Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Desertambition's hostile edit history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Desertambition habitually accuses other editors of bad faith:

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

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

• Proposal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I don't want this topic to get auto archived again. Can we get more comments on this issue so it can be resolved? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support proposed topic ban to address the disruption, neutral on the indef. I am concerned by them making one statement to get unblocked, and then effectively retracting that statement afterwards, but not enough to support the indef at this time - a final last chance could be beneficial to Wikipedia if it turns them into a productive editor who can collaborate with those working in the same space as them. BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  I would however suggest allowing them to participate in AFDs that cover articles they have created, if such AFDs are opened. BilledMammal (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Closure needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazing how despite all the evidence, an administrator is let alone to even make a comment about what should be done. Bump indeed. TylerBurden (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of TylerBurden insinuating I am sockpuppeting (from the discussion below):

1. [30]

2. [31]

3. [32]

4. Right before posting on ANI: [33] Desertambition (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Nice attempt to try and deflect away from your own report, start a seperate thread if you feel I have violated policies by mentioning that I was suspiscious about your relation with June Parker. TylerBurden (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Should I make a WP:RFCLOSE request to resolve this issue. There does appear to be consensus here, but there's a lot of back and forth that makes it difficult to follow. Nemov (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  Go ahead. This has been open for 21 days now. Viewer⁷¹⁹/_Contribs! 16:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, I've initiated a request. Nemov (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

On my DYK contributions

Summary of DYK process on Wikipedia

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

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

Table for Successful DYKs [34]

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

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

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

My entire DYK contributions timeline

My entire DYK contributions timeline Diff No. Date Event Notes DYK Credits QPQ expected from the DYK Nominator? Is user expected to review Other DYKs ? [35] 16 Dec 1st DYK nomination submitted for review, later closed as unseccessful as improvements were not done in one month time 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [36] 17 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 10 Jan) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [37] 22 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 10 April) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [38] 27 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 18 Jan) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [39] 27 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 11 Feb) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [40] 11 Jan DYK nomination submitted for review, later closed as unsuccessful by Narutolovehinata5 as timely improvements were not made 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 1 14 Jan First DYK credit successful 1 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [41] 15 Jan DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 1 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 2 22 Jan 2nd DYK credit successful 2 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [42] 10 Feb DYK nomination submitted for review. later closed as unsuccessful on 10 Feb 2 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs Diff No. Date Event Notes DYK Credits QPQ expected from the DYK Nominator? Is user expected to review Other DYKs ? 3 16 Feb 3rd DYK credit successful 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [43] 23 Feb DYK nomination submitted for review 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [44] 22 Mar DYK closed Narutolovehinata5 did an involved closure of the discussed he participated in, as unsuccessful. I requested for a review, but was ignored by Narutolovehinata5. Other users pointed involved closure, I asked to re-open, my request ignored By Narutolovehinata5 who did not undo the close. I gave up pursuing this. 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [45] 23 Mar DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 4 2 Apr 4th DYK credit successful 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [46] 4 Apr DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [47] 6 Apr DYK Rules changed the WP:DYKRULES werr changed by Theleekycauldron from checking for DYK Credits, to check for "nominations" (successful or unsuccessful or whatever) [48] 7 Apr DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [49] 7 Apr DYK Rules restored I objected to the change as no new RfC had been done and the change required an RfC. I asked the proposer to conduct an RfC for the proposed change. My request ignored. No RfC started. Diff No. Date Event Notes DYK Credits QPQ expected from the DYK Nominator? Is user expected to review Other DYKs ? Reviews done [50] 19:28, 7 Apr DYK reviewed Reviewed another dyk even though not expected to review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 1 [51] 22:31 7 Apr Harassment New thread started by Schwede66 to attack me over my objections saying that I am a newbie with strong opinions. Schwede66 Made several inaccurate statements, admonished me for not reviewing DYKs and at the same time admittedly conveniently ignoring that 3 hours ago, I had already done my first review following the changed rules. Schwede66 started a thread claiming that I was not reviewing DYKs and yet calls the fact that I had already started reviewing, as "irrelevant" and not worth commenting. In this comment Schwede66 wrongly accuses me of saying "I don't need to do QPQs" he gave no diffs and I never said that. Schwede66 continued later, [52] [53] 1 [54] 8 Apr Rfc Started to discuss DYK Rule change No RfC was started for a day, So I go ahead and start the RfC linking the diff and seeking opinion for the new change of WP:DYKRULES, and I note my objections as oppose !vote. The new rules essentially demanded new users without successful DYK credits to review other nominations 1 [55] 8 Apr Rfc closed in 12 hours Several users voted as support and oppose, yet the RfC was inappropriately closed within 12 hours of starting. I did not object to this closure, even though I believed the closure was not appropriate. Essentially I WP:DROPped the WP:STICK 1 [56] 12 Apr DYK reviewed Reviewed another dyk even though not expected to review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 2 5 14 Apr 5th DYK credit successful 5 QPQ expected Nominator expected to review DYKs 2 [57] 14 Apr DYK reviewed Reviewed another dyk 5 QPQ expected Nominator expected to review DYKs 3 At the time of writing, I have 5 Successful DYK nominations, 3 unsuccessful and 4 are awaiting review.

Policy disagreement on a recent change of rule

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

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

Harassment

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

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

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

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

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

I have added few more diffs in the table row 7 April, Some attacks with factually inaccurate statements and slander are these [58] [59] [60] [61], in the last thread Joseph2302 attacks me and claims I have started tonnes of QPQ discussion threads when they were started by Narutoloveninata5 or Theleekycauldron. The only thread I started was RfC for seeking dispute resolution. Venkat TL (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I am as concerned at others about Venkat's intense focus on the QPQs, and whether he does or does not have to complete them. That is such a strange thing for someone to focus this much attention on. Even stranger for a new editor, whose account was created in August 2021. But then Venkat's made over 20,000 edits in these last nine months (that's about 75 edits a day, every day) [62], of which only about 4,000 are semi-automated [63]. That leaves me wondering if this is a continuation of some older dispute. Anyone who can put out 16,000 non-automated edits in 9 months (that's about 60 non-automated edits every day!) would not be trying to delay doing a QPQ for DYK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:BOOMERANG

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

  [64][65] You are proposing a topic ban without any ongoing disruption or evidence of disruption. In the last 6 days I have not posted 'anything' on WT:DYK. How is that for a demonstration? In my opening post above also I have noted that I am not pursuing either of the said issues. Those issues and incidents from 2 weeks ago and earlier, were only posted here to give a context, not to re-litigate anything. I have moved on. . So please clarify what "ongoing disruption" do you seek to contain by proposing this topic ban? If any type of BAN is imposed without clear evidence of ongoing disruption, then I assure I will abandon editing altogether. I am not contributing here for any sort of winning or defeats. Perhaps my retirement is what Narutolovehinata5 and friends intend to achieve from all this targeting. I believe a retirement would be ultimate demonstration of WP:DROPping the WP:STICK. --Venkat TL (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'd like to point out in conjunction with what JBL said above, this is clearly a user whose battleground behavior extends far beyond DYK. Just on these noticeboards, there are numerous examples ([66] [67] [68] [69]) displaying clear battleground behavior, bludgeoning discussions, and making everything personal; all of this can even be seen in this thread. Curbon7 (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support any kind of topic ban although I generally favor indefinite to be lifted on an appeal showing clue. DYK is a very important part of Wikipedia and should be protected from people who devote too much time and energy to arguments. Whether the details of Venkat TL's statement are correct is not relevant—life is not always smooth and we have to live with what happens. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from DYK, to be appealed no sooner than six months. Venkat TL is warned that taking this type of behavior to other areas of the encyclopedia is likely to lead to an indefinite sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. Venkat TL seems entirely unable to grasp that DYK is supposed to have a collegial atmosphere and is completely incompatible with their battleground attitude. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban/appeal in 6 months possible. Evidence is clear that Venkat TL's battleground mentality and incessant wiki-lawyering over what is supposed to be a light-hearted part of the encyclopedia is creating a hostile working environment over there. --Jayron32 17:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Commnet I do not support an outright ban. A limited ban is appropriate. I also think that if Venkat TL agrees to abide by the rules and stop being argumentative, it would go to greatly shorten the ban. --evrik ^(talk) 00:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as above. I already suggested this on the DYK talk boards, but I had been leaning towards the thought that maybe the discussion there might have convinced Venkat TL that their battleground approach was unproductive and to back down, making this step unnecessary. Unfortunately, Venkat TL's behavior in bringing this to ANI preemptively before someone else brought them there makes it clear that the battleground behavior is still ongoing. That is incompatible with the cooperative process needed to make DYK (or really any of the rest of the encyclopedia editing) work. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban from DYK or Support topic ban from South Asia per diffs provided by Curbon7. The battleground mentality and comprehension problems with the user extend beyond DYK. I don't think that letting him off with a topic ban from mere DYK will do enough good given the continued display of WP:IDHT and battleground mentality in this sub-thread alone. GenuineArt (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Note I have made a recent reply hereVenkat TL (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I hope the admins reading the 'entire' thread are able to see this slander campaign being run using over exaggerated recycled old stuff by users having an axe to grind. --Venkat TL (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Battleground mentality unabated, I note. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Despite the comments above claiming that they have moved on or have learned from their experience, their comment above still showing the incivility and lack of good faith that got them into trouble in the first place only further makes me feel that a topic ban is necessary. In fact, given their attitude in this discussion despite the promise to change and improve their behavior, not to mention the diffs raised by other editors, I'm wondering if a DYK-only topic ban is sufficient or if a topic ban from Indian politics broadly construed is also necessary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• @Venkat TL: Do you know what a topic ban is? Or what this particular proposal is about? Your recent comment confused me. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as above. Their inability to AGF and refusal to apologize for their negative characterizations of others even when their uncivil behavior has been pointed out shows no sign of abating. Since "retirement" can end at any time, the ban should go forward. It can always be lifted a significant period of collegial behavior. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• I came here from Venkat TL's talk page. I oppose a topic ban since they have apologized and said they would move on. Considering their successful DYK nominations, I would recommend giving them second chance. - SUN EYE 1 05:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Considering they made a comment above claiming that editors had "an axe to grind" and accused them of "slander", and said comment was made after their apology, I have some doubts if their apology and desire to move on are sincere. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Suneye1: the topic ban is not proposed because of one incident, it was proposed, and is supported by other editors because of their overall behavior, like comments "sadistic pleasure", and battleground behavior. It is a topic ban, a very narrow one at that. They are free to edit rest of the Wikipedia which is around 99%. Nobody is stopping them from that. Like BlueMoonset said right before your comment, [the ban] can always be lifted [after] a significant period of collegial behavior. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Given what is here and what is there in the archives at DYK, I support an indefinite tban for Venkat TL. In case, they learn from this (no less than six months), I'd support for the removal of ban. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC) (Note: I'm changing my mind per VR's comments below. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 16:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• I support a warning at this time, not a topic ban, as Venkat has apologized for their behavior and promised not to do so again ([70][71][72][73]). Venkat has been a prolific contributor so I'm inclined to give them another chance. If a topic ban is supported, I would recommend a shorter appeal time (3 months?). This is clearly a user who, as Levivich noted above, who makes a lot of edits and from their comments it seems they're a fast learner. So if they are able to demonstrate more friendly behavior in a shorter period of time they should be able to make an appeal.VR _talk 16:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

The new tool, which counts nominations rather than credits, is at [74], although it's still a work in progress. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Venkat TL has retired from Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've listed it at RFCL. BilledMammal (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• I am curious, what happens when a user retires when he is on the verge of getting blocked? Does the community goes on andblock them? Akshaypatill (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  They never used to. In the past, they would usually just drop the proceedings against that user and then proceed to lament the fact that their sanctions led a productive user to quit Wikipedia. Now, of course, it's become common knowledge that users who retire during an ANI usually come back when sufficient time has passed and thus return to their disruptive behaviors. As a result, retirement is usually acknowledged but otherwise ignored. WaltCip-(talk) 12:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• bump. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

BoMadsen88

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree with Firefangledfeathers; I believe the block should be lifted, with encouragement for the editor to spend a little less time editing Musk-related articles and a little more time editing other articles. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Uh, new comments go at the bottom. Weird placement. Had I not looked at the revision history in passing, I'd have not seen it. Anyway, I'm not unblocking either user. They both can appeal their block in the usual way. Appeals which I'm unlikely to comment on, either way (because because). El_C 01:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Just chiming in to add that I also believe QRep2020 is a good faith editor and valuable contributor to the project. When I started editing a few years back, all articles on Wikipedia related to Musk were extremely biased and promotional, failing to mention almost all of the well-documented criticism and controversies surrounding Musk and his companies. The number of trolls who still to this day try to change Musk's article to call him a business magnet is indicative of the "reality distortion field" surrounding Musk[75][76][77], and QRep has been one of the few active contributors pushing back to maintain neutrality. So while they may have been overly zealous at times, and a warning could certainly be warranted, I believe that the block was premature as they have made a very valuable contribution by providing some much needed balance in this subject area. Stonkaments (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh my God! He admit it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems that they listed a few here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_167#QRep2020. Personally, I am not convinced, and giving QRep another chance and see how it goes would be much better (that however does not mean that QRep is free of problems, it is best left to others to decide). However, Elephanthunter have very strong evidences of canvassing outside of Wikipedia in Reddit ([78], [79], [80], search result of QRep2020 on Reddit). In fact, a boomerang may apply here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Three questions:

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

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

• Private evidence submitted to Arb. Schierbecker (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Breaking nonsense: James Randal buys Twitter (Shut up me). El_C 00:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. By the way, is Reaper_Eternal's interpretation, the one posted on on my Talk page, of what my violations consisted of accurate? QRep2020 (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know why people keep pointing to this diff as a BLP vio when

  1. the line had been in the article for a year (since Special:Diff/1018696069)
  2. it was supported in an RFC (Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 9#RfC about Musk's treatment of employees), and
  3. it was in the version that was promoted to GA (Special:Permalink/1026867820).

