently bad then they should get a complete block not just to remove them from deletion matters. A warning is sufficient in my view and ive seen far worse battleground language from respected editors not to mention admin (an example admin using the F word in block notices).Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive train station addresses IP

    User:47.146.89.139 Special:Contributions/47.146.89.139 This IP has been constantly adding addresses of stations to articles on rapid transit lines, completely against consensus [110] [111] [112]. They have been warned many times by myself and two other editors, yet refuse to listen to anyone [113]. At this point, only a block will stop them from disrupting articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Trainsandotherthings: Has there been discussion on this issue or some place you can point an admin to to show the consensus? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion has been primarily on the IP's talk page, and at User talk:RickyCourtney. Pinging @RickyCourtney: and @Lars Smiley: who may wish to weigh in as well. Generally, the IP refuses to communicate, beyond saying on RickyCourtney's talk that "Addresses our very important". To quote RickyCourtney's response, "I disagree. Looking at the pages for systems in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, New York City, Seattle, and Washington DC (just to name a few)… none have station addresses on the route level overview page. This information is displayed only on a station level page." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The concerns for me are the repeated disrupted editing (which, granted, could be subjective) and the users unwillingness to engage in an any discussion about the changes they are making. As I previously pointed out, the changes being made are against the accepted style on peer pages. I'm more than willing to have a discussion about this editors proposed change. --RickyCourtney (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings: Maybe you should have a discussion at a neutral venue for the purposes of determining an explicit consensus. No offence, but if I was a person unfamiliar with Wikipedia I would be seeing a bunch of people who are complaining about my edits and insulting me. The phrasing of the messages that were left don't really seem to be an invitation to discuss so much as saying "you're violating some kind of decision that was made in a discussion you weren't allowed to participate in and have no clue exists". It seems rather Kafkaesque to me to block someone for going against an unwritten consensus. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add on that the editor in question is a mobile editor. They may not be aware of talk pages, given that the mobile website doesn't actually link to talk pages nor does it provide a clear path to get there. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess: Considering they have posted on RickyCourtney's talk page twice [114], that is not the case. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings: Going on the mobile website while logged out in an incognito window, it appears to me as if user talk pages are linked from the main userpage but article talk pages are not. e.g. [115] (today's featured article) versus [116] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Banana Republic casting ASPERSIONS and overall not assuming good faith

    Let's Go Brandon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Brandon Brown (racing driver) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Kelli Stavast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Banana Republic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    There is discussion going on at these three pages regarding the incident in which Kelli Stavast interviewed a NASCAR driver, leading to some phrase she said becoming viral. There are legitimate WP:BLP policy concerns being made which have led to RfCs at all three talk pages. Simultaneously, Let's Go Brandon and Kelli Stavast were nominated for deletion (Stavast by myself, on the same rationale that I used to nominate 3 other NASCAR reporters the same day, two of which were closed as delete; LGB by Beccaynr on the grounds that a previous incarnation of that article, Fuck Joe Biden was closed as a SNOW delete).

    Throughout these discussions, Banana Republic has repeatedly accused Beccaynr and myself of inappropriate behavior without any evidence to bring forth(aka WP:ASPERSIONS, and in general are assuming bad faith. Let's look at some of Banana's diffs.

    • diff 1 It is pretty clear that Beccaynr are acting as a WP:TEDIOUS editor. They tried to delete the article, then they took the AfD to a DelRev, they did not get their way in the above RfC about not naming Kelly Stavast, so they are now throwing moving the fight to the article lead. They are acting in tandem with GhostOfDanGurney to eliminate all mention of Kelly Stavast and Let's Go Brandon on Wikipedia. - Recurring theme here that we are trying to "censor".
    • diff 2 ...they (along with one of their buddies) are wasting the community's time with frivolous AfDs (frivolous AfD#1, frivolous AfD#2, and frivolous AfD#3) and now this frivolous DelRev. I wish there was a way to sanction them, but working together, they know how to game the system and exploit the community's patience and good will. - Accusing me of "frivolous AfDs" despite me stating on MULTIPLE occasions that I put up other NASCAR reporters and of vaguely "gaming the system". LGB closed as keep by a non-admin in a highly controversial topic area, the only reason for the DelRev (such DelRev was also described as a "hissy fit" by the closer [117]).
    • diff 3 GhostOfDanGurney is clearly gaming the system to push their own agenda, refusing to concede to consensus and playing tricks such as [this AfD withdrawal comment] in order to get another opportunity to bring up an AfD. - My only "agenda" is improving Wikipedia, so on that ground, guilty as charged? Yes, when the first Stavast AfD closed, the closer said in the closing message no prejudice to speedy renom, which I did. Evidently, that was a bad idea since at least one editor said doing so was "ridiculous". I then withdrew it, which, according to Banana, is a bad faith "trick".

