Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

User Noteduck HOUNDING and violating AE civility warning

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

---

Noteduck is a relatively new editor who opened their account in Dec 2020. They made a few edits with a prior account Spungo93. In a short period of time it became clear that Noteduck had civility issues related to edit warring and generally confrontational behavior issues. To this end I opened an AE related to Noteduck's behavior which resulted in a logged warning on 25 March (3 months ago)[[1]]. In the 3 months since Noteduck has engaged in a clear pattern of hounding and incivility with respect to my edits and myself.

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

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

• Aprox 40 sandbox entries to a grievances list in violation of POLEMIC [[2]]. After a repeated requests they blanked the list with an questionable edit summary [[3]]. Since deletion they have continued to add to the list [[4]].

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

• Followed me to a 3RRN where they were uninvolved to attack my credibility. [[5]].
• Cold contacting other editors to campaign against me [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]].

• Engaging in topic areas where they weren't previously involved after I was involved and in a way that opposed my edit/arguments:
  • Odal rune RfC [[11]]
  • Candace Ownes, restoring disputed material[[12]] by reverting my edit without participating in the on going talk page discussion [[13]].
  • I edited the Wall Street Journal page 31 March, Noteduck finds the page 1 April [[14]]
  • Tucker Carlson, reverting my removal of disputed content [[15]] despite not being involved in any related talk page discussions

• Article talk page comments/edit summaries that focus on me as an editor rather than on edits
  • Earlier today [[16]], "Frankly, I ask you to familiarize yourself with with Wikipedia:HOUND and WP:FILIBUSTER and ask yourself why you you continue to persist with challenging this exceedingly minor edit.", [[17]] where they accuse me of having a double standard, and [[18]] "respectfully, you've had considerable difficulty understanding WP:DUE and other policies in the past, including on this page,"

• Violated page's 1RR restriction when restoring the disputed edit above. 1st [[19]] 2nd [[20]]

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

I've repeatedly warned Noteduck that this is a HOUNDING issue that needs to stop (closing AE admin's page [[23]], Noteduck's page [[24]]) with no success. I was hopeful when they recently focused on editing on topics like architecture it would mean I would be left alone. From my earliest interactions with Noteduck last winter I have tried to make it clear the editorial disagreements aren't personal disagreements. Personalizing disputes was one of the problems discussed at Noteducks AE. Despite trying to keep things civil it is clear they did not understand the prior AE warning. I am requesting either an AP2 topic ban or a 1-way interaction ban (I will voluntarily avoid interacting with them as well). Springee (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

I've absolutely not only focused on Springee's edits: see my contributions page.[25] My recent new pages include Architecture of Belarus, Land Captain (Russian Empire), Wellerman etc plus extensive work on Texas Revolution, We Will Always Love You and more. Given a shared interest in politics we've indeed both edited Andy Ngo, Douglas Murray, and others. I maintain that Springee is a repeat civil-POV pusher on conservative politics (which almost all their edits relate to) invariably rejecting unflattering material. Springee was before arb com just a month ago for adding material from deprecated Daily Caller to the Andy Ngo page.[26] "Springee" gets 98 hits on the WP:AN archive. Many editors there share my concerns, and Springee's been sanctioned in the area of US politics before.[27] I indeed prepared a WP:AN complaint in sandbox, as Springee did against me[28] in Feb. My "double standard" comment came from Springee's persistence in wanting Fox's Ken LaCorte's "LaCorte News",[29] which dlthewave observed was "obviously terrible", added to Andy Ngo in April[30] {{{1}}} while rejecting material from Rolling Stone and Jacobin this month[31] (plus BuzzFeed News[32] and Bellingcat.[33] Springee is often litigious and made a WP:AN complaint based on an incorrect interpretation of 1RR on the Jared Kushner page in April.[34] I see this as a WP:BOOMERANG. Springee is quite fixated with challenging my edits and has 65 mentions on my talk page. I maintain that Springee's ongoing challenge to my short sentence on Andy Ngo is a WP:FILIBUSTER.[35] The 1RR Springee has raised with dlthewave[36] is trivial, as Dlthewave notes and I've reverted for now anyway.[37] Springee knows I'm sensitive and afflicted by bipolar-2 and prone to being angry and frustrated in manic phases. Full disclosure: yesterday I launched an unrelated WP:AN action after getting highly aggressive and personal insults elsewhere,[38] and can repeat details if necessary. I question Springee's decision to launch this complaint hours later and not wait for the other action to conclude Noteduck (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Noteduck, the recent AE against me was closed only with a comment to be more careful, not a logged warning.[[39]] Springee (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Edit: Noteduck removed the logged warning claim as part of a series of edits to their above statements[[40]]. The newly added claim I added "College Fix"[[41]] is an example of not getting the facts right. It was added by another editor [[42]] just before my edit. Springee (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck is trying to sidetrack with claims of bias etc but it's clear they personalize disputes (that was found at the AE and recent examples can be seen here. Rather than argue that edits were not supported they accused Conan The Librarian of acting on personal opinion/bias [[43]] and then proceed to put a warning on their user page [[44]]. In the month after the AE closed (24 March to 24 April), Noteduck made 39 edits. All but 5 were related to me. That included reverting my edits at pages they were otherwise uninvolved with, adding to the POLEMIC list, and trying to recruit other editors to join them against me. This fixation has toned down but they still treat all disputes as personal to the point that (see below) they accused me of knowing they are biopolar and trying to use that against them! It's clear that when editors disagree with them Noteduck is taking it personally. This is the core problem and one of the findings of the AE that resulted in a warning. I'm asking for this to stop. Springee (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Comment Some of these complaints really don't hold up to scrutiny, and the diffs don't all show what Springee says they do. I would urge folks to take a close look at the diffs in context before forming an opinion. Noteduck does good work in maintaining NPOV in controversial American Politics articles and I would hate to lose a productive editor from that topic. They do raise numerous valid concerns about Springee's editing (although perhaps they could find a better time and place to do so), and this complaint comes across as a fairly sad attempt to gain "first mover advantage" and silence an editor who they disagree with before they have the opportunity to present their evidence.
  • Regarding the sandbox concerns, it appears that Noteduck has been collecting evidence for an Arbcom case or similar, which is explicitly allowed per WP:POLEMIC: The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Sure, the definition of "timely manner" is debatable, but the second diff presented by Springee has been up for all of three days which surely is well within bounds. I would also note that Springee maintained a similar collection of diffs in their sandbox for three months during which time they repeatedly asked Noteduck to remove theirs [45][46]. Pot calling the kettle black? I'm also drawing a blank on how this edit summary (material addressing concerns of tendentious editing and civil-POV pushing put in a safe place. This does not mean the concern has gone away, and WP:ANI proceedings may eventually be required.) is in any way "questionable".
  • Tucker Carlson, The Wall Street Journal, Candace Owens and Odal (rune) have been in the news lately and are hot topics for editors involved in American politics; Noteduck and Springee are far from the only editors who showed up to these articles around the same time. I'm sorry but you'd have to be quite the conspiracy theorist or have particularly thin skin to think that someone who responds to the same RfC [47] as you is trying to create "irritation, annoyance or distress".
  • The 1RR concern is a nothingburger. Springee raised the concern on my talk page [48] (I thought they didn't like it when people did that?) and Noteduck promptly and politely self-reverted [49]. –dlthewave ☎ 21:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Dlthewave, several of your points are incorrect or misleading. I did in fact compile a sandbox list before filing an AE in February. I started the list on 29 Jan and filed the AE on 22 Feb, so just 1 month. I will grant that I didn't clean out my sandbox for two months but the AE was open for a month of that. You mention the 1RR violation. It was interesting how you handled what you thought was a 1RR on my part. You went fishing for sanctions.[[50]] Why weren't you as aggressive with Noteduck's clear violation? If Noteduck were editing a wide range of AP2 articles I would find your point about similar article interest to be more convincing. But articles like Odal (rune) are low traffic, Noteduck isn't making it to a lot of AP2 articles where I don't edit (and that's most). This also came at a time before they decided to edit about architecture and the vast majority of their edits were focused on me (at that time near 80% since the AE closure). Springee (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Springee, I can wipe my sandbox of references to you and any perceived breaches of policy now if you request. I can store it elsewhere if need be. However, you seem to be demanding that I never use my sandbox to build up any sort of allegation involving you again, which I think is pretty unreasonable (and indeed, a total WP:POTKETTLE situation). On the repeated HOUNDing allegations, please refer more to the specific parts of the policy you feel I am violating, and remember your many posts and 65 hits for "Springee" on my talk page[51] don't suggest you are exactly non-adversarial. Per WP:HOUND: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. I believe that this is what I've been doing. You've recently pinged me and reverted my edits on the Andy Ngo page,[52] dragging me away from other Wikipedia projects I enjoy much more: see Architecture of Belarus and Texas Revolution Noteduck (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

And again an inaccurate telling. I was consolidating citations per a talk page discussion [[53]]. As part of that I noted questionable claims that included OR [[54]][[55]]. Despite your last involvement with the article being in May, you quickly reverted my removal of the OR [[56]][[57]] just 1 hour later. I pinged you because I went to the talk page to discuss this [[58]]. I will note that you edit warred not with me but with Volteer1 who reverted your restorations. You claim I was targeting your edits, I agree you originally added the OR but that was on 22 Feb. I wasn't aware you were the original editor at the time I removed it. Mischaracterizing and personalizing these disputes is a big issue here. Springee (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