  All of these three points have been raised in this ANI thread and also on the talk page at Talk:Elon Musk#"total and complete pathological sociopath". Turns out, consensus changed, and the line was removed, but that was after. No BLP violation that diff. Above I asked for three "bad" diffs, and this ain't one of them. Levivich 17:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_2#Founders Certain users (QRep2020) involved in biographies policy violations participated in the conversation. I propose a new conversation about the founders of Tesla. A lawsuit settlement agreed to by Eberhard and Tesla in September 2009 allows all five – Eberhard, Tarpenning, Wright, Musk, and Straubel – to call themselves co-founders. --JShark (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It runs deep... I shouldn't have been involved in this thread. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This, and your edits to Tesla, Inc. come close to WP:GRAVEDANCING - Behaving as though a consensus is no longer valid simply because a blocked or banned editor contributed to it. Whilst consensus can change, the simple act of blocking does not change it - if you wish to overturn the previous consensus then further input should be sought. If you want to overturn the consensus, then open a discussion, but the status of QRep2020 is not relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

QRep2020 isn't even being "blocked" in the usual sense, which further invalidate JShark's argument. I have fear that this ANI thread is becoming (or have been per off-wiki Reddit posts) a place for people hate and love Musk clash together, and I hope some administrator would lose this asap. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

If We're handing out topic blocks I think JShark has also gone out of their way to earn one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

User:AbsolutelyFiring

• AbsolutelyFiring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Suicide Squad (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 3RR complaint about The Suicide Squad (film)

Over the last few months I have had several disputes with AbsolutelyFiring, primarily at The Suicide Squad (film), which did not go their way after numerous reverts and discussions. Last week they raised a WP:ANEW claim against me which they manufactured by combining diffs from many different issues involving many different users and many different talk page discussions over those months. The claim was closed and referred here (see archive of the claim at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive450#User:Adamstom.97 reported by User:AbsolutelyFiring (Result: Referred to ANI. )). They did not take the issue further, but have continued to re-revert me and ignore talk page discussions at other articles in what is certainly starting to feel like intentional harassment. The two most recent issues are:

• The Batman (film): the user added details to the lead that are not clearly supported by the body of the article. I reverted this change with an explanation, but they chose to ignore WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, re-revert me, and leave a talk page comment that used information from outside of the article to support it being in the lead and accused me of having "instinctively reverted without checking". I responded to this comment by clearly explaining that I had checked, that I do not have it out for this person as they seem to think, and that their change is still not supported by the article, but to no avail. The unsupported content is currently still in the lead.
• Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom: I reverted an IP editor that added an unsourced synopsis to this article, and this user came out of nowhere to revert me stating that a source was not needed. This is obviously not the case and should not be a controversial revert at all, which I explained properly in my next revert. The user then reverted me again, and simply named a MOS section that does not support their case. Another user has since removed the unsourced content from the article, for now.

Normally I would not take action against another user like this, as I would prefer to just move on and spend my time on Wikipedia more productively, but is difficult when even the most straightforward and uncontentious edits are reverted for no good reason. The first issue is not an uncommon disagreement for film articles and almost always gets resolved after the discussion is completed, but that seems unlikely when the other editor is just assuming that I am "instinctively revert[ing]" them and isn't willing to engage in good faith discussion. I even suggested the ideal next steps for resolving the issue but they dismissed this as too much work. To have the second issue happen at the same time, with blatant edit warring over clearly unsourced material in a different article where they weren't originally involved, makes it feel like I am being targeted. Add to that all the unnecessary edit warring, bad faith assuming, and talk page ignoring that this user has been doing over the last few months and I think it is clear that something needs to be done.

I'm not even sure if this is the right forum or what the correct outcome should be here, I just came here since the ANEW closer suggested it. The ideal outcome for me would be for this user to stop harassing me and learn how to work in with other editors by following good practices such as WP:BRD. I don't get to spend as much time on Wikipedia these days as I used to and the last thing I want to be dealing with is a user who can't handle being reverted (something that most of us had to learn about a long time ago) and who edit wars to force other users to give up so their version gets to stay without consensus. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The user Adamstom.97 is into ownership behavior and imposes his edit version by force. He especially seems to target me deliberately. I'm tired of edit-warring against him. I usually edit DC film articles so noticed his revert on The Batman (film) and later Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.

He targeted me out of nowhere claiming the criticisms of the film I added to the lede weren't mentioned in the "Reception" section [81]. Even after explaining to him that the "Reception" section does and citing the quotes from reviews. Instead he denies it and in bad faith claims I'm cherrypicking and biased. Tells me to read and add more reviews just to satsify him. When the point is thag the criticisms were made by "some" criticise, not all.

Later I reverted him on Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom while checking that article. Because it's a plot addition and common knowledge, and doesn't require source per WP:PLOT. [82]

Although I've restrained after being reverted on both articles by others. [83] and [84]. So Adamstom's claim that I want to force other users is untrue.

He doesn't bother to discuss himself and then accuses others of not discussing while telling them not to edit again using BRD or STATUSQUO which aren't even policies. I made a complain of long-term edit-warring against him here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive450#User:Adamstom.97 reported by User:AbsolutelyFiring (Result: Referred to ANI. ). He also made uncivil comments against me earlier. Plus this user has been blocked for edit-warring twice before, see their block log.

I've already self-reverted multiple times or let the situation go so as to not create more of a dispute on The Suicide Squad (film): [85], [86], [87], [88]. I'm tired of him. I don't have any problem with discussion and consensus, but he always creates a dispute and an edit war until h3 is satisfied or I give up. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I've added indentation to the post above so that the thread doesn't come across as an unreadable wall of text. The plot summary added to Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom is a copyright violation. WP:PLOT says nothing about needing or not needing sources. The relevant guideline is WP:FILMPLOT, which says sources are required for films have not yet been released. Rotten Tomatoes provides a ready-made summary of a film's critical reception. For popular films, industry magazines, such as Variety, often post more in-depth coverage of what critics thought. It is trivially easy to find reliable sources that describe the critical consensus of a Hollywood blockbuster. Wikipedia editors should not cherry-pick reviews and synthesize their own Rotten Tomatoes-style summary in the lead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

As AbsolutelyFiring has noted in their own reply, multiple other editors also reverted them and the same applies to many of the previous disagreements that this user has escalated. If this was a case of me targeting them then those other editors probably wouldn't see the same basic issues that I am seeing. NinjaRobotPirate has very simply laid out the answer to both of these issues, they clearly did not need to get to this point but AbsolutelyFiring turned them both into silly edit wars anyway. Accusing me of "ownership behavior" is ridiculous when I have put so much effort into explaining why the changes were not correct. Reverting an unsourced copyright violation is not ownership behaviour. Reverting lead changes that are not supported by the article body and asking the user to follow WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO is not ownership behaviour. Having to fight every time this user makes a bad edit because they would rather edit war than discuss is not ownership behaviour. They may be "tired" of being challenged over their bold edits, but I am sick of them thinking they can do whatever they want without discussion or courtesy. I have been editing film and TV articles for more than 10 years and every now and again someone comes along who thinks they don't need to work in with the rest of us, this appears to be one of those cases and it is sad since it is so unnecessary and avoidable. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Other editors reverting me doesn't exempt you from the fact that yes you are targeting me. They reverted because there was an edit-war going on. You however claimed that what I added was not in the "Reception" section. Which was outright false as I didn't add anything that wasn't in the section. When I pointed that out, you transitioned to "cherrypicking". Whether someone feels like I've cherrypicked is another thing, that wasn't my intention and I'll hold off the edits then. What's important is that you did misrepresent my edits without checking the "Reception" section. The previous time you dismissed my claims of you edit-warring claiming bad edits can be reverted and thus it's not an edit war [89]. You are clearly a dishonest user. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

There you go again, trying to make it out that I was wrong to say "bad edits can be reverted" when that is a very simple fact. Do you seriously believe that you are exempt from being reverted because you think your edits were correct? The fact that multiple other editors have said they are not should tell you that you are in the wrong and need to discuss rather than re-revert. The same goes for continuously adding controversial information to the home media section at The Suicide Squad (film) despite knowing full well that other editors had taken issue with that content and were still discussing it at the talk page! When you are an editor on Wikipedia there are always going to be times where you get reverted and have to discuss your changes, and times where you need to hold off on making bold changes that other editors have already objected to and are currently discussing. You don't just get to ignore the process and do whatever you want. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It was just you reverting me on The Suicide Squad (film) and I pointed out explicitly that what you were doing at the time was an edit war. You refused to recognize it and claimed it's not.

Also while you tell others to not revert while discussing, it is notable that you don't apply that to yourself and don't restrain from reverting during an ongoing discussion. For example you revert here despite replying to a discussion at the talk page of The Batman (film). And this was your 2nd revert. Per WP:3RR (an actual policy) you're not exempted either from not reverting. It's you ignoring the process yourself.

The others who reverted me on The Batman (film) didn't make up false claims like I added something that wasn't in the article. Or shift goalposts later like you did when I pointed out that what I added is in the article. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Multiple editors opposed your bold changes to The Suicide Squad and consensus ended up being against you, no matter how many times you continued to add disputed content to the section while it was being discussed. The revert diff you linked above and the revert made by the other user were also completely consistent with the point that I have been making (follow BRD and STATUSQUO). You keep trying to talk around the fact that you don't want to follow these two very simple guidelines that are designed to make working in with other people easier and less contentious. As I have been saying continuously, re-reverting everyone who disagrees with bold changes that you make and then accusing them of edit warring is not the way to work in with the community here. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

AbsolutelyFiring blocked as a sock puppet of LéKashmiriSocialiste. Logged-out edits make the connection even clearer. There were several other accounts edit warring across a few topics, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The now-blocked user left a pretty nasty personal attack at their own talk page, which I reverted, but I think it should be revdeleted as well: [90]. —El Millo (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have analyzed the situation, and want to offer my input on the situation. Adamstom did NOT break any protocol and assume bad faith. He simply told AbsolutelyFiring to follow WP:UNDUE and simply offered him a clear and precise explanation on why he reverted the edits, which he just arbitrarily decided to add. User JoeBro64, who is also a common editor on the article, also was in line with Adamstom's idea, and I agree, as I believe Firing did not read the reviews. I can be technical on why I believe Firing was wrong, but I do believe that this necessarily yet. I have somewhat followed their edit conflict on TSS film talk page, and did see that Firing did go against the WP:STATUSQUO and constantly reinstated his own edits even despite the consensus being against him. Judging from the situation on TB, Firing did definitely initiate the situation, as he began by accusing him of WP:BADFAITH and calling him biased, even though he never said anything along those lines, he simply told him to examine the reviews closer. I also don't think that he exerts any "ownership" or "imposing" behavior, he is simply doing his task as a Wikipedia editor in adhering to all the policies and improving the quality of the article by removing redundant information, and should have a strict stance on unconstructive edits, as they should not be within the article. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

User Julian Alden and SaucySoup posting link to a possibly phishing site

Julian Alden (talk · contribs)

SaucySoup (talk · contribs)

Both users are changing links on HSA Bank. While this might be some normal vandalism, my concern is that they are changing the link to this site that is very similar to the official login page that can be accessed by going to the official site of the bank. The phony login site is similar to the official login site, I am suspicious that this is a malicious attempt to get the login information of HSA Bank customers.

While this is just standard vandalism, I feel that this could have an impact on the public in general, and request admin action for an immediate block of both users, and if necessary, do a revdel on their edits. SunDawntalk 15:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Working on it. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

That does look decidedly dodgy. I have blocked, and I think I will revdel those edits as pure disruption. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Girth Summit beat me to the blocks. I did revdel the websites as likely phishing EvergreenFir (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the very prompt response Girth Summit and EvergreenFir! SunDawntalk 15:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Are these compromised accounts? One of them was used to make a couple of childish "I hate studying this at school" edits 2 years ago, and the other account was made 3 years ago but wasn't used. It might also be worth adding the site to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, it's already been added to the global blacklist [91]. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I asked martin to add it as a result of this thread - which brings me to my next task, figuring out a way to prevent this from happening again. It's not the first time I've seen similar edits to banking articles, and I think we've gotta figure out a way to prevent this whether it's by filter or something else. Especially on smaller projects. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to 192.76.8.70 for pointing out the age of those accounts - I confess I didn't look too hard at them when I blocked. Looking at them again, there's not much more I can say - from a CU perspective, they are  Confirmed to one another, but there are no other accounts that look similar operating out of the same range, so I can't connect it to anybody else. Can't say any more than that really. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit There's a whole load more accounts in the recent history of HSA Bank trying to get people to go to the same link via reddit. [92] These also all seem to be compromised, ancient accounts with normal looking edits that have been hijacked for spamming, are these the same person? 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

There's also accounts spamming the same stuff into user pages, e.g. User:Buccherese/sandbox 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the steer, 192. I have just blocked a lot of old accounts. This is obviously coordinated, but CU doesn't help - please let me know if you see anything else. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 19:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@PRAXIDICAE: there are antiphishing sites that offer an api for automated requests. Wikimedia could cache the current list of "OK" sites and query the api for new sites. For example, https://www.ipqualityscore.com/threat-feeds/malicious-url-scanner . You could block attempts to add phishing and perhaps autoblock the user/ip address as well. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Zamindars of Bihar, unreliable source

I have started a discussion on the Talk Page of the Zamindars of Bihar relating to an unreliable Hindi language source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zamindars_of_Bihar&diff=1084449503&oldid=1019850101

I also started a discussion on Wikipedia noticeboard for reliable sources with consensus being that it is not a reliable source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=1084582085&oldid=1084572904

The user @Heba Aisha: has previously reported me (on frivolous grounds) for being a sockpuppet (which failed spectacularly) and seems to have an issue with every edit I make. After I removed the source, he started calling me a vandal. I feel like admin intervention is needed as this user is repeatedly trying to start a fight even after discussion indicated it was not a reliable source.RuudVanClerk (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"Unreliable" and "Hindi language" are totally independent of one other. The language a source is written in reveals noting about its reliability. So some Hindi-language resources are unreliable, just like some English resources are unreliable. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 18:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

RuudVanClerk, reporting any editor for assuming similar behaviour compared to a blocked editor is not any policy violation. The WP: Sockpuppetry is made for this only. Second, i reverted you on Zamindars of Bihar as you seems to be unaware of WP:RS, Hindi sources are also reliable and can be used. I would like to draw admins attention on some of your edits, which amounts to lack of competence and as according to WP:CIR, you should made yourself aware of basic editing policies

1. When you put the discussion on Reliable source noticeboard, you got [93] this comment from an editor and he also says that he has no reason to believe that that was not a reliable source. You should have waited for more comments, as these discussions could go longer.But without getting proper consensus, you removed it citing wrong consensus in edit summary [94] .
2. I would like to draw admins attention on WP:CIR issue with you. Let me just give an example: in an article related to politics you were putting image of agricultural caste group and despite being told about MOS:LEADIMAGE, you were not getting it [95], the image was finally removed by TrangaBellam [96] and you refrained from reaching that talk page again as you had no conclusive argument. Besides this you were involved in edit wars to restore same image on different articles without understanding properly about WP: MOSIMAGE, here [97] ,[98]
3. Also, i assume that you will bring me here anyhow as [99], here when the Sockpuppetry investigation ended, you were eager in asking the admin about any sanction in order to book me.
4. It seems that many a times you involve in WP:GAMING on talk pages. Like here you reverted and brought the matter to talk page [100], later admin himself jumped into the matter to disagree with the image you tried to use in the article. [101]
5. seems to have an issue with every edit I make, now this statement is totally frivolous as looking at your contribution and mine one can easily see that i have reverted one or two edits of yours and not following every edits of yours on various articles. After ending of Sockpuppet investigation, i reverted the edit on Zamindars of Bihar only and that too because you made mistake there. I didn't touched other pages where you are editing.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
6. About Sockpuppetry investigation i filed earlier: I don't consider it my fault. Both the users were editing and backing each other in such a manner that it was normal for anyone to think that they are related. Recently, i made this comment [102] on talk page of Zamindars of Bihar and anyone can see that this is a normal comment related to articles of same topic area. But, i was surprised to see the behaviour of both these editors.[103][104].
7. Don't Know why he is so eager. They filed another report here meanwhile we are discussing their conduct here [105]
8. Recently, I came across an article nominated for delition by @RuudVanClerk:, the article is about Churaman Ahir. Here, i came across this comment in the deletion discussion [106], this comment also clarifies that RuudVanClerk is novice with respect to various policies, in particular WP:GNG here. I would like to propose topic ban in the "South Asian social group" category as per WP: Boomerang for RuudVanClerk, untill they learn the basic policies. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

   Would probably help your case if you knew how to spell “delition”… Do be aware that this is the English-language Wikipedia and general competency in the English language is required. RuudVanClerk (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

We have WP:GOCE for correction and writing an article is a tough task unlike just reverting. Currently, i am not able to comment properly because of other reasons (i am on cellphone). But, with this comment you are getting involved in Persona attack. Please read WP:NPA. Requesting admins to topic ban RuudVanClerk to give him proper time to learn about Wikipedia and it's policies. Heba Aisha (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

So after a failed attempt to have me banned for sock puppetry accusations, you are now attempting to have me topic banned for a notability template. We are also seeing off-topic comments on a deletion request involving me and threats of “scrutinising” articles I have edited. Looks like WP:Harassment to me. RuudVanClerk (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't filed this report. Please, be aware that the behaviour of all participants in this discussion can be scrutinized. I can see you disrupting a lot of pages, that's why it is necessary to give you time to edit other topic areas untill you learn basic guidelines.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Harrassment, urgent admin attention needed please

I have tried to get admins involved in this dispute with no luck and the situation has now developed further.