    Overall, this is getting tiring from them. We are trying to have a discussion, but these repeated and continuous assumptions of bad faith by this user do nothing but discourage that discussion. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    He did in fact present evidence. Beccaynr did try to delete Let's Go Brandon [119] and then tried to get the close overturned at DRV (for which Beccaynr was trouted) [120], then Beccaynr tried to remove Kelly Stavast's name from the article. [121] After that RfC failed, Beccaynr tried to remove Stavast's name from just the lede. In all of those cases except the DRV, GhostOfDanGurney participated and agreed with Beccaynr. And the user interaction timeline of GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr is certainly interesting. [122] I would say the MfD was certainly a bad nom and so was the DelRev. And wow, holy shit, "no prejudice against speedy renomination" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast does not mean "renominate after 38 minutes" with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination). Banana Republic is right that the second nom is bs and he's also right that the withdrawal was questionable, although he could've said it far more civilly than he actually did. Mikehawk10's message [123] provides a far better example of how Banana Republic could've handled the issue.
    I'll also point to this exciting discussion at User talk:Beccaynr [124] to sort of demonstrate that the uncivil sniping of third parties in laudatory talk page messages seems to happen from both sides of this dispute. It's also interesting that GhostOfDanGurney brings up that they put up other NASCAR reporters at AfD. Is it truly coincidental that Beccaynr showed up to comment at all 3 of those AfDs of the "other NASCAR reporters"? [125] [126] [127] I'd like Beccaynr to explain their thought process as why they decided to comment on those three AfDs in particular. Were they chosen at random? Were they found at a noticeboard or delsort listing? etc etc. Perhaps GhostOfDanGurney could elaborate on what they meant by "There sure has been a lot of crap coming from the trees the last few weeks." as well.
    I certainly wish Banana Republic would've brought these concerns to ANI rather than immaturely sniping at the two editors in question on talk pages complaining about how Banana Republic wishes "there was a way to sanction them". That is practically useless and is still casting WP:ASPERSIONS, even if the claims are true. The reason is that article talk pages and other content discussions forums are not good places to discuss editor conduct; discussions of editor conduct inevitably overwhelm actual content discussion and degrade the quality of our output. I can see a temporary block for that behaviour. I also wish that Banana Republic's response to this thread would be a little more substantive than these diffs from other users criticizing GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr. The idiom is "use your words", not someone else's. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, chess, for pointing out the bad behaviors of GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr. The reason I did not file complaints against them is that I don't know the process (and don't care to become familiar with the process) of filing a complaint. I'd rather spend my time editing articles, than getting into Wikifights. I definitely don't want to waste my time gathering evidence to file a complaint, which is why I wrote "I wish there was a way to sanction them", as I don't know the way to do it, and don't want to know the way to do it. Since neither explicitly violated WP:3RR, for which evidence gathering is relatively simple, I did not file a complaint. Banana Republic (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't care to become familiar with the process for dealing with other editors' behaviour then you need to stop talking about other editors' behaviour. If you don't want to get into WikiFights then you need to stop taking shots at other editors. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just quote Potter Stewart who said "I know it when I see it". I know bad behavior when I see it. I don't know how to build a case to sanction the bad behavior, but that does not mean that I cannot call out the bad behavior. Banana Republic (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, not wanting to come here does mean you can't call them out if you want to continue editing this encyclopedia. You should be addressing your concerns with the editor that you have a problem with. If that fails, then you can come to ANI with the behavioural problem. You do not get to spend your time calling people out on article talk pages or with passive aggressive user talk page messages that masquerade as compliments towards another person. It's not that discussing another editors behavioural issues is wrong. It's that we have a designated board for those discussions. This is that board. If you're going to refuse to say your piece now and explain the problems you have then you're going to lose the benefit of the doubt in the future when you make these comments, even if the comments are accurate assessments of the situation. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't need to accuse them of anything any more. Others are doing a much better job than I ever could (and that includes you, Chess). Banana Republic (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would characterize the other side's conduct as reckless (more in diff). Pushing for the desired outcome using all permitted venues (while being more or less okay or not) is one thing, but insisting (reverts included) on a totally unjustified POV template in an essentially okay actively-worked-on-and-discussed article with tens of thousands of daily views prompted me to react. By their account, the template would have been removed when their version of the lead, exclusively stylistically different (diff), was implemented (where's the POV issue???). So it looks like the goal was the template for the template's sake. This made me suspicious. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel this is a fair characterization of my position, particularly after my repeated attempts to explain the justification based on policy and guidelines, as well as my offer to further clarify in the related discussion at the Talk page. From my view, the template is supported, and it is a way to encourage discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you don't see it as fair. I have a sincere concern. It's hard for me to see how adding that template on such a hot topic, in an actively worked on article, that already has a lot of participation, would have encouraged anything positive. To me it feels like the idea was to keep the template up as long as possible on formalistic grounds of there being a dispute that somehow, in theory, very tenuously, has to do with a POV concern. Keeping the tag would impede progress as it would divert everyone's attention to the issue seen as connected to the template, but the issue isn't very material to start with and it would only have led to general frustration and loss of interest. This disrupts normal work on the article, undermines the consensus-building process, and unduly worsens readers' reception of the article. It's really a good way to undermine an article after deletion attempts have been frustrated, and it's a known pattern. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am I alone among the 96% who don't live in the United States in being totally bemused by this whole topic, and wondering how any encyclopedia could possibly feel the need to have coverage of it? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hell, you aren’t alone among those who -do- live in the US. Qwirkle (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WORDISSUBJECT article with established vast notability. The 96% needs to read more such articles to get a feel for how normal it is to cover such topics I guess. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe give WP:RECENT a read, and realize this won't be relevant in a year, much less a decade. This doesn't deserve it's own article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who asked for delete on the FJB AfD, asked for protection on Kelli and found my redirect deletion on LGB and the 1st Kelli nomination somehow turn into an out-of-AfD process article creation for LGB solely because of BLP concerns (and was attacked when someone wanted me to contribute to an article I never wanted created in the first place because they inappropriately pinged me and asked them not to, then turned out to be a sock of a blocked political crank)..."takes in big breath". We'll be back in six months asking why this was created when LGB merchandise is clogging bargain bins/burned due to NASCAR copyright claims. I hated the abuse of processes here and harassment, and it makes me feel less inclined to ever edit a politics or politics-adjacent article ever again. Nobody here on either side came out of this looking good. Nate • (chatter) 20:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion should probably get hatted before it turns into a rehashing of the AfD. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD is referred to as evidence against me, so I think discussion related to the good-faith basis of the Let's Go Brandon AfD is relevant. To clarify, my nomination mentioned the Fuck Joe Biden AfD, but it was based on WP:EVENTCRIT on October 27, 2021. A second Let's Go Brandon AfD was opened by someone else on November 14, 2021, based on RECENT and LASTING, and was closed as a speedy keep by 力. [128]. Beccaynr (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    SOCK comments., and blocked
    :::::: Oh come off of it, @Mrschimpf:. A) I thought it was funny. B) I have been around longer than you, while doing more for the project than you or the tag team currently WIKYLAWYERING over this topic. C) I felt pushing the envelope to expedite the creation of an article that meets GNG was worth a shot... and it worked, did't it?. I pinged you as a goof so get over it and edit where you want; certainly no need for such theatrics about being some victim. There is a reason I volunteered to @Beccaynr: and @GhostOfDanGurney: who I was: Their games are obvious and I didn't need to be involved anymore. The rest of the community will surely show them the door sooner or later. Well on that note: I'm off to go create another GA about a burrito or some drummer. Good night. - Cpt "the crank" nono (and screw you). But before I forget, someone needs to give WP:VIDEOLINK some love--the flow chart especially has some issues now that I am more experienced in Project Management. Cheers! — Mallsdudes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    Someone please block Mallsdudes (talk · contribs) as a sock for their OT trolling above, and add this comment to the hat once it's done. And to their points; A, nope, ping abuse is not funny and is a hassle to me and everyone else, B, been here since 2005 (longer than your blocked account) and prefer to stop engaging when it doesn't help the situation, and C, just stating my side of the situation. Article's been created out of process (but now meets the lowest rung of N possible) and I stand by my comments 100%. Nate • (chatter) 16:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Hi Chess, you asked me to explain my thought process as to why I decided to comment on those three AfDs, and my recollection is it was due to the AfDs being mentioned in the first Kelli Stavast AfD by GhostOfDanGurney, e.g. on October 18 [129] and October 19 [130], so I looked at them, conducted research, and then !voted. I'm also sorry that my reference to the observations on Wikipedia behavior essay on my Talk page [131] comes across as uncivil sniping, when it was intended as supportive reassurance to GhostOfDanGurney, after they reported an attempted attack on the security of their account to me. I wasn't sure how to respond, and had thought a well-regarded essay that I like to review from time to time might be helpful. Beccaynr (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC) I also participated in the Kelli Stavast AfD because I routinely check the Women-related AfD del-sort, which may be evident from my userpage. Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Beccaynr: That sounds like a legitimate rationale, but I think you should consider how it looks when you and GhostOfDanGurney often !vote in the same way on the same pages. Even if you're independently looking at the AfDs GhostOfDanGurney started, it still doesn't look good to be browsing through someone else's noms and mostly voting support on them. This isn't super good in a "high intensity" conflict area such as American politics and contributes to a sense of bias. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello all. Chess pinged me on my talk page, so I figure I may as well give my few cents:
      1. I have been subject to the kind of side-sniping that Chess describes both on and off-wiki, and—believe me—it does not make me feel good when I see it. Please don't be passive aggressive to other editors on talk pages, because editors will probably wind up seeing the edits, and doing so with the intent to snipe at people behind their backs is uncivil. In my view (I don't think there's a policy on this, so take this as you will), behavioral issues should first be directly discussed with the editor that has problem behaviors, except where that behavioral issue is directly pertinent to the discussion at hand (for example, canvassing in an AfD) or when you are asking the editor to strike a specific personal attack.
      2. As Chess notes above, yes, I did ask GhostOfDanGurney to rescind their withdrawal of their close; I had thought (and still think) that it was not done in line with WP:WITHDRAWN. I did say that I was going to pursue a close challenge, though as 力 alluded to this wouldn't have really changed all that much with respect to the article's current status as being kept. However, the immediate assumption of bad faith made by GhostOfDanGurney shown in this edit (and expanded upon in this edit) did leave me rubbed the wrong way. The recent attempt by GhostOfDanGurney to drag Banana Republic to the edit warring noticeboard (see this diff for the full conversation) seemed somewhat frivolous as there were a total of three reverts listed over a period that encompassed three calendar days. And, to be frank, this edit made by GhostOfDanGurney on the talk page of Beccaynr seems like it could reasonably be a canvassing problem. In many ways, I'd expect that there would be room for a WP:BOOMERANG if sanctions against editors wind up being handed out.
      3. I have been involved in a content/sourcing dispute with Beccaynr on Kelli Stavast and Let's Go Brandon that played out, in part, on both of our talk pages. In what I can only describe as an egregious example of stretching policy way beyond a reasonable reading, the user has repeatedly argued that I could not use a source because its title contained information that was related to an ongoing RfC, even though I was using the source for the date of the individuals' engagement. The user framed this on my talk page as intending to keep the page stable pending the conclusion of their own (updated: 22:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)) RfC, which... honestly didn't sit right given how weak the policy claim was, though they also noted disagreement over the extent to which the source was an WP:RS, and that's obviously a valid part of a good faith sourcing dispute. I repeatedly asked the user to strike their characterization that I had somehow been violating RfC-related policies by making this edit, though the user has repeatedly declined to do so in line with their reading of WP:RFC, which I guess is their right.
    I understand that there's a great deal of frustration brewing between editors here, though I really do find it strange that this sort of stuff wound up on ANI. There really isn't anything in my view that rose to the level of bringing it here; nobody's been violating 3rr, while there have been aspersions they haven't been egregious and people who have been subject to them don't actually appear to have asked for apologies before coming here (or if they have, a diff would be nice to see). It also seems like the consensus on the content (which shouldn't be a factor at ANI but can add to general tension between passionate editors) is pretty clear, and I don't see much of a reason to believe that behavioral issues are affecting the outcome of content disputes. But, now that we're here, we're here. The only way I see out of this without some sanctions being handed out to someone would be for people to apologize to each other for when they wronged someone else, and to promise to work collaboratively in discussions going forward. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Mikehawk10, I think your summary of my view is incomplete, and it is discussed more on my Talk page [132], but the major reason why I want to briefly comment is because I think it is important to note we were able to disagree while also working together to improve the article, and I appreciate that very much. And as a minor detail, I never started an RfC, so referring to "their own RfC" seems inaccurate. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Beccaynr. My apolologies for misreading the RfCs. I've struck that portion of my comment and I'm sorry about that mischaracterization. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I am only involved here in an administrative capacity. The immediate re-nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination) should be considered explicitly allowed based on my close of the first nomination. Beyond that, regarding the initial filing: Banana Republic's complaints about the existence of tedious procedural issues, while perhaps not framed with perfect decor, are based in enough evidence there is no cause for sanctions. Regarding anything else: editing recent American Poltiics topics isn't the topic area for you if you can't handle disagreement on talk pages. Apart from "hey admins, maybe watchlist these pages", there is no action needed. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    力, by only involved in an administrative capacity, based on your contributions, this appears to include 1) approving the Let's Go Brandon article submitted by Globgenie (the apparent sock) through AFC [133], 2) closing the first Kelli Stavast AfD as no consensus [134], 3) offering your opinion about an AfD of Let's Go Brandon on the article Talk page [135], 4) responding to GhostOfDanGurney's concerns about the acceptance of Let's Go Brandon on the article Talk page [136], 5) commenting in the Let's Go Brandon AfD about why you accepted the article at AFC [137], 6) commenting on a discussion on GhostOfDanGurney's Talk page about the closure of the second Kelli Stavast AfD [138], 7) participating in a discussion about the status quo of the Let's Go Brandon article, and noting that future discussions can address more specific concerns about article content [139]. Beccaynr (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, I see a few points raised:
      1. And wow, holy shit, "no prejudice against speedy renomination" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast does not mean "renominate after 38 minutes" with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination). Banana Republic is right that the second nom is bs and he's also right that the withdrawal was questionable, although he could've said it far more civilly than he actually did. Mikehawk10's message [115] provides a far better example of how Banana Republic could've handled the issue. .... Perhaps GhostOfDanGurney could elaborate on what they meant by "There sure has been a lot of crap coming from the trees the last few weeks." as well. -- The first Kelli Stavast AfD had become a hot mess of off-topic arguments. I interpreted the close as "no consensus" as a way to stop these before they got out of hand. Was it hasty to renom so quick and should I have talked to 力 first to confirm my assumption? Yeah, absolutely. Bullshit? Fuck no. The first time I nominated the article, I had been unable to find adequate sources such that I felt it failed WP:NBASIC. The discussion immediately became about "LGB", which is fair given the timeframe of the event, but I felt many !voters were !voting on "LGB" and not the subject of the article itself. I allowed myself to get sucked in to this,[140] and in my haste in the renom, failed to clue in that by doing it so quickly, I was only going to invite the same type of discussion. The "crap from the trees" comment was an observation of Beccaynr willingness to edit on in spite of all of the chaos that apparently is par for the course in AmPoli discussions (which 6 months ago if you told me I'd be involved in, I'd say you were nuts; my primary topic area is motorsports with occasional dabbles into Canadian politics).
      2. However, the immediate assumption of bad faith made by GhostOfDanGurney shown in this edit (and expanded upon in this edit) did leave me rubbed the wrong way. -- The sharp tone of the response to you here was a combination of stress on my part and frankly, the fact that you weren't honest in your explanation; You had told me essentially "Hey you didn't follow WP:WITHDRAW because Beccaynr didn't strike her rationale",[141] when you had just prior made edits stating The most recent AfD on Kelli Stavast was a Snow Keep to such an extent that the nominator withdrew it.[142]. I don't get what your aim here was. If it truly was a snow keep, what's the point of me reopening it when there were votes like "an absurd waste of time and effort" and "Same guy nominating the same article a day after the previous nomination ended in no consensus, is just ridiculous!"
      3. The recent attempt by GhostOfDanGurney to drag Banana Republic to the edit warring noticeboard seemed somewhat frivolous as there were a total of three reverts listed over a period that encompassed three calendar days. -- I point to this[143] conversation between MER-C and myself where I was advised to go to AN3.
    As for why I'm here, I want Banana Republic to stop commenting on other's motives and accusing me of "gaming the system". GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Username Issue?