• The problem with long lists of diffs is the reason things were reverted is often lost. Noteduck's records aren't very accurate either. Consider above where they accuse me of adding "Collegefix" as a source even though that was added by a different editor. Sometimes the removal of a reliable source from an article is not related to it being a RS but DUE, WP:V, specific phrasing etc. Recently it was suggested that I removed Rolling Stones from the Andy Ngo article. It wasn't true. I removed a specific claim that failed Wp:V and the redundant citation associated with it. The fact that Noteduck has been creating such a long list over so many months supports my POLEMIC concern. The long list says I violated my self imposed 1RR rule twice yet fails to note once was to revert an IP editor, the other was 7 March, where I reverted myself because I didn't include an edit summary [59][60]. Springee (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• dc̄ I absolutely contend that there is enough evidence of such a long and egregious history of civil-POV pushing to launch a WP:ANI action against Springee, with the main difficulty being the staggering number of potentially relevant diffs. dlthewave I share your frustration that Springee's characterisation of the Odal rune page as "low-traffic" is typical of Springee's selective recall and application of policy. Similarly, my recent uptick in engagement on the Andy Ngo page was in response to Springee on 18 June making an unjustified wholesale revert (although I've repeatedly reminded them about WP:ROWN) of material I had added sometime earlier.[61] I don't find Ngo particularly edifying and recently have spent the vast majority of my time working on more interesting things like the Texas Revolution and a bunch of Russia-related topics in my sandbox.[62] As dlthewave notes I believe Springee's clear motive here is seeking "first mover advantage" they can leverage as a WP:BOOMERANG that distracts from their own actions. As course, as per WP:BOOMERANG: There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny. Noteduck (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

whoops, on the extremely trivial point about who added the "College Fix", it wasn't Springee. I still think it's inexplicable that you added a point about Andy Ngo being purportedly threatened by left-wing protestors on the basis of the sources "Katu" and "College Fix"[63] without questioning their reliability, while RS's more critical of Ngo have been repeatedly challenged and reverted. Yes, you did remove material from Rolling Stone from Ngo's page, just this month.[64] Noteduck (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

And this is why we have to look at the details because you are still getting things wrong left and right. First, these edits were done after starting a talk page discussion [[65]]. Second, I didn't add any of the sources. The edit you link to is one where I changed the language to match that from the parent article. Nothing more. If you want to complain about those sources why don't you talk to the editor who added them? As for Rolling Stone, you are conflating two arguments. I was talking about being accused of removing a source (in the past, not this instance) when I only removed a redundant example of the source. A diff that only looks at the one edit might miss that the removed source was redundant. As for the Rolling Stones material you reference, the issue was it didn't pass Wp:V. The source is still in the article but the specific claim was OR. Springee (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

About 20 KB, by Noteduck (talk · contribs)

In May 2021 Springee expressly named a belief that the Cato Institute was an RS, but the SPLC was not, again expressing their selective assessment of sources based on their ideological position. Partisan reverts: some of the sources Springee has removed from pages related to conservative politics because they are "biased", "subjective" or some other feeble reason: the Southern Poverty Law Center,[66][67][68][69][70][71] The New York Times and CNN,[72][73] National Review(!),[74] The Washington Post,[75] Newsweek,[76], The Washington Post and NBC,[77] The Washington Post and Bellingcat[78], Vox and The Daily Beast[79], the Los Angeles Times,[80] The Intercept,[81] the [[BBC],[82] Rolling Stone, Jacobin and Columbia Journalism Review[83], BuzzFeed News,[84] The Guardian(including restoring grammatical errors!)[85], Salon (website),[86] Forbes,[87] the Seattle Times,[88] Reports sans Frontieres,[89] New Republic and NBC News,[90] the Chicago Sun-Times[91] Politico and four other sources,[92] The Independent,[93] Daily Dot,[94][95][96] Reuters and Fox News(!)[97] Middle East Eye,[98] The Huffington Post,[99] Mother Jones,[100] and smaller-scale newspapers like the 8-time Pulitzer Prize winner Kansas City Star,[101][102]Des Moines Register[103] and The Arizona Republic(known for its conservatism!)[104][105] and academic articles[106]. These are almost all going back to November 2020 alone! There are simply too many of them to list, as Springee's pattern of deleting material unflattering to conservatives has become increasingly brazen. Springee also fought a protracted rearguard action to keep a Harvard University study about promotion of climate change denial out of the ExxonMobil page in favor of an article from a fossil fuel lobby group,[107] as well as contesting at length the inclusion of an article from the New York Times on the same article.[108] Concerningly, Springee seems to have a record of whitewashing the pager of powerful climate-change denying groups[109][110][111][112][113] - Wall Street Journal here[114][115] Springee is currently engaged in a rearguard action to minimise the use of material related to climate change denial on the PragerU page.[116] The consistent feature of absolutely every one of Springee's reversions is not evidentiary weight but ideological bent - the material challenged is always something reliably sourced, but arguably unflattering, to a conservative subject. I've provided around 50 diffs as evidence. Here are some accusations of "whitewashing" by other editors levelled towards Springee.[117][118][119][120][121][122] Springee will throw the book at the offending editor in terms of spurious complaints about Wiki policies, frequently launch RfCs in order to contest sources and drag out the process as long as possible. Look back through Springee's edits on Andy Ngo, Douglas Murray (author), and PragerU and you'll see this pattern play out time and time again. The results are horribly whitewashed pages representing powerful, moneyed conservative interests - consider that on the current PragerU page, a flattering paragraph given over to the company's unsuccessful lawsuit against Google has 3 paragraphs and 310 words, while just a single sentence is dedicated to PragerU's well-documented[123][124][125][126][127][128] record of misinformation on climate change. On 15 September 2020, Springee said that they would voluntarily follow a 1RR rule limit.[129] Nonetheless. They repeatedly violated this request - on 28 January 2021,[130][131], 7 March 2021,[132][133] For other contentions of Springee's partisan bias, see[134][135][136] for behavorial problems on pages related to conservative politics[137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146], including a formal sanction in the area of American politics[147] unwarranted deletion of material[148][149][150] especially misbehavior related to guns[151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172]. Multiple overt claims of firearms advocacy[173][174][175][176] and whitewashing pages of firearms[177][178] are particularly concerning. If you go through these diffs, you'll see that unexplained block reverts and stonewalling are particular problems for Springee. It's worth noting that Springee has been accused of abusing the noticeboards and being overly litigious towards other editors before.[179] Note that these diffs are (a) not exhaustive in terms of Springee's record of misconduct and (b) fragmentary, so may not individually be absolutely damning. While my focus here is Springee, it's worth noting that they often operate as a kind of tag-team with others, invariably backing each other up on topics related to conservative politics.[180][181], [182][183], [184],[185],[186] Needless to say, dealing with multiple editors making the same partisan arguments is frustrating. You have made made several comments about purported left-wing bias on Wikipedia.[187] Some of Shinealittlelight's claims about obviously reliable sources are frankly quite bizarre - see this extended (and baffling) complaint about a widely-cited report written by a University of North Carolina professor that was critical of PragerU[188] and this attempt to ensure that the term "white nationalist" would not be used in relation to the Kenosha unrest shooting suspect.[189] PragerU has met the criteria for a "repeat offender" of spreading misinformation on Facebook[190][191] and yet "misinformation" barely appears on the PragerU Wiki page. Remarkably, these editors have alleged poor sourcing on a proposed addition to the header that would mention misinformation that contains more than two dozen sources.[192] Absolutely every addition that it critical of Prager gets ruthlessly purged. UPDATE4: I've perused through the WP:AN noticeboard and Springee appears on a jaw dropping 97(!) different archive pages, usually many times over. Cedar777 and Shadydabs have summed up what the problem is with Springee's editing, over and over: Springee reverts whole blocks of new material on a page related to conservative politics (despite their long history on Wiki, WP:ROWN appears to be unfamiliar to Springee), claims the source is not DUE, claims the source is not an RS, misrepresents the source's contents, and if this all fails Springee then claims there's no consensus, essentially demanding a personal veto S, that's a mischaracterization - I did not "accuse" editors of anything. I reminded editors of policy, namely WP:ROWN - here is the source[193] Noteduck (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Record of Springee's spurious edits and reversions: 2021 [194][195] July 2020: reverts of good sources added to the Andy Ngo page.[196] Reverts of good sources on Tucker Carlson.[197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208] June-July 2020: reverts of good sources added to the page of conservative historian Victor Davis Hansen.[209][210] June 2020: Andy Ngo [211][212][213], Tucker Carlson[214], Burt Rutan[215]