The user in question, @Heba Aisha: created a frivolous sockpuppet investigation against myself which failed (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kroshta/Archive). Following this they are now attempting to have me topic-banned for merely posting a notability template see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1085301718

They are also posting off-topic comments on a article for deletion discussion that borders on personal attacks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Churaman_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1085300935

They are also threatening to “scrutinize” articles that I have previously edited as some sort of tit for tat see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zamindars_of_Bihar&diff=prev&oldid=1085302717

As this demonstrates, I am being targeted on all angles and the admins seem to be turning a blind eye.RuudVanClerk (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion already going on above titled "Zamindars of Bihar, unreliable source". I don't see the purpose of putting several notices on my talk page for minor issues and accusing admins too of being biased. I don't know, why you are so eager.You should be aware that discussions need time to reach proper conclusion. For the admins who visit here, i would like to request that they should visit the earlier discussion first, where i have provided evidence misbehaviour and lack of competence on the part of user @RuudVanClerk:. Heba Aisha (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Heavy Off-Wiki Canvassing

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

---

There is currently a very intense AFD discussion about a person called Gonzalo Lira (AfD discussion). From what I can gather, the subject is famous in the Incel community and fringes of the alt-right and far-left (contradictory as that might be; the common demoninator seems to be anti-mainstream, anti-society, pro-Putin and some conspiracy theories). None of that is ANI-worthy, but what stands out is the extreme off-wiki canvassing going on. In more than ten years at Wikipedia, I've never seen so many WP:SPA accounts in the same discussion, all of them shouting that the page must be kept (whereas most established users point out the lack of WP:NOTABILITY.) To be clear: while all SPAs shout 'Keep', that doesn't mean every 'keep' comment is a SPA. A handful of established users also say keep, and that's of course fine Given how heated the discussion has become, with heavy personal attacks from of the SPAs, and the sheer amount of off-wiki canvassing, some admin overview might be needed before it completely spirals out of control. Jeppiz (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Do you think it's bad enough that semi-protection is warranted? I just skimmed through the discussion, and while there are a lot of unregistered users commenting and a couple newer accounts, I think a closing admin would be able to parse who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't in trying to judge consensus. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Considering this AfD would also fall under Eastern Europe/Balkans sanctions as the subject has vlogged quite a bit about the war, I'd recommend erring on the side of caution. I don't think any of us want WP:EEML redux. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
    • User:Jéské Couriano - Didn't we already have something close to WP:EEML with Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes?
• I actually tried to draw some attention to this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Football-related AFDs. Levivich there was talking about making a case with 2 sources, which I repeatedly pushed for people to do in this AFD discussion. I think that a closing administrator won't have trouble filtering out the non-policy rationales. I had to reverse some early refactoring attempts directing people to "vote" and moving comments out of chronological order such as Special:Diff/1083954787.

  Yes clearly this is an influx of novices who haven't a clue about our content standards, supported by regular editors who should know better, but are sadly doing the usual thing of waving at search engine results and not actually citing, or reading for themselves, what the search engines turn up. But an experienced closer should recognize that. I certainly do, and I always try to push such people to do better, and not put in such zero-effort contributions, because they actually do end up being given less weight.

  I've had more than ten years too. I've seen this pattern many times before. This isn't anywhere near the worst that I've seen, though. There were reasons that {{notavote}} et al. were invented in the first places. ☺

  Uncle G (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  • @Uncle G If you discuss an editor here (as you're clearly doing since you've used the same language here[107] and in your reply to me there[108], you have to notify them.--Jahaza (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Really? How's that? What's under discussion is whether this AfD has gotten enough out of hand to require admin supervision/semi-protection. (Since this is one of the worst cases of SPA-bombing I've seen in the many hundreds of AfDs in which I've participated, I'd say it does.) So far, the conduct of individual editors is not under question. The requirement to notify editors is yoked to the potential for those editors to be admonished or sanctioned. This is not the case here. Ravenswing 10:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Vikramkarikalan

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

User's talk page is filled with warnings asking him to stop adding unsourced information / altering sourced information, yet he ignores them and keeps on doing the same.

Some examples; [109] [110] [111] [112] [113]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, his editing history is highly problematic. He seems to take the attitude of "because I say the sources are wrong, I can change the data to whatever I want". That's not how Wikipedia works. --Jayron32 11:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I've pblocked the editor from Article space for a period to prevent further disruption. Maybe that will make the editor engage in a more productive discussion. Oz\^InterAct 13:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Right after his block expired he proceeded to do the same [114]. This was his reply to his block [115]. This is problematic. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

More [116] [117]. One may begun to wonder if WP:NOTHERE applies. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

And again [118]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to Essendon Football Club

Many new accounts and IPs are making disruptive edits to Essendon Football Club. Protection already requested at WP:RPP but disruption is ongoing. FozzieHey (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Page is now protected, not sure if anyone wants to check the accounts / IPs. FozzieHey (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • It was childish vandalism related to the outcome of a recent sports match. The sad part is the Collingwood supporters that don't even know how to spell Jack Ginnivan's name. Not much to be done about the IP addresses, but the single-purpose accounts are blocked, in the hope that the point about not coming to Wikipedia to scribble over an opposing team's article is made. Uncle G (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

History is cool122222222

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

---

History is cool122222222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Removed sourced info [119] [120] [121]

Replies to warnings with comments such as Shut up and Are u bot or human --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indef for vandalism-only account. Next time, these ones can go to WP:AIV Oz\^InterAct 19:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Mass removals of content from articles without any attempt at constructive editing

An IP editor occupying the following range: 2603:7000:2143:8500:454C:4914:BC97:487F/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been on a crusade to purge all articles related to Belarus and Russia (mostly, but not exclusively) from of data that has citation needed tag, and has been doing so at an alarming rate for the past two months, with barely any attempt to actually add anything. User has received multiple warnings regarding this, spread across several of his IPs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc), and even engaged in a somewhat of a discussion (here), but their only response to everything is playing wp:burden card. This makes me wonder if they're actually wp:nothere to improve the wiki. --BlameRuiner (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

And yet WP:BURDEN is a thing and Citation needed tags are a courtesy. What I see are several editors re-adding unsourced content with belief that a cn tag is sufficient to allow unsourced material to remain. Along with editors mis-using templates to warn an editor whose edits are proper. Now, there choice of topic ares may be a concern, but that would be a discretionary sanctions issue. I don't see how it is WP:NOTHERE as editing includes ensuring the encyclopedia is verifiable.Slywriter (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Please just block immediately, for gaming the policy. They are not helping. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:4671 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is a valid policy. "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" is in no way vague. In this topic area, during this time of war, unverifiable content has a very high risk of being misinformation.

Their edits would be valid in a vacuum. Their edits would be valid in any topic area, from vintage trains to bulgarian atoms. However, they seem especially useful in a topic area where information warfare is being waged using our beloved encyclopedia as a battlefield. The user is not only abiding by policy, but is actively protecting and improving the encyclopedia by removing unreliable and unsourced information. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 14:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Gerald Ward (biker) and user:Grasshopper1970

I came across the article Gerald Ward (biker) while correcting cite errors, and just manually reverted it back. The first ref I came across was <ref>Mr. Ward </ref>[122], and the second <ref name=":0">Mr. Ward did not buy any drugs from the Hells Angels.</ref>[123]. I went to user:Grasshopper1970 talk page to leave them a message, but there are three messages already there about the same subject. They don't appear to understand how referencing works, or what Wikipedia is for, and I suspect they have a close link to the subject. I think it would be a good idea to partial block them from the page until they showed some more understanding, or a willingness to respond to messages. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

All their edits appear to be mobile. I'm wondering if this is a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? (Also, anyone else getting increasingly frustrated with this issue?) Singularity42 (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, I personally believe the mobile client should have the ability to edit non-talk pages disabled until the communication issues are addressed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It's completely ridiculous, and noone appears to be listening. Maybe we should block the Devs until they fix it. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That has been seriously proposed before. As I remember, it gained some support. casualdejekyll 21:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

What is more astonishing is that the devs who have commented WONTFIX on the Phab tickets don't appear to actually understand why it's an issue. This suggests that the mobile interface may be improved soon, but not the apps. Perhaps simply blocking any edits from IP app editors (which would be trivial via an editfilter) might make someone in the WMF actually take notice, but I doubt it. Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Block all app users with a notice directing them to the phab ticket, see if they'll fix it when they're getting unending messages. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This is my personal peeve. I have been editing on Android smartphones for over ten years, and I use the fully functional "desktop" site, which works perfectly well on almost all contemporary mobile devices. I have written and expanded hundreds of articles including several Good articles, all on my phone. I have long been one of the most active hosts at the Teahouse and also highly active at the Help Desk, all on my phone. I agreed to run for administrator, succeeded per WP:300#Requests for adminship on my phone, and since then, have blocked thousands of spammers, vandals and trolls, all on my phone. My user talk page has an archive with 87 sections, and a large majority of those discussions were on my phone. I have proved that the misnamed "desktop" site, which should be called the general purpose site, works on modern smartphones. For at least ten years, experienced editors have known that editors struggling to use the mobile sites and apps are severely restricted in their ability to collaborate on this highly collaborative project. Not on purpose. The vast majority of them have no way of knowing that there are problems that should be discussed with their fellow editors because there is no effective way for them to communicate behind the scenes. The WMF just automatically directs them to a shitty site instead of a fully functional site available instantly, for free. So, ten years have gone by, the mobile site and app developers are all drawing paychecks, presumably generous ones, and the underlying problem still has not been solved. Cullen328 (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

And then I get condescending feedback like "you must have excellent vision" or "nobody other than you can possibly edit that tiny type", as if people cannot swipe diagonally with two fingers to enlarge type, like they do all over the internet. The fact of the matter is that I have had serious vision problems in one eye since childhood, and increasing vision problems in my other eye. My problems include but are not limited to amblyopia, glaucoma, cataracts and complications of cataract surgery. And here I sit, prolifically producing text on my phone, as literally billions of people do worldwide on countless social media websites. Somehow, my ability to edit Wikpedia's desktop site on a phone at age 70 is seen as something strange, when it should be seen as routine if the WMF was really welcoming of new editors, instead of continuing to employ failed careerists working at lifetime "mobile editing" sinecures. Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm the same all my edits are on mobile, using the desktop site. It works perfectly well on mobile. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Screw the WMF, hold them hostage until mobile app is solved :))) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Complete agreement: this is an absurd situation, and I really don't want to think that the WMF just doesn't want to put any obstacle in the path of the poor darling smartphone users, but what else is there? This just plain pisses me off. If I just willfully ignored all talk page messages, I would (sooner or later) be blocked until such time as I got off my ass and communicated with other editors. Period.

  IMHO, the path to a solution is this: ANY time a mobile editor gets taken to ANI for failure to communicate, the MOMENT WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU gets cited, automatic indef block. Once enough mobile users stopped editing Wikipedia in consequence, perhaps then the WMA and the devs would be motivated to do their damn jobs. Ravenswing 05:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Seems to me the far more sensible solution is just to treat them like other editors. If their lack of communication becomes a problem we block them as necessary. This is generally not indefinite unless it's been enough to require that. As someone who has used the mobile web editor a fair amount and prefers it in some situation for editing, (and most situations for reading), IMO for cases like this with accounts people assume too easily it must be the problem. While I'm not saying the current setup is good enough, in reality it's something a lot of people notice. And a lot of people either don't notice or ignore new messages on the desktop site too. We really have no way of knowing why this editor hasn't responded to any messages. (For the mobile web with IPs that's different.) I mentioned email below, IIRC email notification for new talk page messages is on by default. None of this is to say the system shouldn't be improved, simply that "editor hasn't responded - it's the WMF's fault" that we see all the time is a little silly IMO. I'm also not saying there's anything wrong with mentioning theycanthearyou when this issue comes up, many editors still aren't aware of it and it helps editors to understand possible problems. (Ironically I seem to recall before the helpful guide existed I think in 2020 or maybe 2019 one time when there was a fuss over blocking an account which was permanently using the minor flag because maybe they just never saw the messages I pointed out that it was a little weird everyone was so concerned because at the time we seemed to block IPs without considering such things even though for them the situation was far worse. How things have changed since then...) Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Alternative proposal: Disable use of the mobile site and the mobile apps on the English Wikipedia until WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU is fixed. We might be able to implement that for mobile site users ourselves, but the rest we would need to go to WMF and point at a consensus for it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  It is not that difficult to implement responsive design, even the Monobook skin has that feature. Try it! It works like a damn charm. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