    Not a blatant violation, so not an ANI issue. First, discuss with the user, then take to WP:RFCN if so inclined. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Not to be that guy, but shouldn't Banana Republic have been blocked right out the gate? Per WP:USERNAME, "The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional: Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product", and according to Wikipedia, Banana Republic is an American clothing and accessories retailer owned by the American multinational corporation Gap Inc. This then could be mistrued as the company attempting to edit, although admittedly I see nothing promotional for the company or its products in the editing history, it still begs the question why this hasn't been looked at. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably because the clothing company and the user are (probably) both named after the general concept of a "banana republic", i.e. (narrowly) a Central or South American country which is de facto ruled by American fruit companies or (broadly) "a politically unstable country with an economy dependent upon the exportation of a limited-resource product" as per our article ont the topic. Because of the existing use, it doesn't unambiguously represent the American clothing company and is therefore (arguably) not promotional under WP:USERNAME. (Wouldn't object to asking them to change it tho.) Loki (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be the case if they were using the little "r", but their using the big' "R", which on our site clearly and unmistakably goes to the store and not the concept. In lew of that observation, I believe that regardless of whats decided here they should be required to change usernames. My two cents. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To me (not an American), "Banana Republic" unambiguously reads as a reference to the concept (before happening upon this thread, I'd never heard of the brand), with the second word capitalised because, as a username, it is part of a proper noun. Unless the user is actively making promotional edits in favour of the brand, I think their username is fine. Rummskartoffel 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I assumed it was a reference to the political concept rather than the retailer (which didn't cross my mind at all until this section was opened). User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The username does not appear to be unambiguously promotional, so I don't think any action is needed. Isabelle 🔔 21:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Complaint concerning Sarah-Lee Heinrich's article

    Context:

    Sarah-Lee Heinrich, a German politician made several racist remarks. e.g. When she was an adult she called German society a "disgustingly white majority". This was reported by various German newspaper, including Welt.de ( https://www.welt.de/politik/bundestagswahl/plus234372910/Parteinachwuchs-Eklige-weisse-Mehrheitsgesellschaft-Die-Gruene-Jugend-und-ihr-Deutschlandbild.html )

    Incident:

    After I've added this information to the article about Heinrich the user User:TheRandomIP removed the information multiple times. When I tried to contact TheRandomIP on their talk page, they reverted the message and kept reverting the article.

    A few hours ago User:ToBeFree joined TheRandomIP and reverted the article, then locked the article. When I tried to communicate with ToBeFree on their talk page, they reverted my message.

    This appears highly dubious to me and I believe TheRandomIP and ToBeFree are politically motivated to defend the politician's reputation, despite wide criticism in the German press.

    I am not sure how to proceed from here as I feel that Wikipedia is being abused by them for political purposes and direct communication is not possible, when messages are ignored and reverted. I do not believe that Wikipedia is intended to sweep widely reported hateful speech of racist politicians under the rug and this kind of political censorship goes against the values of Wikipedia.