Proposal 1: Two-Way Interaction Ban

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

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I have nothing personally against Noteduck. I do not seek to interact with them. If they agree to AGF I'm happy to do the same. I do not feel my ability to edit articles where I have long been involved should be restricted due to Notrduck's logged uncivil behavior. As North8000 said, I understand AP2 can be confrontational so I take the high road. Springee (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as not the solution to this problem. This isn't about two editors not liking each other. Or rather, it's about more than that. I mean every ANI report involves two or more editors not liking each other. If we handed out IBANs for that, we'd all be IBANed. The problem here is disruption, and disruptive editors should just be removed from the project altogether. Or at least the topic area. We've had enough noticeboard drama about this (by my count: an arbcom request, a DRN, at least one AN, at least one ANI, and that's probably not everything). Either there is a real problem here or someone is really crying wolf. Either way, an IBAN is not the solution. (Also, no one is going to use DRN if the neutral later proposes sanctions against the participants.) For my part, I don't see a case being made yet by anyone for sanctions against anyone else, mostly because there are so many false positive diffs being presented. So if anyone reading this thinks this thread should end with action, I'd suggest posting your best diffs and quotes, and really making a clear and brief argument about what is needed and why. Levivich 16:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - the problem is not Springee or two-way interaction, it is WP:HOUNDING by Noteduck which is a policy vio and it needs immediate attention by an admin. This is unacceptable behavior. Hounding violates the UCoC, Section 3.1 Harassment - it is a very serious behavioral issue, and no editor deserves to be hounded, on or off WP. Atsme 💬 📧 17:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This mis-characterizes the situation. Springee has consistently taken the careful, polite high road. And they came here for relief from hounding. Maybe just a warning to Noteduck regarding the topic at hand would be sufficient to resolve this. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I appreciate Robert McClenon's work on resolving this. However I think the problem is asymmetric here, despite this litigious WP:BOOMERANG by Springee. Again, if allegations of WP:HOUND are being made, specific references to the text of the policy should be made, rather than broad-brush claims. I recommend looking through both mine[216] and Springee's[217] contribution pages and see the contrast between an editor who has added constructively to a broad range of topics, and one with a dogged focus on contesting material on pages related to right-wing politics Noteduck (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Withdraw - I am willing to withdraw this proposal. Will someone else propose something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Re-open and support - Robert McClenon has withdrawn this proposal, but I'd like to repropose it. There is a problem that has to be solved here, and I think this proposal solves it better than any other, and specifically better than any one-sided sanction against Noteduck. Loki (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support The sandbox demonstrates tendentious behavior by Noteduck toward Springee, and an overview of User talk:Noteduck and its edit history shows Springee repeatedly complaining about Noteduck's edits and fighting between the users. Out of 145 edits to this user talk, Noteduck themselves made 46 and Springee made 44, or about 1/3 each of the entire edit history. A third opinion will be needed to determine if either user's edits about Andy Ngo are problematic, which would warrant a topic ban from this BLP or post-1992 American politics more broadly. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 18:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 I'd be happy for an uninvolved party to look at Springee's edits on Andy Ngo, though it needs to be said that these are just part of a much larger pattern of blocking unflattering material on pages related to right-wing politics, particularly through the relentless and protracted contestation of material on talk pages. Note that Springee has made 521 edits on Talk:Andy Ngo (16.64% of ALL edits made to the page)[218] Noteduck (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposal #2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Springee, just observing an example from the last couple of days - I'd work on this pattern of wholesale reverts,[219] especially since other editors have raised concerns about your editing related to right-wing politics. I've reminded you of WP:ROWN multiple times, and with more than a decade of experience I'm sure you know it well too. You correctly note that this material was about Kirk, not TPUSA, so doesn't belong on the latter's page. Why not move this material to the Charlie Kirk (activist) page, or if you think the material does not belong on Kirk's page either, take it the Kirk talk page or the editor in question's talk page? Noteduck (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Springee I'm merely recommending that given your experience and your focus on pages related to TPUSA and proximate topics, you could assist less experienced editors. I see you have again reverted the eight word sentence I added to Andy Ngo,[220] though your rebuttals haven't been substantive. You initially referred to WP:OR, and now WP:V, without specifying what part of either policy you are grounding your argument in. I recommend basing any objections to new edits in the specific language of editorial policy rather than a broad-brush rejection Noteduck (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Springee recently launched an action in Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard[221] in relation to my aforementioned short 14-word sentence.[222] They also are waging an ongoing fight on Talk:Andy Ngo to contest this same material.[223] Noteduck.

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

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

Interesting... let's see, how many edits do I have to the Charlie Kirk page... [[224]]. It looks like zero. I'm glad to see you have found other areas to focus on. Hopefully that will mean you no longer need your POLEMIC violating list nor will need to hound me or attack me. That would be great. Springee (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

In response to your edit above[[225]], it is always a good idea to have your facts correct before lobbing criticisms. That is one of the issues with your POLEMIC grievance list. The fact that it violates POLEMIC is another. Springee (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure what part of WP:HOUND would proscribe "a gentle piece of advice" or how it displays a battleground mentality. I offered what I see as sound advice based on my experience that it's much more fulfilling to create pages and make extensive original contributions to Wiki rather than have to spend lengthy amounts of time on talk pages, which is where contentious political articles often end up. Springee has certainly aimed to correct perceived errors and issues reminders of policy when they've seen fit, sometimes in quite strident terms, on my talk page (see User talk:Noteduck). I've been distracted and busy working on unrelated projects, but I've wiped the perceived breaches I noted, which made up a small portion of my sandbox, in a good-faith compliance with Springee's request.[226] I hadn't been alerted to the “timely manner” requirement prior to this ANI notice but I'm fine with interpreting it as one month and not leave material for policy complaints in my sandbox for longer than this. This is by no means a repudiation of any of these points. I think that while I don't agree at all with the basis of this WP:ANI notice I've engaged in a constructive and good-faith manner Noteduck (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The first you heard about it? Why didn't you understand the problem when I warned you about POLEMIC on 10 April [[227]] and then again on 25 May [[228]]. It was only on 19 June that a 3rd warning finally resulted in you removing the content. Why did it take two months? Certainly you should have been aware of the timeliness requirement the first time I provided a POLEMIC link in the warning. Springee (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

That's not the best representation of the facts. Having started to regularly edit Wiki in December 2020, I had of course seen other editors use their sandboxes to assemble ANI complaints and discuss the use of sandboxes for this purpose, and in fact on 10 February I made an enquiry on your talk page about material you were preparing in sandbox for a complaint against me (though it was quickly blanked).[229] You did indeed quote WP:POLEMIC in a post on my talk page on 25 May, specifically the passage warning against Example text For context, the very next sentence of WP:POLEMIC, in the same dot point, reads: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." Why omit this, especially given that your main objection here appears to be related to the timely manner requirement? On 25 June you referred to the specific phrase timely manner in this complaint.[230] It seems unduly to think I deserve sanctions based on not heeding specific points of editorial policy Noteduck (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Oh certainly. Of the 37 sections on Noteduck's talk page, 11, or roughly a third, are sections started by Springee accusing Noteduck of bad behavior: [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241]. When these accusations have been actually reported to admins, none of them so far have resulted in sanctions for Noteduck more serious than one unenthusiastic warning once. Loki (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you Loki and dlthewave for helping to set the record straight here. A search for edits made by Springee in my talk page history reveals 44 edits by Springee, or more than 30% of all edits in the page's history.[242] A search of Springee's talk page history shows 13 edits by Noteduck (though all have since been wiped).[243] This is hardly commensurate with the accusation of one-way, targeted WP:HOUNDING. Springee hasn't explained how they arrived at the point that "over 50% of Noteduck's edits since 25 March have been about me 'in some capacity'" [inverted commas mine], which they will need to clarify, and again I invite editors to look at the diversity of the contributions in my edit history[244] and sandbox.[245] Springee's stated desire to avoid interacting with me is hardly commensurate with their recent actions on the Andy Ngo talk page, where they:

• on 18 June Springee pinged me in a subheading I had no prior involvement in,[246] having reverted a not prominent, 14-word short sentence I had added to a body paragraph on Ngo's page[247]
• continued to contest this short sentence at length on Ngo's talk page for close to another two weeks, including repeatedly interacting with me without apparent distress[248]
• on 25 June took this same short sentence to the no original research noticeboard,[249] on the basis that it purportedly failed WP:V requirements, only for other uninvolved editors to quickly affirm my longstanding interpretation of the contested sentence.[250][251].

Given the outcome of the WP:NORN discussion they launched, I hope Springee will be restoring the material. As I've noted above,[252] I did not receive a specific reference to the point about assembling complaints in the sandbox being done in a timely manner from Springee, and would have applied the policy (though its wording doesn't lay out precise instructions for how to adhere to it) as best I could had I known. I'm happy to field any further questions Noteduck (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support warning only - I think Noteduck is being too combative towards Springee. If this continues, we can move on to IBAN. Hopefully that will not be needed. starship.paint (exalt) 15:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Experienced editors have the capacity to teach others, at times deliberately and directly with intentional instruction . . . and at other times unwittingly and indirectly by leading through their own example. A sandbox grievance list was first initiated by user Springee against user Noteduck on January 25, 2021 Diff. One month later, Noteduck created their own sandbox grievance list Diff - a reasonable development given the circumstances. These editors clearly see things differently yet they share an interest in multiple topics. The observation made by XOReaster that "a significant fraction of what gets described as "hounding" ends up being clashing opinions on areas of shared interest" applies here. Cedar777 (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Overview of recent discussions at Talk:Andy Ngo

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

• On 17 May, they disputed whether content added by Cedar777 (talk · contribs) about Don't Shoot Portland was WP:DUE for Andy Ngo. JzG (talk · contribs) stepped in and agreed with Cedar777's addition of the content. It's still in the article.
• On 10 June, you contested the removal of content by Thomas Meng (talk · contribs), which he alleged to be biased and poorly sourced. That's when Springee rebutted your claim, arguing that the BuzzFeed News piece in question is biased and that the statement might have been WP:UNDUE as well. You also contested some commentary by third parties about Thomas Meng (talk · contribs), again insisting that the repeatedly used term opinion is a misnomer in this discussion. The statement cited to the BFN piece is still in the article.
• On that same day, Springee argued with Cedar777 over an edit by Meng that condensed several citations to the same source, per WP:OVERCITE. Then, they mentioned out of the blue that they reverted one of your edits [253] that allegedly misrepresented the sources cited and was undue. Another argument ensues on the talk page, this time a bit longer and with more involved parties. Ultimately, Springee won the dispute.
• A discussion on 17 June about covering a recent attack against Ngo, where Springee was involed. They also challenged an alleged WP:SYNTH addition by SomerIsland (talk · contribs), but then flip-flopped.
• A discussion on 19 June where neither you nor Springee was involved, apart from an aside by the latter about naming references.
• A discussion on 21 June about an ambiguous sentence. Springee definitely had a good point to raise, and there was little or no dispute.
• A discussion began on 30 June about the weasel word widely as used in a statement about RS consensus. You dropped in and changed the word to frequently [254]. This word change was supported by other participants, apart from Springee, before TomReaan90 (talk · contribs) pivoted the discussion to a conversation about Al Jazeera and the Iraq War.
• That was the last discussion involving you, but it looks like subsequent discussions involving Springee are good-faith and they do not fight with anyone else.