And this is why the right noticeboard for BLP problems is the Project:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. There's less chance there of getting diverted into a discussion about the Wikimedia Foundation and losing sight of the fact that an editor with an account is challenging biographical errors in a biographical article that claims someone to be a part of various criminal enterprises, and all that any other editor is doing is using vandalism reversion tools. Uncle G (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I would usually try engaging with users in this situation, and your right that BLP should be the main concern, but how to do that when the user can't see any messages left for them. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The account of concern seems to have e-mail enabled so if someone feels we really need to communicate with them they could try that. But I'd mention that at BLPN we often have people complain about articles. Sometimes they stick around, often they leave a post and never come back or at least not for a long time. Similar to WP:DOLT we should try our best to help them if possible. If they just say there are problems without specifying what they are, there's often not much we can do unless it's obvious but if they give some indication of problems we can look into them. In this case the editor has made a bunch of changes, often with edit summaries explaining their concerns so we do have something to go by. For example, one of the issues which is probably least important but was the first thing the editor tried to do is change the year of birth to 1947. This was reverted for being unsourced which might be fine if the 1948 year was sourced. But it seems to lack any inline cites. (This is one of my pet peeves which happens at BLPN. Someone complains that the date of birth or year of birth or something simple is wrong. Someone else tells them we need sources. But you check the article and find there are no sources for this info.) While IMO it isn't required for BLPs, I had a quick look at several of the online sources we used and none of them seemed to give a year of birth. One [124] did give an age which doesn't seem to rule out 1947 as the year of birth if born after March (I said before in my edit summary, sorry got confused). I also removed the place of birth which also lacks inline cites. (Another thing which comes up a lot at BLPN and something editors need to be careful with since people have a tendency to assume where someone spent their early life was where they were born.) There are other stuff which IMO are probably simple to deal with. E.g. anyone with access to Langton may be able to help with the year of birth dispute and especially whether "Starting in 1965 when he turned 17" which our article says is accurate or the 18 the editor wanted is. If Langton doesn't specify either with a precise date of birth and time of conviction OR an age at first conviction, we should just remove an age at 1965 since the online source just says 1965. Langton would also help deal with this [125]. Someone can confirm it says he didn't know how to ride a motorcycle in 1997. Of course as always, sometimes we just don't need to do anything, e.g. the article seems to make clear he joined so [126] isn't necessary IMO although by the same token also seems harmless, and [127] seems to come from something the editor of concern wrote. Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually reading more carefully, it seems likely saying he agreed to join in 1997 is likely inaccurate since the article suggests his chapter wasn't formally part of the Hells Angels until 2000. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

BTW checking sources I found another issue mentioned by the editor I dealt with (including the sources having died in the ~1 month or so since creation) as outlined on the talk page. Anyway mostly wanted clarify I'm not saying there's anything wrong with telling an editor who wants a "correction" to some allegedly wrong info that they need sources if none were provided, I do it myself. However especially in the case of a BLP and even more when it's someone who says they're the subject or similar, we normally shouldn't stop (or probably start) there. Instead, it makes sense to check that our current info is cited. If it's not then, just remove it & tell the editor that. Nil Einne (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Although I agree about the absurd situation this creates, an incident on WP:ANI is not the place for this discussion. I'd suggest starting a discussion on meta, although it's already discussed a bit on the aforementioned phab. That ticket is still open by the way. Oz\^InterAct 08:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Now for the matter at hand. I have pblocked the editor from that article for 48 hours to see if that gets their attention and will investigate why they can't edit. Oz\^InterAct 09:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

A related discussion about the communication issues with mobile editors is currently pinned on WP:VPWMF. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

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

---

2603:7080:A400:CB2B:59B4:F2EE:E60A:2D51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - needs a block as WP:NOTHERE. BilledMammal (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Unregistered editors "masking" their signatures in talk pages -- is this against the rules?

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

---

Is it against Wikipedia's rules for an unregistered editor to alter the code in their autogenerated signature in a way that masks their IP and makes them look like a registered editor?

So, for example, let's say an unregistered editor alters the standard signature code in a talk page post, and it produces an illusory username (as an example, let's say "Aaron") that links directly to their IP contribs page, rather than the userpage of an actual Wikipedia account named "Àaron".

Is that against the rules? Especially if they are not the registered user Aaron? Is it considered suspicious? Would it override the restriction against using that person's IP to compare against registered users in SPI?

I'm sorry if I'm wasting your time, I just can't find any info about this in the behavioral guidelines. - Hunan201p (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but there is someone with a signature name that isn't their actual user, and they are an administrator. Viewer⁷¹⁹/_Contribs! 07:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Viewer719. I have no doubt that it is permissable for registered users to do this, and didn't mean to cast aspersions on any registered user who does this. I am only wondering about unregistered editors who do this by creating illusory usernames, especially if those illusory usernames may be coincidentally registered and operated by people unrelated to the signature spoofer. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• That would seem to me to violate the spirit, if not also the letter, of WP:SIGFORGE. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, but people without accounts have been putting their names into signatures almost since we got MediaWiki. It's not really forgery to add "Aaron" to a signature if one is, in fact named Aaron. It's only in the wacky worldview of Wikipedia where it becomes impersonation of a pseudonym, and only one person in the world gets to be named Aaron. Actually linking to the pseudonym's page would be, but in the aforegiven hypothetical, the signature still links to the actual IP address. Given that we go around saying that people can edit without accounts, we need to not be unreasonable and Kafkaesque about people who do and then, as people do in the rest of the world, put their actual names into signatures. Uncle G (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @Uncle G: If someone has the technical knowledge to alter Wikipedia's code to create the illusion of a hyperlinked username, then they certainly have the technical knowledge to create a Wikipedia account. Why then, would somebody painstakingly edit their signature every time they post a talk page comment? Why not sign up as "Aaron2" or "Aaron_Biden24"? It's super suspicious and, in the case I'm looking at right now, possibly related to socking. I can't think of a legitimate reason for somebody to do this, and even if there is one, it doesn't outweigh the nefarious reasons to do it, since most people don't have the technical know-how to do it. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

      It is not allowed to make a signature that links to another user due to impersonation. And I don't think it relates to socking. Viewer^{719 Talk!}/_Contribs! 09:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

      • Thanks, Viewer719. However, in this case, the IP editor created a fake-username hyperlink that simply links back to his IP contribs page. The fake username is identical to a registered editor, but nowhere does the IP link to that registered editor. The choice of fake username here was probably coincidental. It is still suspicious to me that the new IP editor would do this. It could be linked to socking because there does appear to be coordination between them and another user, although this could be coincidental. Nevertheless, it is still suspect to my eye that somebody would do this, because it does look like concealment of the fact that they are an IP editor. The IP editor posts information that could be perceived as anti-US government, and their IP geolocates to a hostile country. - Hunan201p (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

        Might be a sock then, since thats the only possible reason an IP knows so much about how Wikipedia code works and is new. Viewer^{719 Talk!}/_Contribs! 09:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

        There are plenty of experienced IP editors who are not socks. Knowing stuff is in itself not an indicator of a misuse of multiple accounts. Regards SoWhy 10:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

        How can we possibly know with certainty that they are not socks? In this case, the IPs first edit was to this talk page, and their only edits are on this talk page. - Hunan201p (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

        He said the IP is a new editor. Viewer^{719 Talk!}/_Contribs! 10:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

        Thanks, Viewer719. Yes, this IP editor is just a few days old. - Hunan201p (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

        IPs change regularly. The fact that they've only been editing from that IP for a few days doesn't mean they're only a few days old. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

      • It's only "super suspicious" to people who erroneously don't adhere to the Foundation Principle that people are not required to create accounts in order to participate. Over the years I've seen people on article talk pages put their first names as signatures many times. Not creating an account is not an inherent mark of bad faith. It is highly skewed thinking to think that someone opening giving you both xyr own IP address and xyr own name in a signature is somehow contributing in bad faith because of that. A person putting xyr name to the bottom of something is a quite normal thing for humans to do in many walks of life, in many ways.

        And decide whether you are talking about a "let's say" "for example" hypothetical or something real, please.

        Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

        • I am talking about a real case of this actually happening. I have no idea why you think an unregistered user would show up on day 1 with this knowledge and use this bluelink trick, if something nefarious wasn't going on. The fact that they have this knowledge means that they aren't a new user, and the fact that this is happening in the first edit means they must have posted under other IP addresses.

          I can think of no reason why such a person would need to IP edit to protect their anonymity, because they've already identified themselves by a name. Doing so allows them to edit with the false impression of being a registered contributor, while being able to hop across IP addresses at will, making them nearly impossible to track, and immune to checkuser investigations. You're advocating for a gaping hole in this website's security that can be cleverly exploited by sockpuppets. My way of thinking says you can IP edit or you can be a registered contributor, but you can't do both by creating hyperlinks that make it look like you have an actual Wikipedia account. - Hunan201p (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

          • Openly hyperlinking to an accountless IP address in one's signature is not pretending to be an editor with an account. That should be obvious. Not only are you making the wrong assumption that editors without accounts are editing in bad faith because they openly tell you who they are and that they don't have an account, you are compounding this by saying that editors without accounts who might have had another IP address and know what they are doing are obviously editing in bad faith. You have entirely the wrong way of thinking about people without accounts. Several long-time ones watch this noticeboard, and I'm sure that they're horrified at your assumptions of bad faith. Read Wikipedia:IP editors are human too and m:Association of Good Faith Wikipedians Who Remain Unregistered on Principle for starters. Uncle G (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing anything actionable here. Can someone close this? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry if this was the wrong place to post this; I was hoping to get an answer about whether or not this was even considered a violation of anything before posting my diffs or emailing an admin. - - Hunan201p (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I think this should be closed by an admin but I will say, I am allowed to, at my choosing, alter my signature to whatever name I desire so long as it doesn't violate username policy. It links back to my user account. I don't do it often but have done it, changing ARoseWolf to Asareel. An IP is no different. I have seen some well established editors, in joking, link their signature back to a Wikipedia article relevant to the joke they were making. There are some quite hilarious examples. If these are not violations then an IP editor changing their signature to a name but linking back to their IP contributions shouldn't be a violation either. I appreciate the question and even the concern. I appreciate Hunan201p's desire to protect the encyclopedia . I also appreciate the sentiments of Uncle G. Part of assuming good faith is not to publicly assume something before we have the evidence to support it. It's my unadmin opinion but I see no actionable offense of policy here. --ARoseWolf 16:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

    Even if it's annoying to try and ping someone only to find out that's not their username in the signature verbatim, there are ways around it: for example, one could enable navigation popups or the script Convenient Discussions, the latter of which pretty much does away with signature customisation and leaves the actual username. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Look, there have already been a few calls to close this down. I want to give the OP one last opportunity to provide some diffs. This board doesn't deal in hypothetical discussions. We deal in real situations. Provide us with the diffs showing us the problem so we can comment on it with the right amount of knowledge, or we can close down this discussion because we don't have enough information to respond knowledgeably to the issue. --Jayron32 18:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC:

Thanks @Jayron32:. Please close. I will not post diffs based on Uncle G's comment that some people may be "horrified". Thanks to everyone for the help and again, I apologize for taking up your time. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and uncivil comments from LRP19PT

LRP19PT (talk · contribs)

This editor recently came to my attention following this talk page comment for which I issued them a level 2 warning for personal attacks.

They were also challenged on the article talk page, however persisted with making further personal attacks. As such, I issued a level 3 warning.

The user responded to me on their talk page, and continued to make uncivil comments.

I responded with a personalised warning explaining why their behaviour was not appropriate, and the impact it could have on other editors. I considered that this personalised message was in the place of a level 4 warning, and I advised that I would report them if the behaviour continued. They blanked these messages, so I'm aware that the user received them.

Since that time, they've continued with personal attacks and uncivil comments on talk pages, doubling down on their earlier contention that their messages are not inappropriate; see 1, 2, 3, 4. It's for this reason that I'm raising this issue at ANI.

It's also worth mentioning that this user has been indefinitely blocked on fr.wiki and is currently blocked on pt.wiki per Special:CentralAuth/LRP19PT.

I've notified the user of this thread. Thanks for your assistance. — Manticore 11:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with the reported user. How is calling somebody's viewpoint stupid and ignorant a personal attack? Uncivil wording, maybe (or maybe not), but certainly not a personal attack. – ².O.^Boxing 12:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Civility is policy here, Squared.Circle.Boxing. Also, "ignorant" is a quality inherent in a person, not in a "viewpoint". I have blocked for 60 hours. Bishonen | tålk 12:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC).

I feel the goal posts for what is a "personal attack" have been moved somewhat last 20 years. Thanks Internet. :> That said, I support Bishes viewpoint. Oz\^InterAct 12:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

They've also vandalized a talk page when in a disagreement, and deleted an ANEW discussion about them. Edit warring with mild BLPvio in the summaryhere, dummy edit to make more BLPvio statements[128]

Basically, their editing is significantly disruptive, and if you disagree with them, you're met with edit warring and personal attacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Cool beans. They still weren't personal attacks though. – ².O.^Boxing 12:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't really buy the difference between "uncivil wording" and "personal attack", but the example below crosses the imaginary semantic bar. There's plenty more disruptive editing as well.

Calling other users "ignorants" while edit warring, specifically targeting contributor not content [129][130][131]

Admitting to being banned on another wiki for the same behavior [132]

Saying they won't read discussions [133] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

If I said your viewpoint is stupid, that would be borderline uncivil (depending on how stupid said viewpoint was). If I said that you are stupid, that would be a personal attack. The OPs initial diffs weren't personal attacks (the three you provided above are, but I'd question the user's understanding of the word 'ignorant'). I would say that any opinion to the contrary, IMHO, is silly. But that would apparently be a personal attack, so I'll just face palm and shrug. . – ².O.^Boxing 15:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on if biting my thumb is the same as biting my thumb at you, sir. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to criticise that analogy in case it's construed as a personal attack. Oh, the times we live in. – ².O.^Boxing 17:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

IMO it's fine to call the silly thing uncivil rather than a personal attack. I'm far less convinced about the "ignorant" thing. If an editor says someone's viewpoint is racist or homophobic or whatever, from my experience this will often rightful be dealt with under the bounds of NPA rather than civility. Saying it only applies to someone's "viewpoint" doesn't make it less of a personal attack. One complexity is that similar to the way we deal with "vandal" or "vandalism", we will normally consider whether such statements are reasonable. If an editor says something which most editors agree is racist or homophobic and is called out for it, we aren't generally going to block the editor who called them out. OTOH, if an editor says something innocuous like 'I don't think there's strong evidence to support the notion if most ancient Egyptians were alive in the present day, they'd be considered "black"' and someone says it's a racist viewpoint, that's something which we are unlikely to just let pass. Unlike with incompetence which is specific term of art here which has and does cause offence but we're likely to keep, I'm not sure there's any use for calling someone generally "ignorant". If an editor doesn't seem to know something, it may be okay to say they seem ignorant of something specific. It's not quite as bad as low intelligence, still not something we should tolerate IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

For clarity, when I say something specific I mean if someone outlines something an editor is ignorant of. For example saying someone is ignorant of BLP IMO is probably not the best thing to say, but IMO isn't necessarily a personal attack. Saying someone is ignorant of US politics likewise. Saying a viewpoint is ignorant, that's not specific. Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I've recently become involved in discussions about 160 year old photos of members of different castes in India, and I wouldn't have considered it a PA for someone to point out that I was ignorant of the issues surrounding using the photos, because I was (and still am to a fair extent) ignorant to the considerations at play. That said, it's always better to explain a topic to try and educate editors who aren't familiar with a topic or the considerations around it, rather than just call them ignorant. That's neither here nor there for this type of behavior though. That's just a general insult because they aren't getting their way. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree. There's a lot of shading to incivility and personal attacks. Also, in my opinion, the ratio of uncivil/PA style responses to not is a large consideration as well. If the only responses to disagreement are calling another editor's ideas stupid, or calling them ignorant, then there's a problem. If in the course of a substantive discussion someone were to say that a particular idea was stupid, or another editor was ignorant of part of the topic under discussion I don't think that would be a problem. YMMV of course, which is why civility issues are so difficult to handle. I don't even report obvious incivility, because generally, I just don't care enough. If someone brings up a disruptive pattern of it, however, it should probably be addressed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Report of harassment and libelous unsubstantiated accusations

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

---

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

Reporting user Unbh for undue harassment and libelous unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry

This situation started when I was responding to a third-opinion (3O) request for the discussion at Talk:Hospitality Club, where I responded with my thoughts regarding the subject matter.