    I am very disappointed that ToBeFree has abused their position of power to side with the politically motivated, bad faith actor TheRandomIP and helped them to do damage control for a politician, who conducted racist hate speech. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, not a propaganda tool to defend racist politicians. --94.31.105.144 (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am very disappointed that you've abused this noticeboard to cast aspersions of political motivations against other editors, without having made any attempt to gain consensus for your edits on the article talkpage. You appear to have a strong POV that you're trying to insert into the article - you will need to gain consensus. I note that TheRandom IP suggested and implemented wording that had been included by consensus on dewiki, which you've ignored. Shrill accusations of political manipulation like those above will not gain much sympathy at ANI. I've revised the heading on this section to something less shouty, and warned you for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Acroterion that the IP needs to tone things down considerably. That said, it was unhelpful for ToBeFree to remove the entire paragraph in question and then also protect the page. That's crossing the streams a bit, and the article had been stable for a week prior to the current dispute. No one disagrees on mentioning the incident; removing it entirely confuses the nature of the dispute. Mackensen (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatives to protecting the page (and returning it to the status quo) would have been blocking at least one IP range and another IP address for edit warring, so I think it's a good compromise. WP:BRD is a good guide. —PaleoNeonate – 03:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Acroterion How is it a strong POV, when it is exactly what welt.de (one of the major newspapers in Germany) reported? Also I'm not sure how repeatedly removing the racist hate speech by Sarah-Lee Heinrich from her article (despite being reported on) can be interpreted differently than "politically motivated".
    Lastly the discussion in the German Wiki was mostly concerned with Sarah-Lee Heinrich's racist Tweets as a teenager and her "disgustingly white majority" comment (which she made as an adult) was only added as a sidenote that wasn't covered by the discussion about her teenager Tweets.
    I'm not sure why exactly the politician gets special treatment and sweeping hate speech under the rug is being tolerated. Heinrich is a person of public interest (politician and Bundessprecherin for the Grüne Jugend of the Grüne Party), she made racist hate speech many times, this was reported widely in Germany.
    So why exactly is this information excluded from Wikipedia? --94.31.105.144 (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is your POV that I'm referring to - you have a strong agenda that seems to have caused you to focus on denigration of the article's subject. That's not good. I agree with Mackensen that removing the section and protecting was not appropriate. I can see a rationale for the protection, but I have reservations about removal in the entirety by the same admin. One or the other, but not both. Except for that, this is a content dispute that belongs on the article talkpage, not at ANI. We should give ToBeFree an opportunity to respond about the removal and protection, but we will not tolerate aspersions of political bias in the meantime, or score-settling. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "We should give ToBeFree an opportunity to respond about the removal and protection"
    Fair enough.
    Just as an additional information: The article used to include the "disgustingly white majority" part ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah-Lee_Heinrich&oldid=1051761722 ), before TheRandomIP made 7 edits in quick succession, which removed the section. So I'm not sure why it is suggested to block me, when TheRandomIP started the situation. --94.31.105.144 (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    p.s. I'm not sure what you mean by "denigration of the article's subject. That's not good."
    How would you phrase it then, except calling her comments racist hate speech and her a racist? (Especially as she repeatedly made racist remarks in the past)
    --94.31.105.144 (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article started as a horrible BLP violation which took what looks like an opinion piece and turned it into "objective" phrasing in Wikipedia's voice. TheRandomIP needs to be commended for starting to turn that awful thing into a real article. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm plowing my way through the article, slowly; the IP could have been blocked already for a BLP violation in this edit summary, which makes me wonder if this is the same person--this is the IP who first introduced the content. The real question is whether we are going to argue whether an admin was too heavy-handed--or whether an admin did exactly what needed to be done in order to prevent the "orchestrated shitstorm" from being continued on our Wikipedia. And what did ToBeFree do? Remove content for which there was no consensus, content that clearly had BLP-related problems, and semi-protect the article in order to prevent a series of IPs from reintroducing that content. What TheRandomIP should have done, of course, is loudly cry "BLP" in the edit summaries--but they don't have a lot of experience on the English wiki and we shouldn't fault them for that. ToBeFree deserves a beer/barnstar, of course. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If somebody edited Trump's article multiple times and at the end the "bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists" tweet simply disappeared and Trump was solely portrayed as a blameless victim of a hateful shitstorm, would it be equally commendable? Would you advocate to block the person, who included the information? --94.31.105.144 (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, your POV, encapsulated in that edit summary, is highly problematic. In general, we extend considerable discretion to editors and admins on matters of BLP, which is what I see in the removal and protection in the face of your behavior. Acroterion (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but what exactly is "highly problematic"? She made racist comments (not only the "disgustingly white majority" one). How is it problematic to call her comments racist, when the comments are racist - or her a racist, when she repeatedly makes racist remarks?
    How is it POV or problematic? To me it's simply factual. I would really appreciate an explanation as I do not fully understand your criticism of what I did. --94.31.105.144 (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are interpreting that as "racist," rather than as a (badly stated) complaint about disproportionate representation by a dominant group, and are trying to insert your interpretation into a BLP. It's the kind of bad-faith application of assumed symmetry to a complaint about asymmetrical power that is in vogue nowadays. See the brouhaha concerning critical race theory in the U.S. Acroterion (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What Acroterion said. So you don't fully understand the criticism? You don't get that your words do not reflect a factual situation but only your interpretation of some facts? You don't see that that article does not' reflect that she is "solely portrayed as a blameless victim"? Then at best you do not have the competence to edits BLPs and sensitive matters--at worst, of course, you're pulling us into the shitstorm. Either way, the real surprise here is that you haven't been blocked yet. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it would be helpful for this discussion if someone could state what they think the BLP issues are, either here or on the article talk page. Obviously, the IP's edit summaries are a problem, that speaks for itself and they're being removed, but I'm not seeing it in the content revisions themselves. If folks think this is a WP:BLP1E situation then fine, but then the article should go to AfD. In its current form, there's no assertion of notability. Mackensen (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "Obviously, the IP's edit summaries are a problem, that speaks for itself"
    What exactly is problematic? I would appreciate an explanation of what exactly you find wrong.
    AFD: Sarah-Lee Heinrich is a German politician and the Bundessprecherin for the Grüne Jugend. Also she is is in various interviews by big media outlets in Germany (e.g. ZDFheute, SWR, Sat1). I think a politician who is so public, controversial and in such a position of power should get an article.
    --94.31.105.144 (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To me it is clear what happened here: In the German Wikipedia we almost unanimously decided to describe this event in a certain way also with respect to personality rights. But a few people (a small minority) wanted to have a "harsher" formulation and wanted to include details we didn't find appropriate to include. Then they just took this to the English Wikipedia, wrote a puny article just to include what was rejected in German Wikipedia, hoping that no one will notice. That was the only purpose of this article. This is a pattern I sometimes observed also in the past, and maybe it would be worth to discuss how do you normally deal with such articles? --TheRandomIP (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It is safe to ignore all crosswiki concerns in this case. There was an AIV report about the edit war, the report was removed after 5.6 hours, I've noticed the removal and chose to have a look beyond "This noticeboard is for reporting obvious vandalism and spam only". Two editors, one of them without an account, were fighting over the content of a BLP. There was zero talk page discussion, so I enforced talk page discussion to happen. As I had a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, I removed the disputed content (WP:ONUS, WP:BLPUNDEL) for now. As the neutrality of the resulting revision was likely to be challenged (QED), I also added {{POV}}, which has a perfect text for this situation: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page." End of the story.
    The best way to deal with the situation is to find a consensus on the talk page of the article. We have noticeboards such as WP:BLPN and WP:NPOVN for neutrally inviting editors to an ongoing discussion. There is an entire policy dedicated to dispute resolution at WP:DR. Specifically, the following steps are not part of a good dispute resolution:
    • Accusing disagreeing editors of intentionally damaging the encyclopedia ("vandalism");
    • Avoiding a central discussion on the article talk page by misusing user talk pages for content discussion;
    • Escalating the conflict to ANI before even using the article's talk page;
    • Accusing others of misbehavior instead of focusing on the content.
    The actual hero here is Mackensen, who took the time to start a proper talk page discussion at Talk:Sarah-Lee Heinrich. Those interested in finding a consensus about the article's content should join it!
    ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I brought it to ANI because you sided with somebody who started an edit war and used your position to lock the article. This is why my complaint is about you and TheRandomIP in ANI and not a discussion regarding an edit war in the appropriate notice board. --2A00:6020:B3B0:5300:64B0:DE51:9847:D940 (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't side with anyone. Two people fought over the wording of a paragraph, so I removed it entirely instead of protecting a specific version of the paragraph. Three (!) policies supporting this approach are described above: The protection policy, the verifiability policy and the BLP policy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TheRandomIP wanted to remove criticism of Sarah-Lee Heinrich racist comments from the article. I wanted to keep the criticism. You removed the section, which did exactly what TheRandomIP wanted i.e. removing the criticism. I call it siding with TheRandomIP. If you simply wanted to stop the editwar (which was started by TheRandomIP) you could have locked the article, but leave the information as it was before TheRandomIP removed it.--2A00:6020:B3B0:5300:CEA:6715:4D7C:6EFC (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This was not an option: The neutrality of the content "as it was before" has been disputed, so protecting the page without removing the content would have been incompatible with the policies described above. It may usually be possible to restore a "pre-edit-war revision", but this doesn't work if the article's initial neutrality is under discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Verbal abuse in hindi language

    Indefinitely blocked for 'Personal attacks'. (non-admin closure) Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I can clearly see how this user(Leif Eriksson VV) using verbal abuse on the talkpages[144], mentioning someone's mother in such a way warrants a block for at least 24 hours. Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Indeffed; their attitude appears to be wholly incompatible with a collaborative editing environment, and the fact that their talk page is littered with warnings for copyright violations and other things does not help either. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Removal of content and re-direction to pages

    Please discuss on an appropriate article/wikiproject/user talk page before escalating to ANI. (non-admin closure) Polyamorph (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User TompaDompa removed the content entirely from pages such as List of highest-grossing animated films in the United States and Canada and re-directed them. I restored them all (whatever I saw had been removed). Kindly review. Surge_Elec (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I WP:BOLDLY performed a WP:Blank and redirect for those pages (mostly because I considered them to be WP:CFORKS). You have reverted my bold edits, so the next step is discussing it. Methinks the talk pages for the articles and/or WP:AfD would be a better forum for such discussion than here. For what it's worth, the Nobel laureate lists you restored (such as List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation II) were subpages of a version of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation that no longer exists (following very lengthy discussion), so I don't think it should be controversial to redirect those to the main article. TompaDompa (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Around 45 articles had been redirected. Discussing on the talk pages of every article was not really practical, so brought it here. Resp. admins - Kindly tell your decision on whether the content should be kept (given that there were no persisting issues and no census to redirect them). Surge_Elec (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Surge elec while an individual talk page may not be the right venue to discuss 45 page moves, neither is ANI. You could start a discussion on @TompaDompa's talk page, or on a common WikiProject. Jumping to ANI is premature/not best use of everyone's time. Admins are experienced editors, but not the arbitrators of content decisions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    2600:1003:b027:b692::/64 has been blocked for 1 week by Hut 8.5 for vandalism and legal threats. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    2600:1003:b027:b692:0:47:d4eb:1701 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has issued this - a block may be required at this point. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 08:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Inspectormusic repeated unsourced information and genres after multiple warning

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

    As their talk page shows they have been warned multiple times about adding unsourced information and genres. They have even been blocked for 48 hours about it. This did not stop them from continuing the same behavior. They were warned again by multiple editors, and again, they ignore the warnings: 1, 2, 3 and many more. There should be a limit to the number of times a "last warning" is left before someone does something about it. --Muhandes (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought an ANI warning will change something, but this behavior continues: unsourced genres and again and again. --Muhandes (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like some WP:LTA vandalism here. – The Grid (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That may very well be the case, perhaps someone more familiar with the area can have a look. --Muhandes (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The Pollster immediately returning to disruptive behavior

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Original poster warned about WP:BATTLE. First diff in the complaint is clearly bogus. Jehochman Talk 14:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Only yesterday, we closed a long discussion about whether to indefinitely block The Pollster Heavy OWN, TENDENTIOUS and PA behaviour by The Pollster for their repeated personal attacks, edit warring, and WP:OWN. Everyone who took part in the long discussion agreed The Pollster's behaviour was unacceptable, opinions differed on whether to block them indefinitely, for a limited time, or just give them a warning. In the end, the closing admin settled for a warning. As many of us feared, The Pollster construed this close and the warning as a carte blanche to behave as he pleases. This includes:

    • Claiming that the discussion about their edit warring and personal attacks was to "censor" him [145]
    • Returning to personal attacks by claiming those who disagree with him "are applying a double standard [146], even accusing users of wanting "to sustain corruption" [147].
    • Immediately returning to the same edit warring, restoring his own version of the contested article once again [148] (and deceptively trying to hide it by a misleading edit summary).