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

Feel free to look at my Ngo edits LaundryPizza03. I'd refer to diffs like this one as proof of my commitment to rigorously evaluating evidence on the page.[255] It's necessary to see this all in the context of how Springee fights at length to get flattering sources added to Ngo's page, no matter how feeble.

• For example, take Springee's extended contestation in April in favour of restoring material from "Lacorte News" (apparently an obscure source tied to Fox alum Ken LaCorte).[256] Springee was very lucky to avoid a topic ban later in April after an action brought by User:Dlthewave,[257] brought about after Springee made a protracted attempt in March-April to get material from the deprecated Daily Caller[258] and Daily Signal included on Ngo's page.[259] Although Springee had reverted material from the Daily Signal from Ngo's page in February on the (correct) basis that it wasn't an RS,[260] in March[261] and April[262] they defended Daily Signal's reliability on Ngo while rejecting WP:GREL-listed The Intercept,[263] as well as turning to other weak sources like Daily Wire, The Western Journal, and a celebrity gossip site called "Meaww" to buttress their LaCorte News point.[264] On 25 May there were happy to treat a website called "Katu", and the very non-impartial The College Fix as a reliable account of a BLM protest reported on by Ngo.[265] With sources like these, Springee has been hyper-permissive and emphasized context, while warning against rejecting sources outright.
• Compare this to the scrutiny they have subjected a recent 14-word sentence sourced to Rolling Stone and Jacobin (magazine) to: reverting it on 18 June,[266] extensively challenging it on the Ngo talk page[267] on the frankly, clearly incorrect basis that the Rolling Stone source didn't support the claim in the sentence,[268] opening a WP:NORN discussion on the sentence on 25 June,[269] and after their argument was comprehensively rejected, now maintaining the material is undue.[270] See also these extended challenges (both from April alone) Springee made to The Intercept[271] and Bellingcat, which Springee took to WP:RSN to see their point be quickly rebuffed[272] having contested Bellingcat content since November 2020,[273] plus objecting to a thorough and methodical Buzzfeed News piece in June.[274] Look at the stringency of Springee's evidentiary standards for Bellingcat and Daily Dot[275] compared with some of the above-mentioned obscure (and weak) sources more flattering to Ngo.

Go further back and you see block reverts of the SPLC,[276][277] Daily Beast,[278] Columbia Journalism Review,[279] The Guardian,[280], Salon (magazine) and Rolling Stone,[281][282][283] Washington Post and Los Angeles Times,[284][285][286] Seattle Times,[287], BuzzFeed News[288] Daily Dot,[289], Willamette Week[290] The Oregonian[291], the Los Angeles Times[292] - by no means a complete list. I've repeatedly reminded Springee of WP:ROWN without success. Springee often rejects new edits by invoking BLP, or employs an "injunction": block reverting an edit, starting a talk page discussion, and proceeding to resist any change at length on the talk page, while claiming there's no consensus for change. The clear, repeated pattern is that Springee fights hard to include sources seen to be flattering to Ngo, no matter how feeble, while those perceived as unflattering, even if high quality, are subject to impossibly high standards. I've seen them follow this same edit pattern across a range of political topics, and am happy to provide more diffs on request Noteduck (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Noteduck, per WP:REDACT (talk page guideline) please do not edit your comments after other editors have replied. if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. This was mentioned to you early on in this discussion (without a specfic guideline) [[293]]. After being asked the first time you have continued to edit your comments after other editors have replied without proper edit markups (examples [[294]] [[295]][[296]][[297]]). Please follow talk page guidelines going forward. Springee (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee thank you for the useful heads up on WP:REDACT policy. I noticed that you weighed in on a discussion on talk:The Wall Street Journal today,[298] shortly after I entered the same discussion yesterday.[299] While you're of course welcome to do so, this isn't really commensurate with your stated wish to avoid me due to hounding or obstructionism. If my edits no long bother you perhaps make that clear Noteduck (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP Sock

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

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

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

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

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

Could somebody review and decide on this?

Could somebody review and decide on this? North8000 (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that the two way interaction ban should be considered. There are problems in both directions, and it doesn't matter which political position the parties support. Perhaps it would be enough to do such a ban for , say, 3 months, and hope that by then they're less likely to re-engage. I'm not doing it as a formal close because of the earlier opposition to this, but I think the discussion since then has clarified that both parties have some degree of responsibility--as is often the case. I think an attempt to find relative degree of responsibility is apt to encourage further antagonism. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I oppose a two-way interaction ban. Such is not only a false balance, but in what I've seen those always end up punishing the better editor more since they can't do anything to prevent POV additions or changes by the other. The one-way from Noteduck to Springee makes sense here, because it is Noteduck who is doing the hounding. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

DGG I think that's an eminently reasonable suggestion. Needless to say I strongly disagree with Crossroads ^-talk-'s contention Noteduck (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Springe is not hounding, Noteduck is. Taken a close/careful look at even the material within this thread give a pretty good idea of what is and isn't happening in both directions. Interaction bans would be complicated given that they overlap on articles. I think that a warning to noteduck is the best, most appropriate and most-supported-here solution. North8000 (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

North8000 There is no evidence that Noteduck's comments in this discussion constitute hounding. –dlthewave ☎ 14:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That not the statement that I made and something that explicit/categorical from just ANI posts would be an overreach that I didn't say and thus a straw man. What I did mean by what I did say is that IMO Springee's posts here show a focus on just getting relief from the hounding while Noteduck's are focused on deprecating Springee in general. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

But we are not here to judge people or to right wrongs. We are here to prevent further disputes. Sometimes this does mean focussing on sanctioning one particular individual whose behavior is outrageous and likely to lead to future disputes with other people also, but in most interpersonal conflicts, including this one, the simplest way is to separate the parties. We don't use it enough. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. We are not here to prevent further disputes. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Preventing disputes is neither possible nor desirable when one is building an encyclopedia. The problem here isn't "there's a dispute," it's much deeper than that. To simply say that there's a dispute, thus the two disputing editors cannot talk to each other, which will end the dispute... is not going to help us achieve our goal of building an encyclopedia. Levivich 01:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

IMHO letting one editor (Springee) be targeted is the type of thing which harms the overall mission, hence the hounding guidance. And IMHO having them subject to a "remedy" that could turn into a minefield of further such targeting (including by others) when they have taking the polite and high road is also the type of thing that hurts our mission. This vs. a mild warning for Noteduck which I think is likely to resolve the situation. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

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

User: Johnpacklambert emptying categories prematurely; edit warring

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

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 18#1431 establishments in Ukraine: he removed Derazhnia[300] and Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine[301] from the category, reverted my revert,[302], and then at talk:Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine#Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine, simply refused to respect the normal (academic, political, and Wikipedia) practice of treating earliest mention as the date of foundation.
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 18#Establishments in Ukraine when most of Ukraine was under the Russian Empire (33 categories): removed articles
  • Lviv National Agrarian University[303]
  • Trinity Monastery of St. Jonas[304]
  • Odessa University[305]
  • Grekov Odessa Art School[306]
  • Odessa Military Academy[307]
  • Beskydy Tunnel[308]
  • Perechyn Timber-and-Chemical combine[309]
  • Port of Skadovsk[310]
  • Odessa Art Museum[311]

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

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

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

The relevant categories fall under discretionary sanctions per WP:AC/DS (Eastern Europe), and the user has been alerted.[312] —Michael Z. 23:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...which is hardly comparable to the current issue, i.e. that e.g. the Odessa University, a currently existing, major university in a major city in Ukraine, is removed from the "what things in Ukraine were established in what year" category tree[313] because it wasn't Ukraine in that year, and may only be included in the Category:1865 establishments in the Russian Empire. Now, Johnpacklambert may argue that at CfD (though he could do with turning down the hyperbole about how terrible and stuoid it is to have the "current country" cats as well), but emptying the category at the same time is not allowed. That's the behaviour problem for which a restriction may be needed, the other issue is the way he treats the content issue as if his PoV is the only possibly correct one and the opposite position, which would allow for both categories (one historical, one from the current situation) is an abomination. A tree of what is or would be currently located in country (or US state or whatever), by year of (dis)establishment, is of interest to readers, and informs clearly and succinctly about things that shaped the current country, even if the country didn't exist at all at the time of establishment. The dogmatism that only one tree is valid and the other needs to be erased is highly tiring. Fram (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avoiding the "don't depopulate during the CfD" by depopulating right before the CfD is hardly any better, but is a nice example of wikilawyering. And examples of his emptying of cats during the CfDs have been given, e.g. on Odessa University he removed the cat on 23 June[314], 5 days after he has nominated it[315], and at a time when there were already three oppositions to the nomination (so the "didn't know it would be controversial" defense is again shown to be clearly invalid). Also this one, this one, this one... Fram (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