As you can read in the discussion for yourselves, Flexman pointed out that he thought it unproductive of the accused to revert edits against consensus without engaging in the discussion prior.

I agreed with this statement and aimed to inform Flexman of his further possible course of action to best have consensus enacted regarding the change being discussed. It was never my intention to assume bad faith on the part of the accused during this time period, although I do admit poor phrasing on my part making it seem like I accused him of edit warring too. However, I do not see this as proper grounds for what ensued and the course of action the accused took in response.

Next, the accused involved me being a soccer referee as hobby (he evidently got this information from my User page) in the discussion on the Article Talk page where it had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. He also remarked he was glad I 'have never refereed a game he played in', which obviously doesn't make sense in the given discussion.

A discussion ensued on the Article Talk page where he claims me to be a, quote, 'WP:PRECOCIOUS editor'. He also makes several allegations saying I'm a sockpuppet despite not requesting a WP:SPI or providing any evidence to substantialize these claims.

I informed him multiple times, through warning templates and discourse on the Article Talk page, that what he is doing is not right and asked him to stop vandalizing my Talk page and to cease and desist with the baseless accusations unless he can back them up. Despite doing so, he again accused me of using a sockpuppet to 'stir up trouble' today at 04:30 (UTC) on the Article Talk page.

I do not necessarily wish punitive action to be taken against the accused, nor do I make this incident notice to pursue such a course of action. I simply wish to be able to exercise my rights as an editor to offer a third opinion where one is requested and to not be accused of sockpuppetry while I am in fact not.

I have many more things to say, none of which I consider conducive to the argument since they're speculatory and I do not wish to return that favor.

I declare my best efforts to write this incident report according to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; and accept liability for claims made contrary to the truth and await your review.

I shall refrain from further comment towards the abused prior to review, save for notifying them of my report. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 12:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Notified: User:Unbh, User:Flexman, Talk:Hospitality Club. ~~~~

★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 12:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Diffs, please. Viewer^{719 Talk!}/_Contribs! 12:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Viewer719: Thank you for responding. Below is the list of relevant diffs. I'm probably missing some but these are most relevant.

Involving me being a referee

Needless precocious editor accusation

Needless precocious editor accusation

Sockpuppet accusation

His warning to me

Another warning to me in response to me warning him

Him removing my warning, not itself relevant but notice the accompanying comment: "quack quack quack. Take your obvious sock puppet elsewhere"

Note: Diffs noted here aren't in chronological order. Again, I'm not looking for him to get in trouble but I'd like to be left alone and not baselessly accused. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 15:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You encouraged another editor to warn and report me and claimed without any evidence that I was editting against consensus (I was restoring per WP:BRD, and I was engaging in the discussion). You claim I've broken policies, and then repeatedly ignored my requests that you explain which policies and what consensus. The reference to being a football referee was an aside hat was meant to be a joe, based largely on the fact that you turned up and immediately escalated a situation, which isn't exactly the fair an balanced response one would expect from someone who makes a lot of noise about being a referee on their profile. I have clearly responded badly, but when I'm accused of editing against policy and consensus without any evidence being presented to back it up after repeated requests it's pretty frustrating. Unbh (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

As I've mentioned in the initial report I shall refrain from commenting on the content of your message pending administrator review. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 15:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused by the legalese in this report. Libel? You swear to tell the whole truth? You accept liability? What? Are you trying to give a sense that there is some sort of legal process here? Are you trying to intimidate the reported user by playing like this is a court? 107.115.5.2 (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@107.115.5.2: I’m not trying to intimidate anyone. This is more or less just the manner in which I speak, especially given this is the noticeboard for admins so I like to keep it formal. I didn’t swear to keep the truth either, just declare that I do my best not to tell falsehoods basically. If you have any questions as to what I meant anywhere feel free to ask. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 18:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You should read the room. Accusing someone of libel here is likely to result in a WP:BOOMERANG due to WP:LEGALTHREATS. I swear to tell the whole truth... is a well known legal oath used in American courts. It isn't formal speech. 99.145.163.110 (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This is largely irrelevant considering I never said those words to begin with. I simply meant to declare that I meant to tell the whole, full story without lying or omitting things. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 20:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

(Disregarding the tangent about how Amadeus1999 words things) In Talk:Hospitality_Club#inactive_/_not_working_anymore, the discussion had barely begun when Flexman requested WP:3O. While Flex and Unbh are edit-warring in the article, Ama joins the talk page discussion and declares their opinion. Ama did accuse Unbh of editing against consensus and policy[134] then refused to state what policy Unbh had violated. Ama is editing precociously, but Unbh's "quack quack" was uncivil and unnecessary. The back-and-forth between the Ama and Unbh on the talk page basically just escalates, with neither looking completely blameless. Amadeus1999 should be less eager to jump to reporting and taking offense, and should be prepared to back up their claims when saying another editor has done something wrong; Unbh and Flexman should continue their discussion about the wording in the article without either edit-warring; Unbh should avoid any accusations of sock-puppetry against other editors (if you have evidence, file a report) and avoid personal references about other editors. I don't believe administrator action is called for. Schazjmd (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that I'm edit-warring. I reverted the removal of the information once since there was no input on the talk page, after the WP:3O I added the text we agreed to on the talk page. User Unbh however deleted this again without any further discussion ignoring that not everyone sees this as WP:OR. According to the Archive of the users talk page he already got a warning for edit-warring. Flexman (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Flexman, in the past 3 days, you've made 5 edits to restore your preferred wording. Close enough to an edit-warring approach to be cautioned for. You asked Ama for suggestions how to address the issue in a better way just before the talk page discussion got derailed. I don't see any text agreed to in the discussion, it was still ongoing. I'm suggesting that you both return to the talk page and actually reach a consensus before either of you edit the article again. Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

That is not true. One edit (changing "is" to "was") was undisputed, one edit was just a date correction of the prior edit. So it was 3 edits about the concerned issue, first one where I added the source (since it was removed because of a missing source), then the revert (since there was no opposition on the talk page) and then the rephrasing according to the discussion (which didn't have any new constructive input since and still has a majority for adding that information). Flexman (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I'd like to stipulate again that it was never my directly accuse Unbh of editing against consensus and I already apologized for phrasing it this way, it was meant to be purely a potential, to be worded "If it is true that <x>, then <y>". ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 20:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Also, I'd agree fully that this doesn't warrant administrative action if not for the fact that despite my best efforts to de-escalate the situation overnight, Unbh still found it necessary to accuse me of being a sockpuppet for the nth time after our initial discourse/conflict had ended. I'd be perfectly content to leave this at "Stop going at each others' throat" because frankly I'm too busy (and admittedly proud) for fruitless discussion like this where I can't interact anyway because I can't possibly disprove I'm a sockpuppet. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 20:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Then we'll wait and see if any administrators care to weigh in. Schazjmd (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Amadeus1999: I’m curious. Your 141st edit was to WP:3O and your 252nd was to ANI. How so? I don’t think I was even aware of those parts of WP until I clocked up a couple of thousands of edits. I don’t think ANI would have been on my radar in the first week of becoming a registered user. May be I misremember. DeCausa (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: If you're concerned about me being a sockpuppet too, feel free to request an investigation. Sorry for assuming the worst but it seems likely when you're pursuing this line of discussion/reasoning. It is also not relevant to this incident in my eyes at all. I'm a fast learner and I wish to help out to the best of my ability so that's what I do. Also, having Twinkle and Ultraviolet/RedWarn helps navigate the board, initially I checked out WP:TASK and picked up doing things there. I don't even know why I'm explaining myself at this point, and uttering my frustration about it probably just makes me look more guilty, I realize. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 21:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

As a new user you may not be aware that if you open a thread here part of the “deal” is you open up your own behaviour to scrutiny. You don’t appear to me to have answered my question, however. DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I'm not afraid of scrutiny. I also don't see your question. Is it "How so?" because if so then I definitely did address how so. Also I believe the "deal" is that I open my behavior up to scrutiny with regards to this incident, not a DIY sockpuppet investigation, but feel free to ask anything if you have anything specific. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 21:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

No, you don’t get to limit the scrutiny to what you self-define as “this incident”. And you haven’t answered my question. Having Twinkle and referring to WP:TASK is no explanation of how you ended up at 3O and ANI almost immediately after registering your account. WP:PRECOCIOUS is exactly what you are. DeCausa (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Sorry my explanation isn't sufficient to you. I shall be more concise so that you understand:

• Go to WP:TASK
• Scroll down
• Find WP:Third opinion and click on it
• Scroll down to Active disagreements
• Click on the Article link and participate
• Click More Option in the top right if you use RedWarn/Ultraviolet
• Find "Report on AIV"
• Go there and find the link to ANI for these matters instead

Hope this helps. And thanks for your feedback about me being precocious. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 21:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I only take from that your continuing obfuscation about your WP editing prior to registering your account. Clearly you have prior experience - which may be legitimate (as an IP for instance) or you may have an editing history you are hiding. What you say about WP:TASK is not credible for a new user. So the question is why aren’t you being candid. DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m being as up-front as I can be. Yes, I do have some very limited experience as an IP prior to making my account. I’ve included this in my request for certain permissions on WP elsewhere. I didn’t include it here because at first I didn’t consider it relevant for the discussion, and later I felt I’m being questioned on ridiculous grounds. If I was really a sockpuppet I’d be a helluva lot better at hiding my supposed sockpuppetry. Also, what accounts do you or others believe I’m a sockpuppet of? What would I stand to gain or what creates the impression based on objective findings in my edit history (problematic or seemingly conflicting interest ones)? I don’t understand the line of reasoning at all here. As I understood it anyone is to be judged on their ability and competence, not on the age of their account. I feel I’m being unfairly subjected to questions due to rash judgment. However, as I said before and I will maintain, I’m absolutely open to any amount of scrutiny you’re willing to throw at me. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 23:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Between how silly your talk page is and the silly legal quotes here, it seems more likely you are trolling than here to improve the project. All questions are fair here, and you already know that. 2600:1700:12C4:A1C0:44F2:9CB2:124B:EA5F (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

A'ight here's where I draw the line. I won't continue to address claims of trolling or sockpuppetry I seemingly can't refute anyway unless an admin requests it. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 00:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Aight? I thought you promised to tell the whole truth, the full truth, etc. Now you are suddenly informal, and unwilling to tell the truth. You haven't presented yourself in a trustworthy way, which is why nobody trusts you here. 2600:1700:12C4:A1C0:44F2:9CB2:124B:EA5F (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa I'm not connected to Ama and have no part in this report, but I did want to say that a new user being aware of ANI, 3O, and other incident reporting/dispute resolution options shouldn't automatically make them suspicious - I'm a slightly older (time-wise) but also much newer (edit-wise) editor, and one of the first places I became aware of outside of article space was AN and the associated boards. Why? Because I wanted to see what not to do, how to handle (or not handle) disputes, and what kinds of things I should be watching for. It also taught me about the site jargon I was most likely to encounter, and what kind of etiquette to keep in mind when I made my own edits. I can't speak for Ama, but I'm sure I'm not the only newbie who wandered over here to learn about the site's moderation by seeing it in action. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

DeCausa, I started editing in July, 2009 after spending literally months reading and studying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and delving into the back scenes of the project, including reading things at WP:ANI and WP:AFDT before I ever made a single edit. I wanted to understand the project before I got involved. I signed up and made about 15 minor edits before I wrote Dirk van Erp and then rapidly, a whole series of biographies of California mountaineers of the 1930s to 1960s era. Since then, I have written over a hundred new articles (and I do not write stubs) and have expanded many hundreds more. I had never edited a wiki before, but came here with a sincere desire to contribute to this encyclopedia and to do it properly. WP:PRECOCIOUS is just an essay without the force of a policy or guideline, and I had never heard of it until you mentioned it. Here is a quote from your favorite essay in this conversation: But the user may not be a sockpuppet, and might instead be one who has prior experience with IP editing, has carefully read instructions, policies, and guidelines prior to editing, has worked a lot on other sister projects or has previously edited other websites that use MediaWiki, has read a book on Wikipedia such as Wikipedia – The Missing Manual, or has been coached by another editor known to them. I have bolded the passage that applies to my early days of editing. While you are repeatedly citing a little known essay, have you read and fully internalized the widely accepted behavioral guideline, Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Cullen328 (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 It’s not my “favourite essay”. I’d never heard of it either until the OP referenced it and denied that it applied to them at the beginning of this thread. That was the specific context of my subsequent reference to it. I never claimed or thought it was a policy and I can’t see the relevance of your comment on that. Have I read Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Yes. I couldn’t tell you exactly when or how many times though. Have I internalized it? I wasn’t entirely sure what you meant by that so I googled it and found this definition: “make (attitudes or behaviour) part of one's nature by learning or unconscious assimilation”. That seems a marvellous aspiration to have, but I wouldn’t have the nerve to claim that for any Wikipedia policy. DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion to close the incident report. The discussions at hand aren't particularly relevant to the incident in my opinion. I have no problem keeping it open but it seems fruitless and I think the message is clear per Schazjmds message. Further administrator involvement is probably not necessary in my view. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 13:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Possible disruption/vandalism by 135.0.252.54

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

---

This editor doesn't seem to be here to improve articles. They make minor edits (ie. space) to be the last editor. No edit summaries and mass remove warnings on talk page. Anytime somebody edits, they follow up with petty edits. (changes spelling, add spaces & sentences are reworded.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/135.0.252.54

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:135.0.252.54&action=history

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Who_Do_You_Think_You_Are%3F_episodes&action=history

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

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

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

Hope Admin will keep an eye on the IP per future issues. Just wanted someone to check into it. Seems unproductive

DJgood2go (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I remember this IP coming up on my radar before, and I checked some edits. I sampled eight edits just now. What I see is a large number of small edits ranging from a tiny improvement to (most of them) neutral edits of little value. I haven't seen the case where the article has been made worse. You have to be careful ascribing motives, such as wanting to be the last editor. My two cents: I don't see any activity that would be worth surveilling. If a disimprovement is introduced, it will likely be caught by page watchers or recent changes patrolling. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Understood but some were "made worse" and reverted (including misspellings). Wasn't sure if it's deliberate/intentional or not. Seems odd but could be a coincidence so i'll assume good faith. DJgood2go (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

For sure. I expect if I looked at all the edits, I'd find some that made things worse, given that almost all are borderline neutral, having negligible value or no value whatsoever. That's why I think the standard oversight (page watching, RCP) is enough, and there isn't any special attention that needs to be paid.