    I feel enough is enough. If The Pollster reads the long discussion of whether to block him, and the final warning he was given, as vindication that he was right, then something is very wrong. Several users already suggested WP:COMPETENCE and that The Pollster does not seem to able to edit. Given that in less than 24 hours after the close and the warning, The Pollster has doubled down on his personal attacks, on the edit warring, and on the own-issues, it seems clear they are right. As the warning to The Pollster clearly did not work, I repeat my suggestion that Wikipedia is better off without this highly disruptive user. Jeppiz (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure Jehochman, who per Jeppiz "settled for a warning" in the previous discussion, is the ideal admin to close this new thread without anybody else having had time to comment. For that reason, I do want to state that I agree with him (with Jehochman), and would have closed in a similar way, and would also have warned Jeppiz. Bishonen | tålk 15:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC). (Bad Bishonen for editing inside the closed discussion.)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    TBAN proposal: The Pollster

    It's true Jeppiz messed up the diffs in this report. The first three diffs (in the first two bullet points in the OP) are all the same diff, and they did technically come before the warning. However, that diff (Special:Diff/1054626602, 05:03 Nov 11) was a comment made at the bottom of the tban proposal, and did, in fact, say the majority of admins are against censoring me and for restoration of my version, because they clearly see through the double standard that some are applying and It gives the impression that you (impru & co.) want to sustain corruption and fake polling in this article for whatever reason. Neither of these comments suggests that The Pollster understood the discussion about them. I was surprised that Jehochman closed that thread with a warning a few hours later (Special:Diff/1054652842, 09:39 Nov 11). Frankly, had I seen The Pollster's comment at 05:03, I may have changed my !vote from oppose to support.

    More importantly, that same 05:03 comment stated Admins, please restore my modernized version of the article, because of this context. That's WP:IDHT in its purest form right there. Worse is that The Pollster went and restored their edits:

    • Here are some of the edits that led to The Pollster's first ANI thread (there are others):
      • 04:53 Nov 7 - restoring their reverted changes (which included segregating out certain polls into a separate table and collapsing that table), with the edit summary You have contributed nothing to this article impru. Go back to Spain. Research Affairs polls are not needed, I modernized the article.
      • 11:17 Nov 7 - restoring their reverted changes again, with the edit summary vandalism by people with no knowledge of the situation
    • As a reminder, 05:03 Nov 11 is when The Pollster made the comment linked above, in part asking admins to restore their preferred version, and 09:39 is when Jehochman warned The Pollster
    • 05:19 Nov 12 - Pollster, in their next edit after making the above comment at ANI and after being warned, again restores their edits (separating out certain polls into a new table and collapsing that table), but does so along with an addition of content, and uses the edit summary Added new poll.

    The Nov 12 edit is, in fact, a direct continuation of the exact thing that led to the ANI thread in the first place. "Added new poll" is, in fact, a deceptive edit summary. Given they previously asked for this content to be restored, I don't think this was any kind of good faith error. Clearly, Jehochman's warning was ineffective. (I also very much object to Jehochman's comment here, "First thing to do is scrutinize the filer", which I think expresses an attitude that is at the core of why ANI doesn't work well. First thing to do is to read report, and the diffs, in full. I also think that shows a bit of anti-filer bias which may have influenced the premature closing of this report.)

    Jeppiz, since being warned above, has posted a wiki-break notice. Meanwhile, another editor had to revert The Pollster. I don't think it's good that this ends with other editors having to revert The Pollster again, while an editor who is trying to stop that disruption is run off the project. As such, I'm now proposing a TBAN from polling against The Pollster.

    • Support TBAN from polling, broadly construed as proposer, per my comments above. Subsequent actions by The Pollster have convinced me that I was wrong to oppose a sanction last time. Within a day of being warned, they've gone right back to edit-warring in their preferred changes (05:19 Nov 12) after asking admins to restore their preferred changes (05:03 Nov 11). The warning (09:39 Nov 11) clearly was not effective. Levivich 16:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I think the warning has not had the desired result, and it doesn't look as if Pollster is going to change his behavior. Paul August ☎ 17:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I agree with everything Levivich has written. This is a sorry incident and Jeppiz and Impru20 (the original filer to be supposedly “scrutinised”) are owed apologies. DeCausa (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Levivich has summarized the situation well. An imperfect filing should not result in disregard of the ongoing issues that led to the filing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as per filer of initial ANI thread (since the original rationale persists) and because of Levivich's neatly summarized rationale: it's a matter of IDHT as of now. The Pollster's restoration of the disputed content under a misleading and deceiving edit summary while discussion with other users was still underway in the talk page, coupled with a failure to re-engage in such discussion once the previous ANI thread was closed, clearly showed a bad-faith intent in this. A TBAN would also be a less harsh remedy than a full block, and can give The Pollster time to reconsider their current approach towards Wikipedia. Sincerely, he should really take the rope that is being given to him if he wants to avoid the risk of being indeffed in the future. Impru20talk 18:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Noting that a mere minutes after I posted my message, The Pollster has re-engaged the discussion. In his reply, he argues that "I have addressed everything in proper manner and it’s well sourced. I reverted it to my previous edition incl. the new poll because you guys are ignorant of the required changes of the modern design despite my sources and repeatedly act like cyber-bullies in reverting my version to the corruption-filled outdated version." Note that this was said with this ANI sub-thread ongoing and following everything that has transpired (including a piece of advice made by Jehochman in his talk page right today after closing Jeppiz's thread). Oh well. Impru20talk 19:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Impru and Co. act like cyber-bullies by reverting my edits. My edits hide corrupt polling to a minimum, while their version is highlighting it for everyone to see. Wikipedia must not be a place that highlights and showcases corruption and fake polling, when everything is very obvious and well-sourced. Wikipedia is not a vessel of Donald Trump-style fake news. I am therefore in the opinion that my version is still very much correct and I ask you admins to reconsider your position because tolerating fake news and faked polling in an official corruption probe in articles on here sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and you as moderators. Thanks. Long live accuracy, facts and freedom. --The Pollster (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It's much simpler to say WP:IDHT. Just a thought for the future. Cheers all, and happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that TP may have a legitimate point on the content issue here, but just doesn't understand how to argue it starting from WP:PAG. He's trying to remove polls made by a polling bureau that has been compromised in a corruption scandal, but instead of pointing out that this may render these polls unreliable sources, he unhappily focuses on the "faking" of the polls by the polling bureau, which cannot be asserted in wikivoice without original research. Naturally, this is how his arguments are being received by other editors (i.e., as OR), something which TP does not seem to understand nor to engage with in the broader discussion. TP has been here for ~15 years, but has only made ~1700 edits in that time [149], which may explain why he has such a poor grasp of core content policies. However, that wouldn't be so much of a problem if only he would take a more collaborative approach. There's no point in being right if you can't convince fellow editors that such is the case, and have to resort to aspersions and personal attacks. But how is TP going to learn this? Given what's on their user page, topic-banning him from polling, broadly construed, would be more or less equivalent to an indefinite block. If we really want to give him a chance, I think it would be much more appropriate to issue a time-limited block (perhaps a partial block from Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election, since that's where most of the disruption seems to have taken place?) that would show in his (now still clean) block log and that can be escalated if similar issues should arise in the future. It seems to me that he would benefit from a wiki-break at this point, and he may do better next time. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • But how is TP going to learn this? ... If we really want to give him a chance ... I so strongly oppose this type of thinking at ANI. As proposer, I do not want to give him a chance. He already had a chance. This isn't about TP learning anything, or about rehabilitating TP, it's solely about preventing disruption. That is, it's about protecting other editors from TP's disruptive editing. I don't care if TP learns anything or not. If they can't edit productively, then they can't edit. Remember, this is the guy who reverted people with "go back to Spain" as an edit summary. Nobody should have to put up with that. When someone acts like that, our response shouldn't be, "well how do we teach them to be better?" This is not therapy, this is not a school, etc., we should not "reverse the victim and the offender". It doesn't matter if TP has a point on the content dispute or not, and it doesn't matter if polling is all TP is interested in: they risked their privilege of editing when they were uncivil, and then after being warned, went right back to edit warring. The goal here is to protect everyone else, not to teach TP. The way TP would get a tban lifted (if it passes) is to prove to the community that they can edit productively, by editing in another topic area. This gives the community the chance to review TP's editing before deciding whether it's safe to lift the tban. A time-limited block would not give the community this very important information. Levivich 20:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This user is clearly problematic in this area, their response here gives me no confidence it is likely to stop. Hopefully a topic ban can be effective in preventing them from this disruption and allowing them to be productive in other areas. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another problem: copy-paste machine translation - I've noticed that The Pollster is copy/paste-ing machine translation of newspaper articles into 2021 Graz local election. Special:Diff/1051428847 = [150], and Special:Diff/1055038402 = [151]. I've removed it from that article but haven't looked further to see if there are other instances. Levivich 17:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as per the argument I already made in the initial post. I also wish to thank Levivich for their kind words and for having taken the time to look into the matter. I was both surprised and disappointed at how the first admin immediately closed down the thread on a technicality (though I take full responsibility for having messed up the diffs in my post), and I am glad to see the consensus in the subsequent thread in line with Levivich's summary of my post. Parallel to this discussion, there is ongoing harassment as many of us involved in this situation have seen heavy attempts to hack our accounts since this thread was started. At least DeCausa, Impru20, HighInBC and myself have seen multiple attempts to hack our accounts (we receive a wiki-notification of this; in my case it informs me there have been 65 attempts to hack my account). None of us ever experienced this before, and this thread is the only thing that connects us so while I don't want to speculate on who is behind these attacks, it passes WP:DUCK that it is because of this situation. Jeppiz (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That happened to me, too, over 20 attempts in the last day or so. Although without knowing how widespread it is, hard to say if it's related (we might be 5 of 500 who this happened to, or 5,000). Levivich 18:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is true. Had it just happened to me, I wouldn't have thought about it. The fact that it never happened to me before in over 10 years (and apparently never to DeCausa or Impru20 either), and suddenly all of us are targeted, well, it makes me suspect a link. Jeppiz (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I confirm this happened to me as well, having never suffered anything like it before. I spoke with DeCausa and we both confirmed that the attempts on our accounts were at similar times of day and that those matched the editing patterns of TP. Further, HighInBC confirmed that the attempts on his account was made following DeCausa's approachment to him on the issue. So far, it looks like circumstantial evidence, but all people affected as of now has been involved on this issue and has opposed The Pollster's stance. Impru20talk 18:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, if the five of us go on a vandalism spree, we'll know why. Levivich 18:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              Just want to say a quick "me three" about unauthorized login attempts. Circumstantial, but interesting. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              I too finally became part today (around 00:30 UTC) of the not-so-select (?) club of people who've gotten the infamous There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device message (6 attempts). I've been involved in a lot during the last few days (reporting in two separate SPI cases and opening two ANI threads), but this is perhaps more than a coincidence. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              Err, 7 of us who contributed to this thread have had multiple login attempts on our accounts over this weekend? HighnBC gets it just after I post about it on his talk page? Other than tt’s just bonkers, how obvious can this get? DeCausa (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's happening to me as well. Paul August ☎ 19:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        So it's 8 now. If this is really him, then a TBAN may not be enough. Impru20talk 20:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. If he didn't pay attention to the last thread, then he needs to face the consequences. Assuming he (or someone on his behalf) is also intentionally failing password checks, I would consider this a bad attempt at harassment. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:HARASSMENT, potentially by The Pollster