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

He didn't know he was going to do the CfD ... 5 days after he started the CfD[316][317]??? Uh, bye, thanks for confirming my first impression that discussing this with you was a total waste of time. Fram (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure, I agree that at the bare minimum JPL should acknowledge that a few people are concerned with him emptying categories. It's not like he's completely ignored that a couple of people think it's a problem though and in the meantime I'd still like to see the broader issue that led to this dealt with. It's not really helpful to the health of the platform (or editors) if everything ends in someone being blocked from editing because a few people took with their edits in an ANI complaint, without more being done to address the root cause of it. Totally, JPL should acknowledge that's it an issue though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (as participant) It's definitely best practice to leave the articles as is in categories so that other editors can evaluate them themselves in CFD. (I may have occasionally done this myself though when I thought I could save a cat before realizing that was hopeless and then nominating it for deletion.) There have also been a lot of other challenges with these CFD discussions with cutting and pasting, questioning motives, and especially WP:RGW. I don't think these nominations, including my edits, have brought us closer to a consensus about the categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Conversely, there seems to be mass-populating of categories going on with regards to expatriates. Raised on Lambert's talkpage, to be met with a wall of rambling text. When another query is raised, it's met with this reply. Hopefully every single one of those categories added is supported in the article and they aren't BLP violations. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"A wall of rambling text" that the person he was writing it in response to enthusiastically thanked him for. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It was that long I gave up before getting that far! I read that reply has humouring Lambert. I may, of course, be wrong. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• This was raised by Lugnuts just above; is replying "THis is just plain stupidity on your part."[318] really acceptable? It again is a case of Johnpacklambert seeing his interpretation of a term as the only possible one, and rather vehemently denying that other interpretations are possible: but this time it doesn't attack the results, but the person asking a civil, logical question. If this is the stress caused to Johnpacklambert when his categorization edits are challenged, then it may be better to get him removed from discussing categorization. Fram (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Kind of like you telling someone "I hope you were simply mistaken and not trolling" because you don't like their civil, logical questions? "If this is the stress caused to Fram when he's asked questions in ANI, then it may be better to get him removed from ANI discussions." --Adamant1 (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can look for my comment in this discussion and judge whether it was a reply to a "civil logical question" or instead to yet another blatantly incorrect statement of fact. But feel free to raise my comment in a separate section or subsection if you think it was problematic: what I said to you doesn't really impact what a third person said to a fourth one. Fram (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

How was me posing a hypothetical question about trees that are located in America a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact"? Hypothetical questions don't have correct answers and they aren't facts either. Anyway, what I think is problematic (or really just kind of odd) is that your saying he should be blocked for calling something stupid, an extremely minor thing. When your ignoring him not acknowledging his edits are a problem. Which is something that has consensus is an issue and can actually lead to sanctions. If you want him to be blocked, why not bandwagon around something that actually has a chance of leading to it? "It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory." --Adamant1 (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The "blatantly incorrect statement of fact", as I pointed out in that part of the discussion, was you claiming " it appears that JPL removed articles from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine before the CfD was started.", and in a next post "I'm assuming good faith that he didn't know he was going to do the CfD at that point", and in a third post "Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD.", even when it was pointed out again and again that all edits removing articles from categories were made after the CfD had started. I hope this is finally clear now? Fram (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It's been clear this whole time. At least it has been for me. Apparently it's not clear on your side though. Since as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. Accidentally Miss-reading something isn't a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact." Your the one lacking clarity here because for whatever reason you keep reading non-existent bad intent into the mistake when there was none. Are we finally clear about it now or are you going to keep acting like I miss-read the edit histories on purpose? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Where have you said that already? I can't find it in the above discussion. Fram (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

So he removed Beskydy Tunnel from Category:1886 establishments in Ukraine at 13:28, on 18 June 2021. He also removed Lviv National Agrarian University from Category:1852 establishments in Ukraine at 13:24 on 18 June 2021. The CfD for both wasn't started until 14:00, 18 June 2021. Which was half an hour after he removed the articles from the categories. Those are the edits I was originally talking about. Are we clear now? Next time you repeatedly accuse someone of making "blatantly incorrect statements again and again", maybe at least check first to make sure they are actually incorrect. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

So "you were originally talking about" these examples you never gave then, and not about the examples you gave at that time? Furthermore, your claim in your previous post (that you misread the dates and had already said this) is apparently something you made up and now try to ignore? Finally, the Lviv National Agrarian University edit was made at 13.24[319], but the CfD nomination was started at 13.23[320]. In the next 40 minutes or so, he was adding cats to the nomination, and removing articles from the cats at the same time (e.g. the Beskydy edit at 13.28, and the cat nom at 13.29[321]). So, as has been said all this time, he wasn't first removing articles from categories and only then realising that deleting the cats altogether would be better: he was removing some articles from the categories during and after the nominations. As was clear from the very start of this discussion, and is clear from his edit list (here, edits starting at 13.06 on 18 June and ending at 14.01 the same day). Fram (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are you continuing to accuse me of trolling and trying to hide the discussion? Weird thing to do if your right and I'm just trolling. Also, it's Interesting that this whole conversation suddenly became off topic and of zero benefit when it turned out you were wrong, not back when you repeatedly trying to instigate and perpetuate things lol. Anyway, I did miss-read the date of one of his edits, which was the example I originally provided you. That doesn't mean it was the only example I had or was going to give you though. I just decided not to provide the other ones because you started accusing me of trolling and I didn't want to feed into your bad faithed baiting. So there was really zero point. Plus, it's not like you couldn't have looked at his edits yourself anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This seems to have been a bit de-railed somewhat. Notwithstanding, there are still some legitimate concerns still to be addressed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Catchpoke

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

---

Broken off from another section

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

These edits by Catchpoke were recently discussed at [322] There's a lot of IDHT involved in bringing it up here. Geogene (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  "Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation." Levivich 13:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Great quote! I'm going to add it to my user page! EEng 14:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  hypocritesCatchpoke (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I've stopped making section name changes. I've used MOS:SECTIONSTYLE and MOS:NOBACKREF as edit summaries at times which I felt were appropriate. I disagree with user:Imaginatorium's definition of etymology. I consider it to cover all nouns and feel it is the appropriate word to use instead of "Origin of the term" or "Origin of the name". If people disagree, I am willing to reengage at [323]. Catchpoke (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

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

You are wrong and this is also wrong. I will in engage right here. All of the support votes right now are involved editors. I posted a request for an outside opinion at [324]. User:Kwamikagami opines that my behavior is pedantic even when he, User:Veverve, and User:Bermicourt all agree that "etymology" is correct. If you look at WP:RM, article titles are debated for accuracy's sake. A section's title is a "subarticle". Are you saying people who volunteer there are being pedantic? Because if you are, that would be hypocritical. This isn't pedantic, it's a matter of accuracy. "A section headed ==Origin of the term==, in the article Silver Age of Comic Books, does not "redundantly refer back to the subject of the article", as SECTIONSTYLE warns against, because the subject of that article is the Silver Age of Comic Books, not the phrase Silver Age of Comic Books. Now cut it out.": understood.Catchpoke (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not agree that 'etymology' is correct. At best it would seem to be pushing it. Words mean what they're used to mean, and AFAICT 'etymology' is not used for this meaning. I might change my mind if you were to provide evidence that the word "etymology" is commonly used for the history of proper names that are transparent phrases. (As far as I can see, you haven't provided any evidence. Correct me if I missed something.) But your claim that "etymology" should be used because it's "correct" is specious even if it is correct: "the origin of the name" is *also* correct. So this wouldn't be a matter of correcting an error, but of a stylistic preference. Even if 'etymology' is used as you claim it is, I suspect that most readers will find "the origin of the name" to be a more legible way of presenting the article. — kwami (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You are being pedantic. Gaslighting linked above uses "etymology". Both uses are correct. "Etymology" is correct and is a style issue. This should be discussed on WP:MOS so that we can standardize section names. Sorry for the trouble I've caused.Catchpoke (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Despite my fundamentally vicious and unforgiving nature, I'm actually feeling a bit sorry for you because I can see that you're really trying to contribute and don't get at all why this is happening. I earnestly hope you can find other areas ways to contribute to the project, and a year from now you'll understand what we've failed to make you understand over these past few days. I mean it when I say: good luck. EEng 04:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Propose three month restriction to articles containing the word entomology if consensus be reached. Otherwise...

— Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 17:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's where I either wait three days then say <sound of crickets>, or I point out that the entomology article opens with an etymology – Entomology (from Ancient Greek ἔντομον (entomon) 'insect', and -λογία (-logia) 'study of') – so I fear we'd be right back in the same boat. EEng 20:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, then, my final suggestion is eschatology. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 05:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

When hell freezes over. EEng 21:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It did for Usenet fora, leaving a frozen lake of spam. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 04:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I make very similar edits for very similar reasons, and can use all the help I can get. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support The user gets questioned about their editing and pretty much says, "No, you're wrong!" [325] [326] [327] [328] Your competence is required here. – The Grid (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support (involved, as I was the first to object to these edits). Catchpoke's reactions throughouit, including here, show he still thinks he was entirely correct, despite a growing pile of editors disagreeing. A topic ban is in order. Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately, it seems obvious that being "correct" will prevent this editor from recognizing consensus. As such, I think a narrow sanction like the one proposed is necessary. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  The more entirely correct editors are disenfranchised from the consensus-building community, the less correctly consensus will turn out, you know. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

To paraphrase an aphorism, consensus is the worst possible way to build an encyclopedia, with the exception of all the other possibilities. Both approaches here seem reasonable to me, so I will go with consensus, and those who at least pay some sort of attention thereto. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Aye, for now, they may. But I don't need to tell you a universal united union of uniformity and unapartment is on the horizon. We all see it coming already, together. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Unapartment doesn't appear to be a word, which seems a shame, actually. EEng 18:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hence my edit summary. Literally, deal with it. You, the reader! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I remain unable to digest your Inedible post. EEng 04:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Support. Actually Catchpoke has misunderstood me in suggesting I unequivocally support his view. What I said (at Talk:Weser Renaissance was that "I'm inclined to agree given the definition of the etymology of a word (and surely by extension, a phrase) is 'its origin and development throughout history'". However, that was only an initial tentative conclusion prior to hearing the other side of the argument from the other editor involved (Johnbod as it happens). I'm more than happy to go with the consensus and I also agree that, unfortunately, the sanction proposed is needed in view of Catchpoke's apparent reluctance to engage constructively and accept the community consensus. Bermicourt (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support per a pretty stark showing of disruption and inability to accept consensus. With due respect to IndelibleHulk's observations here, having an established consensus-based process here that cannot be simply short-circuited by one party by mere virtue of unwavering obstinance is far more important to "getting it right" across more articles than is the outcome of any one narrow, heavily pedantic debate about the best editorial approach to one descriptive/empirical term. This is clearly a WP:CIR call: editors who cannot WP:DROPTHESTICK in these kinds of circumstances will (almost invariably) consume increasingly an ever-larger proportion of time from the community, relative to the value of work hours implicit in their direct contributions. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from anything related to the topic of etymology broadly construed. I feel this is their best chance to remain on the project. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Enough with the supporting. Can someone just do it now? EEng 04:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I suppose I could have closed this, but I have given my opinion and now cannot. I did not see how long this had been going. Perhaps another admin wants to close this. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Alright then. Next time y'all just ping me on WP:ANI 2.0, OK? Drmies (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Chronic violations of MOS:COLOUR by User:Kannweame7961