As for deliberate/intentional, I don't even go there. The very best trolls ride that fine line between are they really that dense? and no, this editor is just trying to disrupt things. You can never tell, so it's better to just concentrate on whether edits are good or bad. Calling out a troll usually gives them their strange, masochistic reward: being thought useless and annoying with good intentions, then revealed as useless and annoying with bad intentions. I don't claim to understand it, either. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, however, I find the minor "current" edits a bit strange. I would have never came here had it not been for the abundance of violation warnings reverted on their talk page. It is what it is. Best wishes! DJgood2go (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

(I only noticed this because of the edits I made on Natasha Leggero. Twice the IP edited after me. Then I checked a few other articles and noticed a disruptive/unproductive trend. Oh well.) DJgood2go (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Update: This can be closed. DJgood2go (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Edit warring, WP:IDHT, personal attacks, misrepresentation of other editors, science denial, and complaints about "FAKE NEWS" from 47.205.198.247

Nobody ever lies on their deathbed wishing they'd spent more time at ANI, but here I go again.

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

Last year, an IP editor from Clearwater, Florida was blocked for edit-warring at quantum entanglement, then came back after their block to insist that all physicists are part of a conspiracy and to try pushing the same content again that a bevy of editors had rejected. They then switched to the related topic of Bell's theorem, where they made demands at the Talk page instead of presenting arguments. For the past month, they've been edit-warring content into Bell's theorem over the objections of multiple editors; see the Talk page for attempts to explain by Headbomb, Tercer, and myself. They have falsely claimed, repeatedly, that I suggested rephrasing their content and restoring it. They have indulged in insults that are bizarrely unmoored from the facts of the situation, saying that I pulled [a scientist] out of the text but stupidly forgot to remove the footnote to him, apparently not realizing that the scientist in question was cited in an endnote. They have called the Big Bang nonsense that should not be presented by Wikipedia as facts. Also, James Webb Telescope will destroy your ridiculous big bang theory and you will eat your ignorant words. I must admit I got a chuckle out of Wikipedia has a serious credibility problem, just like the New York FAKE NEWS mass media does.

I asked David Eppstein a while ago to close a discussion at Talk:Bell's theorem as an uninvolved editor, to try to curtail the going-nowhere (and to prevent myself from getting pointlessly snippy, too). But it has continued since then, and it is wasting time that could instead be going into improving an article on an important topic that needs work. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Well that's certainly something... the editor seems to have a fixation on Karl Hess. I doubt a topic ban would work. And I do not see any user talk page engagement by either IP. A block would be appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we have enough evidence here to have a site-ban discussion. This person is clearly not here to work collaboratively, and is instead just trying to push their own fringe viewpoints; that they don't have a username we can pin the ban to is irrelevant. We should absolutely just have the site ban discussion so in the future we can just block them on site. I think we've had enough of this nonsense. --Jayron32 18:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The nonsense has continued at Talk:Bell's theorem (e.g., You really do believe in it don't you. The universe once fit in a nutshell. hahaha. How gullible!) after I notified them of this ANI discussion. I don't think we need to drag it out any further. XOR'easter (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I've just blocked their current IP. At this point the user is just outright trolling and it appears they have no interest in genuinely improving the project. In the future the best way to deal with trolls is WP:DENY. Canterbury Tail talk 18:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Wait.. What's with the "deathbed" stuff? casualdejekyll 21:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think they're actually on their death bed. It's just a comment that ANI is an infuriating waste of time, and that they won't look back fondly on all the time they spent here. Reyk _YO! 22:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Correct. None of my various health problems are fatal, to my knowledge; I was thinking of this, actually. I have been trying to finish up and wind down a heap of deferred projects so that I can take a good long break from this place, duration of said break as yet unknown, but that's a different story. XOR'easter (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Help - Retaining bad sources on Harry Styles page?

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

---

Hello!

Over the course of many years, the Harry Styles personal life section has been repeatedly twisted to intentionally imply Harry Styles is a straight man posing as gay for clout, when in fact he does not label his sexual orientation and has been open about this for the past five years. Recently in an interview with Better Homes and Gardens magazine, Harry discussed how reporters harassing him about his sex life when he was in One Direction caused him much distress, and implied a very specific article used as a source for his sexual orientation haunted him. You can see discussion of this on the talk page. See also on the talk page, a long discussion over what it "means" to be "out" that generally goes in circles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harry_Styles

People have tried ad nauseum to change the personal life section on his Wikipedia page to be more respectful because of this. Prior to today, the google feature of this article bolded the terms "I am pretty sure I am not bisexual" - something that intentionally implies he is straight. It is a serious problem because thinkpiece writers and clickbait writers very obviously use that section of his page to research his sexuality and paint him as a duplicitous attention seeker when he simply does not label his sexual orientation, something he expands upon philosophically in the new article. Additionally, the source for him initially not labeling his sexual orientation both does not really explain why (he just explained for the first time) and it is a secondary source relaying what The Sun (a tabloid!) said. This is not respectful, or even good citing.

Harry's music and art very clearly is in conversation with queerness, which people can view cynically if they like, but this seems to be quite the value judgement - and is Wikipedia really the correct place for these value judgements? Why are editors being allowed to prioritize an interview Harry gave when he is 19 as the be-all-end-all statement on his sexual orientation, and allowing this (intentionally, I think) to reverberate through the discourse? In my opinion, this is no less than heterosexism and biphobia (which can affect any person expressing fluid sexuality - I am not trying to say he is bisexual, this is just how this works.)

Is there a way to set a more value neutral precedent on the page so that this does not remain a forever war as it has for the past decade? It just feels cruel at this point.H-influenzae (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This looks to me like a content dispute fought in edits and reverts. I'd suggest you take this to WP:RFP for a discussion. Then the article may be protected at a consensus reached version. Oz\^InterAct 17:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

If you've been editing ... since 2014, how come your account was only created in January 2020? You deleted the part where you said you would make new accounts to implement your preferred version if you were to receive a block. Is this something you've done before? KyleJoan^talk 17:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I fell off editing for a bit, forgot my password for my old account, and just decided to make a new one. Previously I was also involved with editing fan wikis, including substantial edits to the It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia fan wiki several years ago. I realize this is not the same notability as Wikipedia but it is still experience.

Nice seeing you again, Kyle! H-influenzae (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not something I have done before - I simply feel passionate about this issue and typed something that I chose to delete out of fear of sounding too extreme. Thanks for searching through the history though to try and make me look bad! You are as ever a winner on that front. H-influenzae (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This does look like a content dispute; if you have questions about sourcing, WP:RSN is the correct noticeboard to get extra eyes on the article. --Jayron32 17:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron! H-influenzae (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Veiled threat at Talk:Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis

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

---

I'm a tad concerned by this edit, which is the only (non-userpage) edit made by Big Facts For You. Aside from promoting Kremlin propaganda, the part which concerns me is We can figure out which editors did this by looking at this page's edit history. This user strikes me as a clear WP:NOTHERE case. — Czello 21:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Cullen328 for resolving this near-instantaneously. Mind-boggling responsiveness. — Czello 21:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor as not here to build the encyclopedia. The above quote was bad enough, but Wikipedia will likely be swept up in the upcoming mass obliteration of Nazi collaborator organizations was much worse. How can any of us collaborate with a person who wants to send us off to the new death camps? Cullen328 (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Strange behavior of an IP

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

---

99.33.117.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has put an RfC tag on at least two pages without any content or context [135] [136]. They were also disruptive on my talk page. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The talk page message is definitely trollish, but the other stuff doesn't really doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. The IP replaced the blank RFC with a requested move. If the IP does anything more disruptive, you can report it to WP:AIV. I'll stick a warning on the IP's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

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

m:Requests for comment/Global de-adminship for Jusjih

A user is requesting to "global de-admin" (sorry I really don't know how likely if this could be happened) @Jusjih: which in requestor's claim, has many disruptive and abusive behaviors in several Chinese-language projects and Meta-Wiki, the requestor is also mentioned en.wikipedia here where Jusjih is also an administrator, but didn't say anything else on their en.wikipedia's behaviors. Do any of our adminships that may or may not familiar Jusjih's works know how to resolve it? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• I am primarily familiar with Jusjih through working with them at Wikisource, where we are also admins. They can be a bit of a pill at times, but nothing that I would consider disruptive, abusive or otherwise rising to the level of de-adminship. BD2412 T 06:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for trusting me so much. Yet I found an abusive page as Meta has a request to suspend an abusive administrator pending an orderly discussion.--Jusjih (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Tennisedu

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

Tennisedu joined Wikipedia as an IP user in April 2019, and immediately started making edits to the article of tennis player Lew Hoad. He created his account in January 2020. Despite early and repeated warnings about WP:NPOV and WP:V, he has continued to this day to add false information, speculation, and WP:FRINGE interpretations of well-understood facts in order to inflate Hoad's achievements and diminish those of his rivals. A full quarter of his 7300 edits have been to Hoad's article or talk page, with his other edits being primarily to statistics articles featuring Hoad, or to the articles of Hoad's contemporaries, indicating that he is acting as a WP:SPA, with the single purpose being to boost Hoad's standing on Wikipedia. His relentless promotion of this player through any means possible requires perpetual monitoring and correction to stop all articles in this subject-area (pre-Open Era professional tennis) from "going down the drain". An enormous amount of knowledgeable-tennis-editors' time is wasted countering this biased editing that could otherwise be spent substantially improving Wikipedia.

Evidence

Warnings given regarding WP:NPOV and WP:V violations
1) May 2019, 2) Jun 2019, 3) Jul 2019, 4) Jul 2019 (2), 5) Dec 2020, 6) Mar 2021, 7) Jun 2021, 8) Sep 2021, 9) Nov 2021, 10) Feb 2022, 11) Apr 2022

Hoad inflation (key examples)

• Falsely claimed that Hoad, not Rod Laver was first to reach $1 million prize money based on original research. [137] [138] [139] (proof the $1 million is widely accepted: [140] [141][142][143]) (relevant discussion).
• Repeatedly added mid-career prize money tallies after consensus among other editors [144] concluded that these were unnecessary bloat: [145] [146]. Added false information that Hoad made $140,000 in just six months in 1957: [147]. Again he misused one source, in contradiction to all other sources (proof the real figure was $33,600).
• Added the false information that Hoad held the record for most major doubles titles: [148] (proof this is false is in The History of Professional Tennis, Joe McCauley, (2000), pp. 256-257).

Hoad rival diminishment (key examples)

• Removed Rod Laver's landmark achievement of being the first to earn $1 million prize money [149] under the guise of "consistency" (relevant discussion).
• Repeatedly changed name of several editions of the U.S. Pro Tennis Championships to "Cleveland World Pro", thereby attempting to strip them of their major status (Hoad never won that tournament) [150] [151] (proof this is false) (relevant discussions: 1 2).

Other false info (key examples)

• (2022) Repeatedly added the false information that amateur tennis players were actually professional before the Open Era, e.g. added to Ramanathan Krishnan the claim that he was a "registered professional" before 1968 [152] [153]. (proof he wasn't: Krishnan participated in Wimbledon, a Grand Slam, in 1967, but "until 1968 tennis was divided into professional and amateur circuits, meaning those paid to play were barred from competing in the Grand Slam tournaments" [154]) (relevant discussion).
• (2022) Misrepresented a source for Pancho Gonzales' prize money in mid-1965 by adding $8000 to the figure listed under the assumption that it excluded prize money from the Dallas tournament [155] (proof the source lists $18,945 not $26,945). Also added false, unverified speculation that Gonzales was the top earner for the year [156] (proof he wasn't), and used this as justification to remove the true statement that Gonzales wasn't the top pro from 1965-1967 [157] (relevant discussion).

50+ other examples of editors correcting false info or removing bloat added by this user from Lew Hoad in the past ~12 months

• Not all of these are major, but they collectively show the need for constant monitoring of this user's edits.
  [158][159]*[160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192][193][194] [195][196] [197][198][199][200] [201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211][212][213][214]

25+ other examples of editors correcting false info or removing bloat added by this user from Hoad-related pages in the past ~12 months
World number 1 ranked male tennis players: [215][216][217][218][219][220][221]; Pancho Gonzales: [222][223][224][225][226][227][228][229][230]; Jack Kramer: [231][232][233][234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241]

Relevant talk pages

• Talk:Lew Hoad/Archive 1, Talk:Lew Hoad/Archive 2, Talk:Lew Hoad/Archive 3, Talk:Pancho Gonzales, Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 5 Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 5 Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 6 Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 9 Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players

Therefore, as he has demonstrated over a period of years that he cannot edit neutrally within this topic area despite repeated warnings, we request that he be topic-banned from articles related to Lew Hoad, broadly construed.