    At time of writing 8 editors have reported in the above thread that they have had unauthorised attempts to login to their accounts over this weekend. This is unusual. 6 of those editors supported The Pollster being made subject to a TBAN. The remaining 2 made what could be considered adverse comments about his editing behaviour. Circumstantially, it’s reasonable to believe that this may be WP:HARASSMENT by The Pollster. I’ve asked The Pollster to respond here. Subject to seeing his response, I believe there is grounds for an indef CBAN by reason of their WP:HARASSMENT of those he’s decided he has a grudge against because of this thread. DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    David Cryan

    Hello, I am not sure If I am asking at the correct place but… Could you please send me an email with the source code of this deleted page? Patrik L. (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Patrik L.: Not the right place per se, but yes we can do that. I'd recommend starting by asking the deleting admin though, and if that doesn't work check out the options at WP:REFUND. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    MrsSnoozyTurtle

    User MrsSnoozyTurtle is editing Mehmed Şevket Eygi in bad faith and deleting information according to her own POV. I’ve had multiple discussions with her and attempted to reconcile but she just will not budge. I’ve warned her too. Please have a look below for just an example of her vandalism:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1047670501

    Thank you, 786wave (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment [this comment] where 786wave called her "SleazyTurtoise" and accused her of being an anti-Muslim Islamophobe isn't exactly civil and doesn't speak well to the merits of this ANI complaint. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    isn't exactly civil. The OP's comment is a personal attack. They have been blocked before for making personal attacks and, in my view, should be blocked again. doesn't speak well to the merits of this ANI complaint. I disagree as I think the attack by the OP and the change to the article by MST are discrete issues. MST's change was absolutely wrong. You do not say such things in the opening sentence of an article. MST added a bunch of refs, which I haven't looked it, but the subject's alleged anti-semitism isn't even mentioned in the body of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment There is absolutely no evidence of MrsSnoozyTurtle editing in bad faith; 786wave's accusations are made of thin air. However, I suggest having a closer look at 786wave's edits – I think that he needs to be blocked because of his personal attacks. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment These two editors have been long-term edit-warring on that article, with 786wave more often at fault; that said I would hesitate to endorse a BOOMERANG as the motivation for the report is a diff by MrsSnoozyTurtle that was correctly reverted by 786wave (and should be discussed on talk before being restored). User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Originally 786wave created the article after a failed AfC. Then they edit warred MrsSnoozyTurtle when she tried to put notability and POV templates on it. Which led to MrsSnoozyTurtle doing a PROD for the same reasons. The PROD was subsequently removed by 786wave because the person "was a respected journalist and intellectual whise writings and books are all over the internet and his funeral was attempted by numerous heads of state." None of which seems like a valid reason why Mehmed Şevket Eygi would be notable. In the meantime, 786wave has been warned and blocked multiple times for edit waring. He's also called people who left him messages on his talk page ignoramuses, among other things.
    As far as particular edits in the article goes, MrsSnoozyTurtle removed an un-sourced personal claim about Eygi being the instigator of the events referred to in the non-fictional biography work Mr. Pipo. Which 786wave reverted because apparently removing un-referenced personal claims is vandalism. So while I agree the one edit by MrsSnoozyTurtle wasn't great, taken as whole it's clear that a lot of this could have been avoided if 786wave hadn't of created a non-notable article after it failed an AfC, inserted un-sourced personal comments, Etc. Etc. The edit waring and insults hasn't been confined to this particular article or MrsSnoozyTurtle either. It just seems to be the general way 786wave deals with things. So IMO a BOOMERANG is warranted. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The nominator should be boomeranged for making personal attacks, especially considering they've been blocked before for that same reason. Otherwise, it seems like a content dispute better handled at WP:DRN. Curbon7 (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Aircorn: If your talking about MrsSnoozyTurtle's claim of him being anti-Semitic, he was apparently pretty vocal about his dislike of Turkish Jews. to quote him "The Sabbateans have a monopoly over Turkish society. The Turks themselves live like the subject population of British India. Secular measures are always the will of Sabbateans because a real Turk, even an atheist Turk, would never do so much harm to Turkey." That sounds pretty anti-Semitic to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not how we add information to a biography and was rightfully reverted. It is quite clearly undue and violates lead as nothing is mentioned in the body. It contains red flags of someone editing with a POV - inserting directly to the lead, removing journalist to replace with a more generic writer, citation overkill and using cites that are unreliable or don't seem to support the claim as written (the best I could find was "pro islamist"). Maybe there is a case to mention views, but do it in the body and with context. Aircorn (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In case your interested I got the quote from [here]. I think it's a reliable source. It's not surprising that there isn't anything that specifically says he's anti-Semitic. That's not usually how it goes. For example on Richard B. Spencer's article, he is called a neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist. He claims he's none of those things though and most papers don't refer to him as such per say. He's mainly referred to in the media as a "White nationalist." Probably because they don't want to be sued for libel. But's its still fine to put the other terms in the lead of his article. Outside of that, maybe she was planning on adding better sources and mentioning it in the article later, but decide not to because 786wave revert her, called her an anti-Muslim Islamophobic, and opened this ANI report. Should she have just ignored all that and continued editing the article? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick note from my side: The sources that MrsSnoozyturtle added are, in general, reliable. However, the way they have been added is not ideal, and I'd agree that it's POV editing. The opinion presented in these sources is very extreme (i. e. they describe Eygi as an antisemite and neonazi), and I think that it is absolutely mandatory to precisely explain whose opinion that is. Nonetheless, I get the feeling that the OP is a pro-Turkish POV editor: In this edit, the OP introduces the wording "radical seculars", and removes the category "conspiracy theorists". Another editor reverted that, which the OP thought was a reason to pull that editor to ANI ([152]). Other edits also indicate that the OP is unable to accept that adding certain referenced content to articles is not vandalism. Maybe topic-banning the OP would be a good idea. I'd support that. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the person promotes anti-semitism and conspirocy theories is not really the issue. The way that MrsSnoozy has presented that information is. I am at a disadvantage as I can only read the English sources they cited, but none of those are sufficient to make such a claim [153][154][155]. While the above quote is there, it is not nearly enough. And yes sources need to explicitly say they are an antisemitic or a conspiracy theorist, otherwise it is all just original research. I am not arguing against a block of 786 for the personal attacks, but in my opinion the civil POV pushing from MrsSnoozyturtle is much worse than the OPs POV pushing when comparing the diffs provided. Aircorn (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse a Boomerang on OP, I believe ANI makes it explicitly clear that one who deems it fit to file a complaint here should know their own edits would be scrutinized as well. Following the diffs brought to light the WP:PA's are egregious. Celestina007 (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanctions as a warning to both editors will be sufficient at this stage as there are faults on both sides. Blocks should be a last resort not a speedy go-to fix in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Brand new editor Wiki-Libre oficial (talk · contribs) has been vandalizing articles related to Spain in the Americas with plausible-looking hooey which doesn't check out. Also knows almost nothing about wiki-editing, does things like inserting fake citation-numbers using text superscripting. I reverted a couple, after researching them, but they were reverted back. -- M.boli (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This does look like some combination of vandalism or nationalist POV pushing, plus their username likely violates WP:MISLEADNAME. Woodroar (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 09:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Kent2121

    User is seemingly trying to WP:GAME extended confirmed.[156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    MJL, It's either that or WP:COMPETENCE, either way I think we need a block so we can work out what's going on. Go back to this revision of their user page to see noticeable warnings such as vandalising Talk:Main Page - that's a red flag right there. Oh, and there's a bit of sockpuppetry in there too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ZX2006XZ and Buck Wild