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on Belize at major beauty pageants it seems that Kannweame7961 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has headed the messages and is now creating MOS:COLOUR compliant versions of the tables. Therefore I'd like to propose closing this thread as no action taken, but making it clear to Kannweame7961 that this is a final warning and further violations may be met with a block. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: it would also be appreciated if they could clean up the pages using the old colour scheme. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Look, I know I'm getting to be a broken record on this, but why oh why do we host such pointless compilations as Belize at major beauty pageants, complete with small-type disclaimer reading

  The criteria for the Big Four inclusion is based on specific standards such as the pageants global prominence and prestige approved by worldwide media, the quality and quantity of crowned delegates recognized by international franchisees and pageant aficionados, the winner's post pageant activities; the pageants longevity, consistency, and history; the sincerity of the pageant's specific cause, platform, and advocacy; the overall pre-pageant activities, production quality and global telecast; the enormity of internet traffic; and the extent of popularity amongst pageant fans across the globe.

–? See Category:Nations_at_beauty_pageants. It's just absurd. There seems to be a knot of editors whose hobby is maintaining these endless lists no one looks at (complete with notes about who got "dethroned"), and the rest of us are roped into their battles over table colors and whatnot. I really feel that volunteer time is being wasted in the service of promoting the beauty-pageant industry, much the same way so much editor time has been hijacked for the refereeing of disputes over an elaborate walled garden of in-universe pro-wrestling storytelling. EEng 17:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean if you want to AFD these I won't stop you (I'm personally not convinced of their use either), but as long as we have them we should ensure they remain complaint with our accessibility guidelines. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 17:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

What I want is for pretty much all beauty pageant coverage sunk to the bottom of the sea. EEng 05:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, as usual Eeng, I'm not sure if you are being stylistically hyperbolic or sincere, but let's not try to shoot the moon here when I think your initial comments merit serious consideration: I think you are probably right that these particular 'Country X at Beauty Pageants' articles almost certainly violate WP:NOT along numerous parallel lines of the policy (WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE at the least as well as more basic arguments regarding a very WP:SYNTH-based approach to WP:NOTABILITY. WP:NOT makes it clear that these kinds of bare bones stat tracking pages (which do not features as a WP:NOTABLE topic of independent discussion in WP:RELIABLE, independent and WP:SECONDARY sources) are not appropriate for the encyclopedia, but we would have to come to that conclusion anyway, even if not for that short-hand rule, since the lack of non-superficial detail covered in sources raises problems with meeting the burdens of pillar policies.

So by all means, let's not discount the possibility of dumping these articles in their entirety. With respect to Asartea's observation, we might as well start with the more basic existential questions about the articles before we nit-pick details. If a community discussion holds that we should not have the articles in the first place, it will save a lot of time on protracted style disputes, such as whether the colours being used in these charts are garish--or more to the point of our purposes here, whether they problematically fail to align with standard community consensus (limited as it is) with regard to the pragmatics of colour design. Of course, the answer to both is surely an unqualified "yes--they are and do." It seems like there probably are some dedicated contributors with a lot invested in these articles who will make every effort to oppose this clean-up, earnestly believing these articles make all the sense in the world for Wikipedia, but we've pushed back against these kind of fan culture myopic article sprawl before in recent years, with topics like Dungeons and Dragons and professional wrestling. We can do it again here, if consensus among general non-involved editors suggests it is advisable. But you'll want to host the main discussion in the only appropriate space given the breadth of articles and need for a high level of community engagement: WP:VPP. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

While I'm moderately hostile to the numbing meaninglessness of beauty pageant coverage, what you see above was to a large extent spillover from my very real belief that most pro wrestling coverage should be eliminated, because most of what masquerages as sources is, in fact, in-universe kayfabe, and WP has been hijacked as an extension of that. EEng 22:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to add EEng that I have some sympathy. The creeping "Wikia/Fandom" side to certain corners of Wikipedia has been something I've passed comment on before, but it's not that easy to deal with I suspect without causing a very messy discussion page. I will say that the beauty pagent wikigophers are perhaps less useful to the wider community than, say, the airport destination gophers, so let's try to tackle one fringe editor faction at a time! doktorb _words^deeds 22:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Next time. For now let's just kill all the lawyers. EEng 01:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Red King 0905

Red King 0905 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Adding hundreds of misspelled or incorrectly capitalized short descriptions:

• [329] -"French General"...should be "French general".
• [330] - "French cavalry Commnder"...should be "French cavalry commander".
• [331] - "18th century Battle fought between French Army and Russo-Austro Army".
• [332] - "Anglo-Irish Soldier and Politician".
• [333] - "First defeat of Arthur Wellesley and A major Siege fought during the Peninsular War".

Numerous talk page warnings, but no response.

A previous ANI report about Red King 0905 was made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069#Rapid bot (or meat-bot)-like edits by relatively new user.

I recently reported User:Bachovan to ANI here for similar "short descriptions" edits. Both editors have also added a short description to the infrequently visited Jean-Étienne Championnet. See [334] and [335]. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The phrase Rapid bot (or meat-bot)-like edits is going to send our Dash Police completely round the bend. EEng 11:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Hands up everyone who thinks that WP:SHORTDESC is a really really useful idea which adds value to the encyclopaedia. Narky Blert (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Unlike the Latin alphabet, the script has no concept of letter case" Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this discussion but, having stumbled across the above and wondered "script???", I followed the piped wikilink above to Devanagari, I don't see what the lack of case differences in that writing system has to do with this and I'm not really consumed with curiosity about that (perhaps it ought to be obvious to me), but I thought I would mention it in case others were wondering. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yet another android app editor we can't communicate with. Levivich 15:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Why do we have an app that doesn't allow the user to fully use the site? Heck, considering I can edit on my phone using the desktop mode, why do we have the app at all? This strikes me as analogous to allowing a Big Wheel tricycle on the interstate highways. It's not fit for the task and just causes problems for everybody else. --Khajidha (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • At the risk of answering a rhetorical question, page watchers may be interested to know that there is, in fact, an answer to this: it's because the WMF did a study and found that mobile app editors, despite not (really) being able to communicate, aren't reverted at a higher rate than other editors. Therefore, the WMF concluded, communication is not really required, so, they allow the apps to exist even though the apps' communication features don't fully function. See Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#What we've got here is failure to communicate (some mobile editors you just can't reach) for more details (and all the phab tickets linked therein). This is an issue in the trustee elections, see Question #47 and candidates' responses here, and I've been asking WMF staff for some info about this and other budget considerations here. Levivich 16:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
      • That makes no sense. "We don't need to talk to them any more than we do other people, so let's make it harder to talk to them" is not a sensible response. If mobile app editors are reverted at the same rate as other editors, they would still seem to need the same level of communication as other editors. --Khajidha (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

        Out of curiosity who's responsible for developing the app? This really seems like something they should have addressed by now—blindlynx (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

        Excellent question, one I've been trying to figure out myself. It's the Product Department, but I'm not sure how much resources they're spending on it (in terms of people/money) or whether the people and $ are enough or not enough (I assume, based on the output, that it's not enough). I don't know how much resources we've put into the app in the past, or how much resources we're planning to put into the app this year. Ultimately, these decisions are made by WMF staff who report to the WMF CEO who is chosen by WMF trustees. So that's why I've been asking the questions in the above links at meta... and it'd be great if people who were similarly curious would join the conversation over there, so it's not just me and a few other editors who are pestering the WMF for more info :-) Levivich 16:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Neutralhomer

In 14 years and over 8k edits, I have never needed to drag anyone to ANI. Until now. I literally begged Neutralhomer for an agreeable resolution and to avoid formal sanctions: Please explicitly withdraw your reverts on WP:Notability (media) and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and end this agreeably. Your rapid fire 4 reverts warring against three people leaves you bright-line toast. Please acknowledge it so we can avoid formal sanctions. edit: Their response was You have to make a case,[336] so here we are.

Neutralhomer has been notified of this discussion: [337]

First evidence, bright line violation of three revert rule. 4 reverts in 22 minutes on WP:Notability (media), edit warring against THREE different editors:

• 00:31, 19 July 2021 Revert 1
• 00:41, 19 July 2021 Revert 2
• 00:48, 19 July 2021 Revert 3
• 00:53, 19 July 2021 Revert 4

Background evidence: Neutralhomer has been explicitly crusading on an agenda of, I quote, "no deletions" in his pet topic area, radio and TV broadcasting.

I updated WP:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media to say Licensed radio and TV stations have had conflicting outcomes if they lack significant coverage in Reliable Sources because, since June 12 there have been 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AFDs all closed as deletes due to lack of significant RS coverage. In that time span only 1 2 AFDs closed as keep explicitly on the basis that they DID have significant coverage in reliable sources. My edit was, if anything, generous to say "conflicting outcomes" given that evidence of 100% delete outcomes when there is a lack of significant RS coverage. Nonetheless Neutralhomer reverted here as well for indiscriminate "keep" wording.