Signed:

• Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Krosero (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Letcord (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Reply

The issues raised above were resolved long ago, and this complaint made above is not about recent editing. Many of my recent edits were related to other tennis articles such as World Number One, Tennis Pro Tours and Tournament Series, Tony Roche, Bob Bedard, Jack Kramer, Luis Ayala, Frank Kovacs, Pancho Segura and many other tennis players. I made some edits recently to the Major Professional Tennis Tournaments article showing a record achievement for Gonzales, a pro-Gonzales discovery. I have received "Thanks" notices from other editors, such as ForzaUV, Wolbo, Tennishistory1877, Fyunck, Rard, and other editors as can be seen on my notices page. The recent edits which I made to the Hoad article have not been challenged by anyone. I would like to know why this issue is being raised now, when recent editing has not been challenged. The attempt above to revive old arguments is irrelevant. The issues surrounding conflicting newspaper reports about earnings were not relevant to the article and nearly all of the financial discussions were removed from the Hoad and other tennis biography articles by consensus, some time ago. Why should someone try to make an issue of this now? The attempt above to renew these old discussions is not relevant to current editing. I notice that someone above claims that we are still debating the status of the U.S. Pro at Cleveland, but then adduces evidence taken from discussions in 2019 and 2020. That is old news, the discussion has moved well beyond that point, with new evidence, as can be seen on the U.S. Pro article tables which we currently have and which are apparently accepted by the editors above. If consensus has been achieved, as on this point, there is nothing to be gained by dredging up old arguments and trying to create an issue.Tennisedu (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The most recent of the major issues listed in the complaint was last week. There have been regular problems with this editor throughout the three year period he has been editing on wikipedia. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The amount of material I posted with which there is no problem is enormous, and all the issues you have attempted to dredge up from previous years were resolved. That is how responsible editing proceeds. Take a look at the Kramer, Hoad, Tennis Pro Tours, and other articles where I have posted material recently, I do not see any unresolved issues there, despite the large amount of material added. I notice that you referred to the Hoad article where last week you removed the reference to the Sydney Herald, that was not a false edit on my part. You just did not think that it was a good enough reference. That is a matter of personal opinion, but I did not make an issue of it. Why you would try to make a "major" issue of that now is beyond my understanding. You seem to be searching hard for something to complain about. However I notice that you "thanked" me on my notice page, Tennishistory1877? Obviously you must see something of value in my edits. Tennisedu (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Immediate indef block needed for Charlieo308

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

---

Charlieo308 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Immediate indef block needed here. See this tirade. After a history of problematic editing in Nazism articles, this has now gone way over the line. Consider revoking TPA? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Taken care of, however in the future this could be taken to WP:AIV as well. User indef'd and edits/summaries were revdel'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

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

User:RS6784 should be immediately blocked he has caltered two pages completely

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

---

There is continous disruptive editing by a user User:RS6784. He has changed entire content of the page without any consensus and removed many info like Name of Ahirs in Haryana. The account seems to be single purpose account and for degrading community like Ahir, Yadav and Jat People. Please expiernced editors have a look and revert the changes until any consensus is achieved. Please have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaminthdas (talk • contribs)

This is a content issue that should be discussed on the talk pages. Doesn't appear to be ANI-worthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks most of these are supposed sock accounts which gets created instantly and they report an editor to discourage normal improvement of pages. You can see the edits on Yadav, Ahir page, I have been trying to improve the pages with more WP:RS references like here [[242]], similarly anything removed by me can be verified ( a lot of them are WP:QS). The point is whatever I have added or removed, all that can be verified and it doesn't violate any rules at Wikipedia. On the other hand such pages have lots of puffery as well which needs some corrections along with addition of reliable references. I think this is an attempt by new accounts who could be possible socks to hound an editor as part of WP: HOUNDING. Recently, I was wrongly accused by another new account which got created on the day itself and then directly reported me and please for everyone look at the Admin comments on the same: [[243]], In my view, Admin needs to look into some of these accounts. RS6784 (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

He has completely changed everything he needs to be immediately blocked Kaminthdas (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah no, this isn't how it works. Go to the talk page of the article. Discuss the changes you want to make. Come to a consensus on them. And I'll be blunt, a brand new user's 2nd ever edit is to go straight to ANI? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Kaminthdas: As the red text near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The user has added anything without consensus in a controversial topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baidy540 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay. So apply WP:Bold, revert, discuss. They boldly added content. If you disagree with that bold addition, remove it. If they want to restore it there will been to be a discussion. That's the entire Wikipedia model. Singularity42 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Goweser and WP:NOTHERE

Goweser has, as their only three contributions to Wikipedia, been revert-warring to restore a blatant WP:NOTFORUM post by an IP (1, 2, 3). The user has made no other contribution, is not signing the IPs comments as their own, and has made no justification for why such NOTFORUM violations should be retained. I am hoping to avoid Talk:Israel becoming a forum to discuss one's personal views of a "no you started it" level, and I cant imagine an editor revert-warring to include such comments without making any other contribution to this place shouldnt be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. nableezy - 14:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I prefer more data points for a NOTHERE block. I'm going to block the account temporarily for disruptive editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Sharontse121 and WP:NOTHERE

Sharontse121 (talk · contribs) is WP:NOTHERE, their talk page is a compendium of serious warnings stretching back to basically their first edits which pile up unaddressed until blanked. They repeatedly push hardcore PRC doctrine such as here earlier this month where they changed the lead of Taipei to "Taipei officially Taipei City, is a city in eastern China located on the Taiwan island. While internationally recognized as in the People's Republic of China, the city is under the de facto administration of the Republic of China, which claims it as its capital city."[244]. Just today they sneakily (no edit summary) edited out a key aspect of the history of the [[East Asian Youth Games] [[245]] [246], again Taiwan related. Going back to their early edits we find significant disruption to a number of China related pages like 2022 Winter Olympics [247], Uyghurs[248], Kazakhs [249], Xinjiang internment camps [250], List of mosques in China [251], Hotan prefecture [252], Tashi Lhunpo Monastery [253], 2022 Winter Olympics opening ceremony [254], etc. I really could go on forever, the majority of their edits appear to be disruptive. I propose an indefinite block for Sharontse121 as they are an extreme net negative to the project and are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Smathers90 Nazism

On the page Michelangelo (computer virus) he made the comment that "the Jews run the News. More fear = More Shekels! Wake up sheeple!", as you can see here. This is a clear violation of WP:NONAZI which says suggesting "That there exists a massive or even global conspiracy to enrich Jews at the expense of others" counts as Nazism. Please block User:Smathers90 immediately. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Indef blocked per WP:NONAZI Oz\^InterAct 18:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Unconstructive edits on health and Nigeria-related pages

• Woka Henry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Nosakhare Okuons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ikoabasi Umoh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

These three users are all making very similar edits to health and Nigeria-related pages, adding citations or wiki links. Most of these edits are redundant citations ([255][256]), or overlinking ([257][258]). Woka Henry has already been warned by Escape Orbit, EngineeringEditor and Arjayay for adding citations to dictionary definitions of random words in the article. All the accounts also have similar user pages and edit summaries. I would like to AGF and assume that these accounts are part of some editing contest or event, such as Wikipedia:Meetup/WikiForHumanRights 2022 in Nigeria; however, there are no edit summary tags being used this time. I am requesting admin assistance in dealing with this since there is a high volume of edits, and they cover many pages. Yeeno (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion - Jonnyspeed20

• Jonnyspeed20
• 81.98.196.96

I suspect that blocked user Jonnyspeed20 (see previous ANI - [259]) is evading their indefinite block by making IP edits.

81.98.196.96 has been making edits indistinguishable to those of Jonnyspeed20 on the same UK town articles, removing information associated with counties, and using the same wording. Also worth noting is the fact the IP has edited R/GA, a page frequently edited by this user. The user has previously resorted to IP edits (see previous ANI), and IP blocks for this user have previously been made. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems reasonably likely to be block evasion based on the behavioral evidence. In the future, sock puppets should be reported to WP:SPI with evidence in the form of diffs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Unreferenced content: BradRob16

Requesting block on user User:BradRob16. This user has persistently added unreferenced content to the page The Rising (TV series) and despite having been warned twice and reverted several times, they continue to make repeated identical posts. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Let's see if that gets their attention. In future, these types of reports can go to WP:AIV Oz\^InterAct 14:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipelli and Globalism

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

---

I have reason to believe that user:Wikipelli is secretly a paid editor employed by the World Economic Forum, as evidenced by his/her reverts to my contributions. CorkZone (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

A look through CorkZone's article edits convinces me that they are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Schazjmd (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Your IP address is an Israeli one, isn’t it? CorkZone (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes they have already been reported at AIV for adding original research despite warnings. Dove's talk (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Dove's talk. Schazjmd (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

CorkZone, if you have, "reason to believe", please articulate that reason here. I have reverted several of your edits and my reasons are all stated in the warnings that I've left on your talk page. I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia, secretly or otherwise. Wikipelli ^Talk 23:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Definition of "live edit"

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

---

Probably not the right place to ask this, but someone here ought to have an answer. There's a simple request for help at User talk:interstatefive, who is asking for the definition of "live edit" as a qualifier for Arbcom election voting. I thought it meant any non--automated edit, until I read Wikipedia:5-minute guide to ArbCom elections. Two of the four qualifiers to vote is both (not either/or):

• has made at least 150 mainspace edits before 00:00, 1 November
• has made at least 10 live edits (in any namespace) within one year of 00:00, 1 November

Now I'm curious. How does a live edit differ from other edits? — Maile (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK live edits are the opposite of deleted edits, i.e. edits which were made to pages that haven't been deleted. For example, my XTools stats say I have ~30k live edits and ~300 deleted edits. Also, asking these kinds of questions on the help desk in the future would probably be better. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 01:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yep, Isabelle is correct. Mz7 (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Persistent Subtle Vandalism/Misinformation from IPs in 49.196.0.0/16

The IP range 49.196.0.0/16 appears to be engaged in a lot of subtle vandalism by changing factual information on pages. This range has partial block from editing Pete Smith (announcer) which I noticed when reverting fact changes on Shane Warne that came from two IPs in the range. Looking at edits coming from that IP range, there seems to be a number of cases of subtle vandalism or uncited changes of information that'd be likely to go unnoticed, such as tweaking the runtimes of films by a few minutes (see Diamond Girl and Another Cinderella Story). Reviewing these is likely to be annoying and I suspect many would go unnoticed by standard recent changes patrolling. It seems likely a single user is making some of these edits but it's unclear if other users might be contained in the CIDR (and of course, a v4 /16 is pretty large). Not sure what the right action is here but thought I'd notify admins. (Also, I'm putting the ANI notice on User talk:49.196.227.4 but have no clue what the right way to notify an IP range is, if there is any) Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a deluge of small edits from that range but I couldn't see any that are definitely wrong. Something strange is happening at User:Sampyu/sandbox (see its history) but strangeness is normal at Wikipedia. If anyone can see a bad edit please produce a diff. While I would favor requiring shifting IPs making unexplained changes to communicate, there is not yet an appetite to enforce that given no evidence of bad edits. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

TÜRKMENISTANI ENJOYER

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

---

TÜRKMENISTANI ENJOYER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is clearly the account of the disruptive IP that has been rangeblocked for 3 months

Added 'Afshar dialect' as a language; IP [260] - user [261]

Replaced 'Azerbaijani' with 'Afshar'; IP [262] - user [263]

Both removed mention of 'Azerbaijani'; IP [264] - user [265]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Needs immediate block: see their edits to this page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yall dumbasses, before xou revert something you shoukd research it, the Javanshir family and thus the whole Karabakh Khanate was Afshar, it is even written in wikipedia, so why you mention the azeri language even though the afshar one would be correct and why pan-azeri kansasbear reverted edits on qara qoyunlu even though beshogur agreed with the edit?he ididnr even showed any prove!🤦🏻‍♂️ Geneially if you go under the edit versions of aq and qara qoyunlu rulers you will see they are only edited by people of azerbaijani descend!🤦🏻‍♂️ Wikipedia got a biased puece of shit anf I have to fix it BY TÜRKMEN ENJOYER

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

Draft:Pepul (social network)

Got an interesting situation here. A few days ago, Draft:Pepul (social network) was created by Muthukumarsivan (talk · contribs), and on the 30th was moved out of draftspace and into articlespace by one Athiselva (talk · contribs). Ordinarily I wouldn't second-guess a reviewer, but looking into it gives me the impression that (1) Athiselva shouldn't be reviewing any drafts and especially not this particular one, and (2) Muthu is a sockpuppet of Athiselva.

Two previous drafts existed on or around the 23rd, both made by Athiselva, but were both deleted as G11 and a WP:UPE warning given. Cue Muthu popping up on the 26th to re-create the draft, and Athiselva "reviewing" it with their autoconfirmed account on the 30th. Both users are only interested in this article. I'm currently assessing its sources right now, but given the apparent deception here I'm asking for blocks (ideally pblocks) of both Athiselva and Muthukumarsivan from the draft and mainspace titles to prevent any further moves. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 11:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I have pblocked both users from both the draft and the live article pending investigation into sockpuppetry and SPA. Oz\^InterAct 13:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Danke. SPI filed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

And it seems to have come back as I figured, plus two less-used accounts as well (Ramae013 (talk · contribs), Selva2pepul (talk · contribs)). I'm now asking for outright indef blocks of the lot of them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Jack M E 01

Jack M E 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) consistently edits without edit summaries, has never edited a talk page and has repeatedly added unsourced (or poorly sourced) content to articles. Despite numerous warnings on their talk page, they continue this behaviour. To be clear, I think *most* of their contributions are perfectly valid, but I want some acknowledgement from them about whether they know some of these edits are problematic and if they're working on improving, so I'm hoping this discussion will prompt them to do that.

Some diffs on their recent problematic edits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. FozzieHey (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks like I already gave him a final warning. What's so wrong with those edits, though? Obviously, I was upset over something, probably unsourced birth dates or real names in a BLP. That's what most of my BLP warnings are for. One of the edits looks like it's replacing a citation to the IMDb. The IMDb is listed in WP:USERG as the canonical example of an unreliable source. The website cited says "Adriana Sivieri, attrice (100 anni)", which is "Adriana Sivieri, actress (100 years old)" according to Google Translate. What's the problem? Is it that the website is unreliable? What's the point in reverting back to the IMDb, then? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that IMDb is an unreliable source. I probably should've spent more time looking at what sources were being replaced for that particular edit (the Roma Daily News one looks fairly reliable (more so than IMDb anyway, I think the argument here is whether the article says that they were alive then, or whether they've simply just got a list of birthdates and published it based on those), so I've now restored that, the other one in the edit seems more like a personal website) but the purpose of posting those revisions was simply to highlight that the editor continues to add either unreliable sources or no sources at all despite them being warned about it repeatedly for many months. As I said, the majority of edits are completely fine (hence I raised this here, and not at AIV) but for the few that aren't, they should be relatively easy to solve with a simple discussion. Obviously this is the whole point of talk pages, which I'm hoping we can get them to participate in with this discussion. FozzieHey (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

S201050066 and COVID-19 timeline pages

S201050066 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been told by multiple editors that the addition of Ontario (and to a smaller extent, Quebec) cases, recoveries, and deaths to an international COVID-19 timeline page (e.g., Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020) does not have due weight, and had been given the suggestion to improve COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario and COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec instead. To the best of my knowledge, Andykatib had been working with them to improve those articles, and I thought that was that. Their grasp of the English language is tenuous at best, and I am not sure they fully understand what other users are telling them (the introduction and readdition of grammatical errors, and not understanding how to sign or use talk pages correctly). It's only today that they learned how to use the reply button.

Yesterday I was pinged by 220 of Borg at User talk:S201050066 about the user's persistent additions to the timeline pages, and I went through those pages to remove those lines and make other small changes. S201050066 then reverts my changes without an edit summary several times while I discussed this on their talk page. For example, on Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020:

• First reversion
• Second reversion
• Third reversion

Though none have gotten close to breaching 3RR like the aforementioned page, reversions have also occurred so far on:

• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in May 2020
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2020
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in July 2020
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in August 2020
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in September 2020
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in October 2020
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in November 2020
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2020
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in January 2021
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in February 2021
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2021
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2021
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in May 2021
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2021
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in July 2021
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in August 2021

for which one can find the reversions on the history pages.