    This draft is a draft about an unreleased film, and has already been declined five times by three reviewers, who have cautioned the originator to stop resubmitting until the film is released. The originator, who has been the subject of other recent discussions about resubmitting drafts that have not been improved, has renamed this draft, but has otherwise only made trivial changes, and so is continuing to resubmit what is actually the same draft tendentiously. I don't want to take the draft to a draft deletion discussion, because the film will be released in early 2022. I am instead requesting that the originator, who has been warned, be partially blocked from editing this draft (which would block resubmission and moving). Robert McClenon (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They are not understanding the AfC process. I would be more for blocking them from submitting articles until they become familiar with the basic guidelines and policies. – The Grid (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I should probably stop submitting for now. ZX2006XZ talk, 13:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Robert McClenon: If I remember correctly, I started a thread about this a few months ago. It was in relation to this exact draft. [164] I would ask for a p-block until January 28th, 2022, given that's the expected release date of the movie. When that occurs this issue will more or less be mooted. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Chess - Thank you for looking it up. Yes. I see that at that point they apologized and said that they would work on improving their drafts. Some of us said that that thread should be closed with a final warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that the editor in question has occasionally used user talk pages, so they do know how user talk pages work. The previous thread seems to have been archived without administrative action, but the editor should have understood that they were warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Monarer - unsourced additions & CIR

    I reported Monarer to ANI last month (thread) but the report (about continued unsourced edits [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] despite warnings) was archived without action. They still add unsourced stuff to articles [172] [173] [174], and they generally just make incompetent edits (changing a translation to a wrong one; adding info sourced to a review that does not support the claim) that need to be cleaned up. A quick look at their contributions shows that the great majority have needed reverting: they are a net-negative to this project. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm issuing a final warning here, if it continues I'll block per WP:CIR. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe Walz edits continue under User:SpiroAgnew1980

    Hello. Over the last several years, several Wikipedia accounts, all tied to verified sockpuppet GeraldFord1980 have continued to make several edits referencing "Joe Walz" on articles relating to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This continues to be done by using legitimate sources to attempt to legitimize rubbish content, which causes frequest page disruptions. I have twice commented on the talk page of the user in question to ask him to stop his disruptive editing, but around the same time I left those comments, there were no less than 3 additional edits from this user in the same vein. This user is not here to constructively contribute to such articles, and is instead clearly focused on doing everything within his power to disrupt such content. It also seems like we no sooner get one account of this sock blocked before one or more additional accounts doing the same types of damage are created and used to further disrupt page content. I'd strongly suggest the user in this case be immediately and permamently blocked, and am hoping there is a way to nip this situation in the bud so it doesn't keep happening. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    SpiroAgnew1980 indeffed by Blablubbs. Deor (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Magherbin disregarding the need for RS and weaponizing SPI

    A while back, I happened upon an uncited mention in Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi that this historical figure belonged to the Abadir dynasty. I pinged Magherbin, the editor who added this to the article, to ask for a source. Since no reliable source was forthcoming, there was a short back-and-forth, during which Magherbin suddenly lashed out [175]: if editors are going to show up pushing Somali POV, i'll continue cleaning up these pages. [...] Its clear you're a Somali POV pusher masquerading as a neutral editor. How are you an RSN volunteer within 4 days of creating an account? The nationalist editors cant distort history here, [...] its up to you guys, if you push a misleading narrative especially on talk pages, I cant allow false information to remain in the articles. Its no surprise that this page is sock prone. Thinking not too much of it, I looked a bit further for sources, eventually finding that the 'Abadir dynasty' itself does not seem to have ever existed. I proceeded to nominate the Abadir dynasty article (which was wholly written by Magherbin) for deletion.

    After this closed as delete yesterday, Maghrebin opened an SPI against me. Now the closing admin of this SPI found the evidence presented unconvincing enough that the filing borders on a personal attack (the filing contained aspersions that went beyond socking like the problem with these socks is not that they're just socking but are highly disruptive). But what I find much more concerning is that Magherbin seems to believe they are fighting sock farms that were maintaining bias in the horn of africa section in articles which I have improved somewhat now (emphasis added) [176], echoing their earlier i'll continue cleaning up these pages. Yet it's them who created an article that was basically a hoax and added unsourced (and unsourceable) links to this on various pages [177] [178] [179] [180].

    In their unblock request back in January 2020, they stated that Many of the articles related to the Horn of Africa either have misleading information or sometimes just made up facts hence I felt that I needed to correct them without harassment from editors by opening another account. Since, they've accused Ayaltimo of sockpuppetry twice [181] [182], as well as Ragnimo (in both previous diffs) and GoldenDragonHorn [183], all without any consequence. In their accusation against GoldenDragonHorn, they stated that What I find interesting between GoldenHorn and the other two editors is their agenda to discredit Arab influence on Somalia by pushing fringe theories on multiple articles, backing this up with a diff of GoldenDragonHorn pointing out the unreliability of sources upon which these Arab founding myths are based. This, assuring that these Arab founding myths are properly represented as myths rather than as history (which would be pseudohistory), is exactly what I've been trying to with regard to these articles (further explanation & diffs in my reply here). It seems that rather than creating socks themselves, accusing others of sockpuppetry is now Magherbin's way of trying to evade the 'harassment' of other editors.

    This combination of tone deafness when being pointed out the unreliability of sources, or even the non-existence (at least in RS) of a concept they wrote an entire article about, with weaponizing SPI to try to get rid of those trying to point out problems is, in my view, completely unacceptable. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bbb23: Sorry, I should have clarified that I was asking if this looked like either Middayexpress or MustafaO, however after a closer look I decided to block the reported account for DS violations and to request the ARBCOM take a look at the Horn of Africa region once more. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a quick note that since this is not by any means a temporary problem, a temporary block isn't likely to solve much, in my view. It would be greatly appreciated if someone would look into this a bit further. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found it! Took me two days, but I did finally manage to track this down: Megherbain was named as a suspected sock account in 2020, believed to be part of the MustafaO farm known to have been active late last year. He came up in the carpet bombing campaign that saw Ragnimo, Ayaltimo, GoldenDragonHorn, and WonderingGeljire hit with sock accusations. In that campaign, it was noted that he had ties to Middayexpress, and the report of April 02, 2019 shows a CU which did in fact identify this user as part of the Middayexpress sock farm for which he was indefblocked. Of great interest here is that the other alleged sock at the time was globally locked - yes you read that right, globally locked - in July 2019 for cross wiki abuse, which then begs the question...why is this account still being allowed to edit? I see in the block log a standard offer which @ST47: accepted in January 2020, but given the other block I am curious to know why the indef block was not re-instituted? TomStar81 (Talk) 14:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TomStar81: Just a few corrections. I never found that Magherbin was a sock of Middayexpress or MustafaO. I found that Magherbin was confirmed to Lokiszm7 and a couple of others, which Magherbin later admitted to when he requested an unblock in January 2020. I don't know why Magherbin's standard offer unblock request was granted, but if you think of that group of accounts as being a separate sock farm, Maghberbin was the master. Normally, if we're going to unblock any account, we unblock the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bbb23: Fair point, but I dare say at the moment both of us need to hear back from ST47 about why this account was unblocked. I can't figure out why, and it looks like you can't either. If it should transpire that this is enough to show the standard offer has been violated then it would be grounds for a perma block, but I want to hear from the others first. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TomStar81: If it should transpire that this is enough to show the standard offer has been violated then it would be grounds for a perma block. I'm not sure I understand what "this" is. When I said I didn't understand why he was unblocked, I meant only that I hadn't looked into that aspect of it. He was unblocked because there was a consensus to do so at the time. It seems like there is a bit too much negative innuendo here. It's not that I'm opposed to an indefinite block or a topic ban; I just want to make sure everyone has the facts straight.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why all I've done is block for disruptive editing and propose a topic ban. I'm too close, and this needs another set of eyes and hands to make a fair judgement. Its up to the community now. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for Topic Ban

    In light of the above and on the assumption that the block will not evolve into a ban, I would propose a topic ban for Megherbin from all Horn of Africa pages, broadly construed. If they are a constructive editor, that should solve the issue by keeping the editor off the pages. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - seems so obvious per the above, I'm surprised we even need to have a discussion about it. I guess having permanent Horn of Africa DS will help with this sort of thing in the future. Levivich 15:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User Çerçok continues on personal attacks and disruptive editing after block

    Hi, the user Çerçok (talk · contribs) continue the similar behavioural pattern of personal attacks to other users now [184] and commenting on other people nationalities[185] after the week long block[186] that he got for the very same reasons and when he personally attacked me[187]. Thanks Othon I (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I see nothing objectionable in Çerçok's postings. They are an accurate reflection of your own disruptive behaviour and that of the other editor involved. We certainly need bans and blocks in this area, which has been rife with national tag-teaming for years, and your own tag-team is the first that needs to be taken out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not expect this petty behaviour from you. No wonder why you take sides instead of being neutral and you harassing me too but I have expressed my opinion about your manners previously. If you didn’t not notice the user has been banned for personal attacks and he made a personal attack to another user again. It’s a shame that this kind answer come from an admin. Othon I (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Othon I: As an uninvolved editor, I don't really see an issue with Çerçok's posts. Your reaction to the "commenting on other people nationalities" one is particularly weird, as it is merely a statement of fact- if Editor X explicitly identifies that they are Canadian (such as through an infobox on their userpage) calling them an Canadian Editor would certainly not constitute a personal attack. However, I do have an issue with your behavior and tendency to push POVs, and agree with Future Perfect that intervention is probably needed to stop this kind of behavior. Perhaps a T-Ban may be in order. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 13:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon my ignorance but really? What kind of POV am I pushing? Or where am I disruptive? Can you point me out? Even for a specific edit I have requested DRN and none even cared. If you believe that the right decisión is to ban me please proceed. But check my history for the last 5 years that I am editing. I have not even added anything without achieving consensus first. About Cercok, he personally attacked me before and then he personally attacked another user. The comment on nationalities you can find it as the reason of his previous ban. Othon I (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits; attempts to disclose purported real-life identity