Neutralhomer's AFD stats show that on the last 9 Radio AFDs they cast 9 indiscriminate 'keep' votes. Only one AFD closed as keep (after sources were found and added), 4 closed as redirect, 3 closed as delete, and the only reason the final AFD has not yet closed as delete are "per Neutralhomer" and appeals to a falsified WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. This perhaps explains Neutralhomer's battle to hold onto a lost cause in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, it is a purely circular argument to evade consensus.

Neutralhomer has a banner message on their talk page. It currently includes the following: After 16 years, all the work that was started by Dravecky and many others (myself included) is being destroyed by a few deletionists. WP:WPRS and NMEDIA is being destroyed by people who couldn't give a fuck less. I have done my part to keep the walls from crumbling, but I can't hold them back when I'm there only one here.
So, I am going to walk away. I don't want to, but I have to. I will watch from the sidelines, but I will not participate. I've done what I can to help the project over the years, to help it grow, to help it flourish. It isn't just me, many, many, many others have done the same. But apparently the community-at-large is OK with a few coming in and destroying that work.
That message makes it abundantly clear that Neutralhomer is aware that the broader community does not support their crusade, that they feel they are the "only one" fighting to hold back the community. Neutralhomer states that they "have to" walk away on this issue. A (very limited) topic ban would help them do exactly what they say they need to do here.

I do not want to restrict Neutralhomer's ability to edit articles. As far as I'm aware they have been a productive editor in article space. However I would request a narrowly tailored topic ban from (1) Broadcast AFDs, where it is clear they push indiscriminate keeps; and from (2) policy/guideline issues of Notability-of-broadcast, where they are disruptively warring. Alsee (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this "begg[ing]", but OK. I made it clear Alsee didn't "have" to do anything, they "wanted" to. See this edit summary "Last chance to avoid formal sanctions". Clearly they are gunning for me.

I had disengaged, still have. Though looking at their edits (since they looked at mine, it's only fair), this is their first foray into NMEDIA territory.

Now, I did exceed 3RR, I admit that, I admitted that on my talk page, and I will take the ding for it. But what I will not take the ding for is is this user's understanding. NMEDIA remained an "explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline" during the rewrite. After the admittedly failed rewrite, it didn't become an essay or a "failed guideline", it stayed an "explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline." This never changed. Why Alsee and others feel it did is beyond me. I won't take the ding for that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how my edits are supposed to be relevant, but 8 July 2021 I assessed consensus and preformed a closure on Village Pump. On that page revision[338] I saw a notice of There's an open RfC proposing to make WP:Notability (media) into a {{Guideline}}. My next edit was on that RFC.[339] I walked into this as a random uninvolved RFC invitee. I followed some links and examined some old radio AFDs, and I participated in a few open radio AFDs. Between the RFC and AFDs, I saw a small number of people were pushing a contrary-to-consensus agenda. Most of them appear to have gracefully adjusted to the RFC consensus, but one individual (Neutralhomer) dug in for a single-handed war against the world.

Regarding Neutralhomer's comment Why Alsee and others feel it did is beyond me: It is fine and normal for someone to not (yet) understand a particular point. However it is a serious problem when they know they are singlehandedly battling many editors at the same time. It's not about who's right or wrong. Neutralhomer couldn't escape the battleground even when they full well knew they were toast for revert-spam, they couldn't escape the battleground even when I double-please offered to let them withdraw their excessive reverts end this agreeably. Alsee (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing why this needs to extend beyond AN3 and the relevant talk pages. As far as the tone of NH's edits recently, I think it's pretty understandable to be upset when the trend of GNG expanding to apply to SNGs hits a topic area one has worked hard in (or rather, when there's greater attention to the fact that one such SNG you've used for years doesn't carry weight because it's not actually a guideline). NH also isn't necessarily wrong here. If a page is a proposal that's rejected, it makes sense to label it a failed proposal. If something was an information page or essay before and a rewrite of said page fails to be promoted to guideline status, that doesn't turn the page into a failed proposal -- the RfC or the rewrite would be the proposal, not the information page/essay. The change from supplement to essay is one I agree with, but also a change which should be decided on the talk page rather than taken for granted (and I see that it is being discussed). There's a single revert at WP:OUTCOMES, and no discussion on the talk page, so hard to see a big problem there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The big problem is NeutralHomer's attitude. He seems to think that browbeating others into doing what he wants is acceptable. As an example, see this RFC discussion where he thought it appropriate to argue with anyone who Opposed the proposal then, when asked to stop doing so, complained If I didn't respond, I would be "failing" anyway. So, might as well "fail" in dramatic fashion.

This further expanded to his trolling my talk page for asking him to stop, where he bemoaned that he was not allowed to have a conversation. And then decided that since I replied, that meant he could drag it out: just seeing how long you can go by having to have the last word in this conversation. :)

NH just likes to poke people and civil POV-push. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what POV NH is pushing? Thinking there should be an SNG on something isn't really POV-pushing. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Elli NH isn't pushing for an SNG, they are warring for I quote, "no deletions" in their pet topic area. Their editing in AFD and in WP: has been a disruptive crusade against consensus. NH's talk page banner makes it clear that they know they are the "only one" in this battle against the community, and that they know they need to "walk away" from the fight.[340] A narrow topic ban will help them do what they said they need to do. They couldn't even accept a lifeline when I offered to allow them to withdraw their bright-line revert violation, without sanctions. Their response was You have to make a case,[341] so here we are. Alsee (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alsee: drop the "edit warring" thing. NH made a mistake and reverted four times, that doesn't mean a topic ban is necessary, nor that you're right about anything else. They've acknowledged it, now drop it. You seem to think that because they violated 3RR that they'll get slapped with whatever sanctions you deem necessary - that is not in any way the case.

Having an opinion contrary to the general consensus of the site isn't disruptive either. Consensus can change and it's good to have opposing views. If we only allowed people who supported deletion to !vote in AfDs, they'd be awfully boring and pointless discussions. I haven't seen how NH's editing in this topic area is anywhere near what warrants a sanction. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Elli I did not suggest that having an contrary opinion was disruptive. However knowing that one's view is contrary to consensus and knowingly making false / misleading edits across many pages is disruptive. NH knows the content of NMEDIA is contrary to consensus yet they bright-line warred to assert semi-official "Notability Supplement" status for it, to deceptively badger AFDs with it. NH knows that the relevant AFDs have been closing as delete yet reverted the Outcomes page "keep", to deceptively badger AFDs with it. In most of those AFDs they post more comments than anyone else, trying to use official-looking links to present knowingly-false illusion of community support. And per their user_talk banner (1) they know they are waging a one-person battle against consensus and (2) they know they are past the point they need to stop. If someone wants to build support to change policy or guidelines, great! But NH isn't doing that - they know they have crossed into futile disruption. I just looked further and found NH AFD voted to keep stations that literally never existed. How many junk AFD-votes does someone have to spam before is deemed actively unhelpful? In one AFD, NH told someone you might want to request [a topic ban] against me as well cause....[342]. How does that sentence end? Alsee (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment 5 of those 9 broadcast-related AfD !votes cite a similar argument made by Superastig (talk · contribs). In the most recent of these, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXFU, they used sources inadequate to prove GNG and told others not to ague with them; Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) characterized this as an explicit WP:ICANTHEARYOU, which suggests that they may be worth investigating as well. Weak support a temporary topic ban from WP:BCAST and broadcast media AfDs and PRODs, per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Trolling by User:Adamant1

Can some uninvolved people pleasego through the above interactions between myself and User:Adamant1 (in the thread "User: Johnpacklambert emptying categories prematurely; edit warring"), and see whether my feeling that all they are doing is simply trolling is correct or not? I'm way beyond the end of my patience. It started with my edit of 16:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC), and I hoped it would have finished with Adamant1s edit from 13:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC) where they seemed to say that they would disengage from the discussion.

However, when I today posted (08:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)), Adamant1 continued where they stopped the last time. Basically, they simply make up stuff to be able to contradict, and when challenged on this move on to another made-up thing, with some other bizarre asides thrown in for good measure. Diffs are no use to illustrate this, the best thing is to read thowe two subsections to get an idea of the discussion.

Please just make them stop and hat the two sections which do nothing to help the discussion forward. Fram (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

A few things,

1. I didn't continue the back and forth. Nor did I start it. Fram did by responding to me on 1676_establishments_in_Ukraine when I asked Michael Z where they got their population numbers from after I said I was done talking to him. He did the same thing on the ANI board, where he originally started the discussion by responding to something I said to someone else. He was also repeatedly critical of my messages in the same discussions. Otherwise, I wouldn't have continued talking to him. It's rather weird to repeatedly start and continue conversations with someone, even after they say their done, and then blame them for it.

2. He was pretty disparaging from the start about my participation in the ANI complaint and the other conversations related to it. He accused me of trolling (including "incessant trolling" on my talk page) and lying multiple times. Without providing any evidence of either. He also said a lot of rather uncivil combative things when I was making a good faith effort to figure out what his problem was. Like "discussing it with me was a total waste of time", "our positions on what is reality are too far apart to have a meaningful discussion," "Acknowledging such errors would really make these discussions with you easier," "If you would start by reading what people are actually writing, and not what you think happened or was said, we may get some progress." None of that is civil or good faithed.

3. Fram say's that I'm repeatedly making stuff up and then moving on to other things. Since he didn't provide an example I assume it's in reference to me saying that JPL removed articles from the categories before he started the CfDs. Which I provided him examples of. Instead of accepting them, he just hid the discussion, continued accusing me of trolling, and opened this report when I unhid the discussion. Probably because he was trying to hide him being wrong and the evidence that JPL didn't remove the categories after he created the CfDs.