If the issue was only edit warring, I would've gone to the edit warring noticeboard (warning given here), but their conduct extends beyond that. After that, S201050066 gave me a templated warning for making personal attacks, though nowhere have I done that. After giving them a firm warning, they removed it and my reply, claiming that they would do better with [their] behavior for [sic] now on. After admonishing them one more time for their conduct, S201050066 said I was free to re-revert their reversions and that they were leaving Wikipedia, and after I did so, they changed their mind and started reverting my reimplemented changes with a fuck you; I gave them a warning for that. They finished with a "leaving Wikipedia for good" comment.

Addendum: S201050066 left a veiled threat. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

what is wrong with you guys if you had let me continue putting the Ontario and Quebec covid references on the timeline pages we would have not had been in this mess I think you guys had owned me an apology it should've never came down to this S201050066 (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I reverted another month of the covid 19 timeline page S201050066 (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

For someone who said they were leaving Wikipedia forever, you seem to be hanging around. You do not get an apology, as multiple editors have said that Ontario is too insignificant to be on the international pages. Canada as an entire country is fine; Ontario as a province is not. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

False user warnings, edit warring, and editing against consensus are all disruptive to the project. S201050066, why should you be permitted to continue to contribute to Wikipedia? Schazjmd (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

if you guys don' want me on Wikipedia anymore just block my account forever and that is it S201050066 (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Should that be taken as an admission that you have no intention of changing your behaviour? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Schazjmd so what happened was that I was putting the CP24 references into monthly timeline pages and then I went to bed I woke up in the morning and I saw the edits so I undid them and they kept doing it and then I decided to resign I did not resign from Wikipedia and resigned from the COVID-19 project and then they reverted edits again and they kept doing it and I fired back at them and told them to stop but they didn't listen to me Tenryuu then threated to report me I feel like I am getting harassed on Wikipedia and my right to edit was just getting trampled on and I don't know what to do. S201050066 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Last November you acknowledged the problems that other editors had identified with your edits: thank you for letting about the policy I know it was not an easy decision to make but at the end of the day it national cases only I should've listened to you guys back in July when this was brought to my attention.[266] Yet you're continuing to repeat the problematic edits (such as adding Quebec and Ontario to global COVID articles). On your talk page, I see multiple editors have put in a lot of effort to try and help you improve. If you're not willing to listen to them, learn, and improve, you're simply making a lot of work for other editors who have to fix errors that you introduce. Your comments here don't give me any confidence that you're going to make any changes in the way you've been editing. Schazjmd (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's be clear here: no one has a right to edit; it's a privilege that can be rescinded if it's being abused. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

when did you guys change the policy of allowing non country's onto the monthly timeline pages and who told on me about the issue S201050066 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

 Update: S201050066 has reached the 3RR limit at Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2022 (1 2 3), and has received an edit warring warning from Manticore. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

...and they've breached 3RR. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that S201050066 is continuing to put Ontario data on the timeline even now, along with some other trivia (e.g., football players getting COVID). I believe an indefinite block is needed until we get a sincere demonstration that the disruptions will not continue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The disruption[267][268][269][270] is just too much Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Being a wimp, I have issued a final warning at User talk:S201050066#Warning. Let me know if further action is required. Johnuniq (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq, they just reverted again.[271] (and again[272][273][274]). I'm afraid they don't intend to stop until they're blocked. Schazjmd (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

They're continuing to edit war. See Special:Diff/1085521191 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

They've also done something like 5 reverts in the last hour. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, was just about to report here I was immediately reverted without explanation in violation of 3RR after the final warning. Needs an indef block and a cleanup of all these edits. Singularity42 (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Oops, they've done it again! I'm not going to try to fix the page yet again, as it'll just be reverted by them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This reversion has a misleading edit summary—Undid revision 1085522041 by Rsjaffe (talk) no Ontario references should be on here—where they reintroduced said Ontario references. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if that was a missing comma? ("No, Ontario references should be on here") Singularity42 (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This has become kind of sad. I feel sorry for the user, but I don't think the user is rehabilitable. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This person definitely seems to need a timeout. Zaathras (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq, we may need admin action here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Leave the Ontario References on there S201050066 (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@S201050066: You have been told multiple times that references to Ontario should go in COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, not the timeline pages that cover multiple nations. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Latest in a volley of reversions by S...: Special:Diff/1085535343 "Tenryru started this war and I will fight until the very end" — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I filed this at the edit warring board to make it formal. Zaathras (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for edit warring across multiple pages, and declaring that they had no intention to stop. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Live long and prosper. 🖖 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

2001:7E8:C473:B401:6DA9:5074:70D4:81A Racism

2001:7E8:C473:B401:6DA9:5074:70D4:81A said "The vast majority of Irish immigrants to Britain are terrorist supporting bombers." as you can see here. This is blatant racism and defamation. WP:No racists says that both "Various conspiracy theories about other racial groups" and that "Other races seek to destroy theirs." is racism. This could fit into either category. Please block them immediately 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks (/64). El_C 23:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Page move user right revoked after good-faith RM close

Admin @El C: revoked my page move user right after my close of an RM at Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation (link to the RM see also User_talk:Vpab15#Page_move_user_right_revoked). I thought there was a consensus that "Russian" should be removed from the title so I chose one of the many options that corrected that. But even if the close was really bad (which I don't think it was), removing the user right for one mistake seems like a huge overreaction and totally disproportionate. To be clear, the revocation was done without any kind of discussion with me about the close. Honestly, if any mistake when editing will be harshly punished, I don't think I want to bother contributing. To sum up, I'd like to have my user right reinstated and I think admins shouldn't punish other editors for good faith edits without giving them a chance to correct or explain themselves. Vpab15 (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't a punishment, it was to prevent future disruption (AEL diff). And I'm also not sure it's just one mistake, as they claim, seeing as pretty much the only discussion threads displayed on Vpab15's talk page right now are about contesting their closures. This user did not make a substantive effort to show that they understand the reasons for why it was a bad close and provide assurances against repeating it (here). They don't seem to understand what a WP:SUPERVOTE is, still. Which displays a fundamental misunderstanding on their part, one which I continue to argue needs to be sufficiently addressed if they are to be given back this use right (which used to be part of the admin toolkit, lest we forget). El_C 21:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I have just checked WP:ACDS#Awareness. I wasn't aware of the discretionary sanctions. Can I be sanctioned in that case? Vpab15 (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I realize this might be confusing, but I didn't invoke WP:ACDS for that sanction, but rather for the protection actions (diff). I just made a note of it in the log because it was an integral part of related events. Basically, this was a WP:CIR revocation. I had no idea whether your editing at WP:ARBEE/WP:APL is problematic (I still don't). Did the fact that it was a contested ARBEE/APL page (and currently at AfD) exacerbate the problem? Sure, but it wasn't about the topic area, specifically. And again, you didn't inquire about any of that till now. El_C 22:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I see. Any misunderstanding is my fault because I didn't inquire. On the other hand you can revoke someone's user right without giving them a proper explanation. Very reasonable. Vpab15 (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The explanation was provided: WP:BADNAC WP:SUPERVOTE close/move, the basis of which I still don't know if you understand, even now. El_C 22:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I still don't understand it. Neither WP:BADNAC nor WP:SUPERVOTE mention anything about revoking someone's user rights. WP:SUPERVOTE explicitly says If you believe that a closure reflects the closer's own opinion instead of consensus, civilly ask the closer to revert their closure and !vote by their preferences. Vpab15 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, if any admin thinks you should have your page mover user right restored, well, I think it'd be a mistake, but I won't stand in the way. Needless to say, I'm concerned about non-page mover -related closes if this is the approach and your threshold of understanding of WP:CLOSE overall. El_C 23:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Supervoting seems like it would be covered by Wikipedia:Page mover#Criteria for revocation #1. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Criterion #1 mentions a pattern of controversial moves. The revocation was done in response to a single move, so I don't think it applies. Vpab15 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Right, but then I saw your talk page where prior to me posting, displayed 2 of 3 threads that contested your closes/moves. And you still haven't demonstrated that you understand the problem with the move/close I overturned. You've basically just been arguing procedure about the revocation, but you've said nothing about why it was problematic, what you'd do differently next time. It's a wrongheaded approach which, I'm sorry to say, does not inspire confidence. El_C 23:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Vpab15 The criteria for revoking page mover rights are laid out in the appropriate section of WP:Page mover, WP:Page mover#Criteria for revocation. This right generally does not require any process or notice prior to revocation. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:ADMINCOND of Hammersoft

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

---

It is with regret that I file this request against an administrator.

On 28 April, Hammersoft made an oppose vote in Tamzin's RFA. In doing so, they described Tamzin's beliefs as disgusting in the extreme, despicable views and horrifying.

Earlier this evening, Hammersoft expanded upon their previous remarks, urging Tamzin to withdraw their candidacy. In doing so, not only did they ping Tamzin, they also used language that in my opinion is tantamount to bullying. Primarily: But, do you really want to be an administrator given that the community, since the revelation, is clearly not supporting you?.

In response to Hammersoft's comments, particularly those made this evening, both GeneralNotability and myself asked Hammersoft to reflect upon what they had written, and in my case I included an urge for them to strike the second comment citing my belief that the words used were bullying. In doing so I cited WP:ADMINCOND and both GeneralNotability and I additionaly included reference to the nine principles listed on Hammersoft's user page.

In reply, Hammersoft demonstrated little to no reflection upon the words both GN and I wrote, nor the words they originally wrote. I cannot see a good faith interpretation of I am not commenting on the person in particular when comparing it to the words Hammersoft wrote on 28 April. Additionally I am gravely concerned that an administrator is not taking seriously concerns surrounding bullying, especially when they defend their choice of language as It is calling it what it is. I have seen and had personal experience of many bullies throughout my life using that exact phrase to defend their actions.

I realise that this RfA has become tense over the last couple of days. And I hesitate to bring it to a noticeboard as active as this one, given the potential for a Streisand effect like raise in awareness. However I also need to weigh this concern against the harms that the words Hammersoft has chosen to use to describe Tamzin may/will have had upon their physical and mental wellbeing.

I have no other comments to make about Hammersoft outside of this context. Until this evening I had not to my knowledge had any interactions with them. It may be, and I hope it truly is, that in other contexts and discussions they have not said words as targeted as this. However I feel I must speak out on this, as RfA is already a toxic nightmare for candidates to navigate without current sitting administrators adding onto that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I've notified Hammersoft and GeneralNotability of this thread. I am hesitant to notify Tamzin due to the stress they are undoubtedly under, however I will do so if it is felt as if it is required. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we not do this? The RFA has 150+watchers, undoubtedly dozens of which are admins, and had 10k views yesterday. I think there's enough eyes on it and the conversations. I don't think pinging someone and expressing an opinion is worth creating even more drama.

Best case scenario, this gets closed almost immediately as no action. Worst case, it generates 200kB of text, then gets closed as no action. Can we take the easy path, just once? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully there is a difference between pinging someone and expressing an opinion, and pinging an RfA candidate urging them to withdraw their candidacy after describing that candidates views in a manner that in any other context on enwiki would be considered a blatant personal attack. Now imagine for a minute that you are the candidate in the RfA, and someone (admin or otherwise) has made these exact words in relation to yourself. How would you feel? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

200kB it is :( ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

"But, do you really want to be an administrator given that the community, since the revelation, is clearly not supporting you?"

I'm sorry, but in what way is this representative of a 'blatant personal attack'? Not to be condescending -- I genuinely don't see a connection. Pointing out a wave of opposition showing up, and questioning somebody regarding their dedication to the RfA at hand, doesn't seem very personal attack-y to me. Rin (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Per the original vote made on 28 April: This lock-step belief that a person can't be trusted if they have political views opposing the candidate's isn't just troubling, it's disgusting in the extreme. and That we would embolden a member of this community with such despicable views is horrifying emphasis is from Hammersoft. In the first quotation, Hammersoft is describing Tamzin's opinions as disgusting in the extreme. In the second quote, Hammersoft is describing Tamzin's views as despicable and horrifying. Those are personal attacks on Tamzin. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I've gone back and forth over the past fifteen minutes about how I want to respond to this, particularly on the question of whether it's ANI-worthy or not. I don't think I have an answer to that, so I'll just leave you all the other thoughts I have. I can't say I'm happy with Hammersoft right now, and frankly I find their "I'm commenting on the candidate's opinions, not the candidate" stance disingenuous. However, I'm also a member of the "talk about the importance of civility on your userpage" club and I am certainly not in a position to cast stones at Hammersoft. We all have days where we get things wrong and we all have things that we get worked up over, and as far as I can tell this is not a pattern of behavior. I also remind everyone here that RfA is probably an admin candidate's most stressful week on Wikipedia, every oppose stings whether merited or not, and major drama does not help with that. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I've not been impressed with Hammersoft in this RfA from their hyperbolic initial oppose, and it's certainly arguable that pinging a candidate during their RfA and asking them to withdraw on spurious grounds is a breach of ADMINCOND. But this should have been discussed on Hammersoft's talk page, as they indicated they were willing to do so. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• To prevent a possible derailment of the RfA: Suggest moving the oppose discussion to the RfA talkpage & closing this until the RfA has commenced. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
• Because I feel constructive discussion will not be possible here if everyone can only speculate as to my feelings, I'm going to give a brief statement and then ignore the rest of this thread: 1) The initial characterizations of my views as "despicable" and "disgusting" hurt me. 2) I was upset by the decision to ping me while I was already under a good deal of stress, especially since it served to call attention back to that initial statement. That's just my feelings; I express no view on whether either comment constituted a violation of any policy or guideline. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

What about the people that you hurt by your statements? Do they not matter? BilCat (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

BilCat, genuine question: has anyone said as much? Not "I think Tamzin's statement is inappropriate for a potential administrator," but "I am one of the people Tamzin is referring to and I am hurt by it" GeneralNotability (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

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

2A01:73C0:500:63B5:0:0:2941:C9AA canvassing

This IP is canvassing users to a requested move in the ARBPIA topic area. One of the canvassed users has so far obliged. Dollars to donuts it’s Yaniv. nableezy - 00:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

2a01:73c0:500::/40 has been CU-blocked for a period of 3 months by NinjaRobotPirate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Content deletion on Russian-themed articles

In recent hours, an anon 2603:7000:2143:8500:50AC:3B7E:65AD:BF9E has been deleting large sections of Russia-related articles on the grounds that they are unsourced (although leaving intact other unsourced statements). See here. I don't quite know where to put this: although such deletion falls within the strict requirements of WP:V, so isn't technically vandalism, I think it is more usual practice to put {{Citation needed}} tags on unsourced text, at least for a while. If every unsourced claim is removed from the encyclopedia it would be a lot thinner! Also I looked at a few and there is no talk page discussion. Can anyone figure out why they should be so targeted? Incidentally there are no other contributions from the /64 range. I'll add a notice to the talk page. David Brooks (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)