    Following my (sourced) edits on topics related to the Romanian far-right, recently created User:Danielbughi999 engaged in a pattern of subtle yet disruptive edits. He/she/they repeatedly refereed to me as "Bogdan" (a common Romanian first name) and left me an invitation to join the Inteligence Task Force[188]. Since the account has so far been used exclusively to stalk my edits, I basically see this as a way of subtly sending the message "we know who you are, we have our eyes on". While I'm in no way intimidated I saw fit to report this. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Scrubbed and shown the door. El_C 13:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption at South African farm attacks

    This IP is disrupting the South African farm attacks page with expletive laden edit summaries, insults and such. I can't be bothered going back and sorting them and the vitriol out every ten minutes. They just seem intent pushing their POV. Loudly. see Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:200A:5500:88BB:5F1B:5FE6:CAE4 Mako001 (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I revdel'd and made a dummy edit note. But Mako001, you say I can't be bothered going back and sorting them and the vitriol out every ten minutes, but that IP has made a total of two edits (ditto for the /64). Are there prior edits I've overlooked? El_C 13:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This popped up on my watchlist as I had left a note on IP editor’s talk page asking them not to swear in their edit summaries. I had only seen two edits from the IP. Equine-man (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It seemed like that was going to be the case, (as they had rapidly proved themselves to be intent on pushing their POV with a large stick) but they have now shut up, for a bit. Maybe getting a level 4 for their latest edit, followed by the deletion of that and moving it to AIV got the message across that they should probably stop. I can't exactly continue to AGF when they have used an f-bomb loaded edit summary like that one. I would like to WP:RPP due to the persistent disruption on the page. Almost every edit when unprotected is either an IP adding POV rubbish, or someone reverting said rubbish. I would recommend indef protection, due to the fact that it either stops or slows greatly when protected, with no loss of positive contributions, but resumes as soon as protection is lifted, and it has been protected five times now. Strictly speaking though my comment was inaccurate, so I have struck it. Mako001 (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree those short protection periods seem inadequate for this kind of article; I've semi'd it for a year. Bishonen | tålk 13:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

    Edit conflict at Joy of Satan Ministries

    Bluefin9 and IP vandals repeatedly removing content from article and refuse to come to any resolution despite proposal to debate the conflict on talk page. I've tried to reach out to user's talk page with no avail. Similar issue was also brought up by other IP editor but was dismissed by Spencer. Possible alt accounts. Editor refuses to come to any resolution with disputed content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 16:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC) — BlueGhast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    To provide additional context, the removed content includes links to hate sites associated with the Joy of Satan group, full of antisemitic rants and quotes from false sources such as the Elders of Zion. User above insists that these are meant for further research, but they appear to be using the page for recruitment purposes. --Bluefin9 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I should state that editor is blanking entire section, including official site, under an emotional conviction. There are some I can understand and was willing to work with, but some are integral to the article. The links are intended to provide readers further research into understanding the controversial religious groups ideology, as well as its influence in the development of the theistic Satanist scene. BlueGhast (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't consider any of those links to be appropriate per WP:EL. Woodroar (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? I do not see why the official website would not be appropriate to the least. As well as its secondary official web page. The BFS site is the organization's official webpage for providing readers an understanding of their cultural reinterpretation of the ideology. The odysee link is also the organizations media platform. BlueGhast (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a discussion for the talk page really, not this noticeboard, but FWIW: we tend not to include multiple sites for organisations like this. A single link to their official website would probably be permissible (I note this is already done from the infobox), but we don't need their media platforms or social media sites, etc. This is covered at WP:EL, and at WP:ELNO. The removals appear to be valid, and are certainly not vandalism. Girth Summit (blether) 17:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, EL section will only include official link. BlueGhast (talk)
    We already link to the site in the infobox, so we don't need a second link. Note that we don't put a second link at Stormfront (website), for example. Woodroar (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, but I do not understand the point of keeping the EL section then. I also do not understand why some other religious articles implement this as well.
    Examples:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Set
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Temple
    Care to explain? BlueGhast (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The external links section is useful for official links that aren't already in the infobox (or if there is no infobox), ELYES-appropriate links, etc. It's probably overkill to put official links in the EL sections of those other articles. At the same time, I'm not sure those other links are actively harmful, unlike a group with ties to National Socialism. Woodroar (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I should've said foremost, those links were added there due to a conflict with another editor over what the official site link under the infobox should be. The organization has quite a lot of official webpages for some reason but most notably are SIG and SL. Would it be okay to add the Satan's Library webpage then? It's a multilingual repository of the organization's religious sermons and material produced over the years and only very loosely ties with any major controversial issues. Also, is there any official policy on wikipedia to inform editors on content that is "actively harmful" BlueGhast (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The library already is linked from their official website, so WP:ELMINOFFICIAL says no. Woodroar (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole article is a mess. Unreliable sources, vanity press books, pseudo-academic journals from non-profits, primary sources, a Master's thesis that's not widely cited by other scholars, etc. A doctoral thesis is cited throughout the article but many of those citations are the author giving examples of primary sources or listing organizations, not his own opinion. Meanwhile, academic database searches like JSTOR and Google News return plenty of sources on "Joy of Satan" but none of them are used, which suggests serious POV issues. Woodroar (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright then, that leaves us with the JoS's secondary official website "Satanisgod.org" webpage which kinda serves as the organizations table of contents for users to navigate their various websites. This is also the link that I was having a conflict with other user who made me put them in the EL section. I think this would be more appropriate to the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The search bar at their main site link to and searches that site. Also, keep in mind that we're not here to serve as a directory to all of their sites. Our "job" on Wikipedia is to summarize what reliable, third-party published sources say about Joy of Satan Ministries, not be their mouthpiece. Woodroar (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to make the most of the scarce amount of sources available, but I understand the article needs further work. I've tried reaching out on article talk page for more input and how to maintain a neutral pov, as I always do. BlueGhast (talk)BlueGhast
    Also, article has passed review multiple times. The original article was also brought back from deletion by Liz after proving article had adequate credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned at Talk:Joy of Satan Ministries, this was a procedural restore, not a stamp of approval by Liz. Woodroar (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    CactiStaccingCrane disruptive editing

    User CactiStaccingCrane is engaged in disruptive editing on SpaceX Starship; for more than a month now, they have opposed[[189] and repeatedly attempted to remove the "Criticism and controversies" section from the article despite clear opposition on the talk page[190] as well as a DRN case which concluded that there was no consensus for their proposed changes and therefore the criticism section should stay[191].

    CactiStaccingCrane has been warned multiple times[192][193] that removing the criticism section without consensus is unacceptable and disruptive, but they have continued to do so, without any recent discussion on the talk page to attempt to gain consensus for their edits. They have acknowledged having a bias on subjects related to Elon Musk[194], and antagonized another editor in a separate article related to Musk's ventures[195].

    Edit diffs:

    Stonkaments (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Citation spamming & promotion by User:Crishazzard?

    Greetings admins. I initially brought this concern up to User:Wtmitchell. I first came upon this potential issue when going back to an article which I helped bring up to GA status, Goat Canyon Trestle. Earlier this year a relatively novice editor made an addition to the article to a source which I was not familiar with, HikingGuy.com. The front page of the article has a statement:

    Hi, I’m Cris Hazzard, aka Hiking Guy, a professional hiking guide.

    This name matches the user name of the editor Crishazzard (talk · contribs). I have since removed it from the article, as whether it is a reliable source is debatable. If the user is the creator of the website, for that user it would be a primary source, thus potentially original research, and potentially promotion of their own website.
    Looking at the editors other edits, the editor has added to other articles utilizing the same website (not all examples):

    Now not all edits by this user have only been to add hikingguy.com to an article as a source, but a lot of them are, thus I believe there is potential for user improvement. Also, I don't think the user means to damage the articles they contribute to, but by continuing to add hikingguy.com to articles it is potential citation spamming. Is this a concern? Or, should I just move on to better usage of my time on Wikipedia?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @crishazzard: I'm a primary source, doing original research, and contributing to articles. I'm not sure what type of promotion you think that I'd get from citation links. I can tell you it's probably zero. As a contributor who doesn't live in the Wikipedia universe regularly, seeing an "incident" like this is particularly disheartening, especially as a professional with first-hand experience on the various topics I've addressed. If my research is good enough for the Forest Service to plagiarize, I'm thinking that it's probably good enough for here. Also note, I've also contributed numerous times without citing HikingGuy.com, the website you are questioning as being promoted, which is the source of record for the trails that I've documented. Just let me know if I've violated the terms; I'm not interested in contributing if I'm being labeled a "spammer." I'm happy to back out all my edits and move on. Crishazzard (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crishazzard: please see Wikipedia:No original research. I had mentioned above, that not all your edits have been to include the website, hikingguy.com, and that I beleive that edits were made in the attempt to improve articles. That said, by adding links to the website, as sources, and as external links (example), to the website that you are connected to it can be seen as citation spamming, and promotion of it, and thus a potential conflict of interest to promote your website, hikingguy.com.
    As I stated again, I think you have the best of intentions in doing so, but perhaps this has made you aware of some policies and guidelines which you were not aware of before, and thus will avoid adding primary/original research to articles, and utilize other reliable sources in the future.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 22:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1055277197"