4. I would have liked it if Fram had of stopped accusing me of trolling and inserting themselves in conversations I was having with other people. If they had of, the conversation they are now taking issue with wouldn't have occurred. It did because Fram continued it. Also, I don't think the two sections should be hidden because they contain examples of JPL removing the categories before he did the CfDs. which IMO are important to the ANI complaint. Overall, I think I've been pretty civil about the whole thing. I sure don't see anything "trollish" about my behavior. Let alone incessantly so. I was just giving my opinion about why I thought JPL shouldn't be blocked from editing. Which for whatever reason was responded to by Fram with uncivility. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't plan on responding to your continually-edited post, but "He did the same thing on the ANI board, where he originally started the discussion by responding to something I said to someone else."? Diff please. My first post to the JPL discussion was this, a reply to the opening post, not to you. Then followed your reply, and a back-and-forth. I then stopped posting to the thread, until this morning, when I posted this, which again is not a reply to you or about you at all. You then again started responding, and eventually here we are. Your claim should be easy to support with a diff of what you mean, or easy to retract if it is a mistake. Fram (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"My first post to the JPL discussion was a reply to the opening post, not to you" My post below that (which you responded to) was in general and had nothing particular to do with you or what you said. I just didn't indent it probably. Something that for some dumb reason I routinely have issues with. That's why I said "Whatever our personals beliefs about the issue are", instead of "whatever Fram's personal beliefs are." I was talking about the wider participates of the complaint, including myself. I guess your included in that, but it wasn't directed at you or your comment above it. Otherwise, I would have said so. I can see why you'd think it was though since I screwed up the indent. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Leaving aside the dubious claim that their reply to my first post wasn't actually a reply, we can at least agree that, contrary to #1 above, I didn't start at ANI by responding to "what you said to someone else" (which now turns out to have been a "general" post to no one in particular apparently). so let's move on to claim #2: "without providing any evidence of either" (i.e. of trolling or lying).

Their first reply to me (sorry, comment to someone else) was a post about some unnamed, unlinked AfD about some essay that got deleted. It then turned into claims that using my reasoning, "At that point the big bang/god/Neanderthals should be mentioned in every article.".[343]. I tried to get the discussion back on topic[344], only to be replied to with another ridiculous example[345] ("Category:Trees of the United States (dis)establishment during the Silurian period or whatever just wouldn't make sense because the United States wasn't around during the Silurian period."), and other elements that didn't make sense at all ("I fail to see how it's JPLs PoV when he wasn't the only one in the CfDs with that view point."???)

Adamant then started their claims that there was no problem with JPL's removing of articles from categories at CfD: at first[346] because "if it was clear that the CfDs were likely going to be closed as "not keep" (which seemed to be the case) then IMO it wasn't controversial to depopulate them." I pointed out that such CfDs often have been controversial, that JPL knew this, and that he had been informed about the issues, both long ago and very recently[347].

Adamant's then changed tack, and started to claim that "Plus, you can't say the CfD rules are being broken if the categories were emptied before the CfD." They repeated that point in another post soon after[348]: "it appears that JPL removed articles from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine before the CfD was started.", coupled with "one of the articles he removed, Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine (which was the only example I could find)"... Now, Khmelnytskyi, which was already posted in the opening post of the thread, was removed from the cat on 23 June[349], while the CfD was started on 18 June. So the only example "they could find" was completely incorrect. When I pointed out, with examples, that the depopulations were done after the CfD started, the reply was "I'm assuming good faith that he didn't know he was going to do the CfD at that point.", another example of trolling.

I replied with "He didn't know he was going to do the CfD ... 5 days after he started the CfD???" again with diffs, but Adamant replied "Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD." As it had now been pointed out repeatedly that no such edit existed, I had to conclude that I was dealing with either someone lacking the necessary competence to even look at diffs, never mind have an ANI discussion about them, or someone who was trolling. The evidence pointed strongly in the second direction. When their incorrect claims were pointed out, they suddenly changed to "Also, I don't know what "incorrect claims about these old elements" that I've supposedly repeatedly made is in reference to." as if that wasn't clear.

The discussion one week later simply continued in the same vein, with Adamant changing their story multiple times, and providing examples which turned out to contradict his own claims. So yes, I fully stand by my claims that they are trolling and were making up things along the way. But contrary to what they claim, I provided evidence for this all along the way. Which also refutes their point 3, of course. They haven't provided a single example of JPL emptying categories, and only later deciding to CfD them. Their first examples were of category removals five days after the CfD started: their latest examples were of category removals during the time he created the CfD (literally). Inbetween, they claimed "Since as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. Accidentally Miss-reading something isn't a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact." " but when asked to provide the diff of where they did this, they changed the subject, probably because no such edit existed. Fram (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

There was nothing dubious about the claim that I screwed up the indenting of my comment. I do it all the time. If you want other examples I just did a similar thing in this diff from awhile ago. Same here and here. This diff where I over indented it. This diff where I under indented. There's also this diff where I did the same thing. I also did it in this diff. Etc. Etc. That's just in the last week or two. Your really looking for things to have an issue with. Your probably going to just hide this message, call it trolling, and then claim in your next message that I never provided any evidence like you did before. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the contents of that first reply, yes, it seems very obvious that it was a reply to me (I start about content, you reply about content: I finish with a call for a sanction, your reply ends while addressing that point). Looking at your many other claims which turned out to be false, I have no reason to believe you own your word on this one. In either case, it shows that your point 1 was wrong. As were points 2, 3 and 4. Fram (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "content" (every message is content and most of what everyone was saying had to with it), but the whole point in an ANI complaint is to decide if someone should be sanctioned for their behavior or not. I don't see how me bringing up something that is literally the point in the ANI complaint shows I was responding to you. Like five messages above that I said I didn't think it was worth sanctioning JPL and it had nothing to do with you. So can you point to anything I said that was directly responding to your message and not just a couple of vaguely related words that we both used? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"Content" as different from, or in addition to, just "timing", "placement", "indentation". You acted as if only the indentation of your post was an indication of it being a reply to me, so I discussed its contents. No idea what's so hard to understand about this. Anyway, any news on your claim from 11:33, 19 July 2021 about that other mistake, "as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. "? Any post from before that time were you had actually said this? Fram (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense now. It's still not evidence of anything, but whatever. So you can't provide an example of anything I said that was directly responding to your message then? And here I thought you were all about diffs or it's just a false claim. Yet, weirdly you really haven't provided that many (if any). Let alone to show my message was responding to yours. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Your whole message was a direct reply to my post, which you deny. What other diff can be presented for this than the one for your post[350][351]? (a diff I already presented among the many posted above, which you apparently all missed?) I read this, due to the indentation and content, as a reply to my post, you deny this. In any case, it clearly indicates that your claim that my first post to the discussion was a reply to you, was false, as my first post was the one to which you "seemed to" reply. Meanwhile, you still haven't given an answer to support your claim from 11.33 from 19 July. Fram (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Move to close. Is this back and forth going anywhere? This is a discussion about a discussion on ANI? How about both sides stop discussing and back off?--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a discussion about editor behaviour, with one side making one false claim after another, interspersed with alot of ridiculous or baffling statements. Their "defense" so far has been shown to be of the same calibre, and I'm trying to get them to respond to another claim they made which should be very easy to substantiate (or to simply admit that it was wrong), but where three requests so far have not produced any result. Of course you or anyone are free to close it, but I don't believe that letting people state whatever falsehoods they like in discussions is in any way acceptable or productive, and editors should be held accountable for such things. Closing this down simply because they try to wriggle out of it all the time and no one else is willing to wade into this is a rather sad state of affairs. The basis for discussions (at ANI and elsewhere) should be that we can trust each other to tell the truth (with occasional mistakes, but not with multiple endlessly repeated falsehoods) and that we can try to resolve differences of opinion on that basis. With this editor, that trust is completely lacking, as they seem much more interested in trolling again, and again, and again. I see here that they got a two week block late last year for "bludgeoning, condescending, talking down to people, misconstruing and misrepresenting comments, and so forth". Only a few weeks ago, multiple editors were calling for an "indef and move on" block for Adamant1[352] for continuation of the same behaviour. Fram (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A call for an "indef and move on" that went nowhere because the majority of the people who commented thought the complaint was either completely meritless or didn't warrant a block. So what's your point? From my perspective the basis for discussions (at ANI and elsewhere) should be that we will assume good faith and take people at their word when they say who their messages are written to, or editors who are unwilling to should be held accountable for such things. From my side I've been more then willing to explain my actions and provided evidence for everything you accused me of. You've just been unwilling to assume good faith and accept my explanations. Instead, you keep baselessly repeating that I'm trying to "wriggle out of it all" and you keep wrongly saying I'm endlessly repeating falsehoods. Despite that, I'm more then willing to call this a wash if you are. I highly doubt anyone wants this to continue. Why not humor them? -Adamant1 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, coupled with all other falsehoods, "mistakes", and ridiculous asides they proclaimed, I've now three times asked them to substantiate one simple thing they claimed, that what I claimed was a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact" was in fact Adamant1 misreading things, which they had already said at the time I repeated my claims.[353] I asked them then to provide a diff of where they did this, and did so in this discussion again two times. Either they indeed did this, but I kept on banging on about it, in which case providing evidence of it would be a very good thing for them to do and would seriously weaken all my claims. Or they made another mistake, but they have had plenty of time to acknowledge this by now. Or, as was clear a long time ago, they are simply trolling. Despite this, they claim right above that they "provided evidence for everything you accused me of." An editor who makes up such stuff is not an editor we can trust, and not an editor I think we should keep around. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Lets see, so far you've been wrong that I lied about JPL removing articles from the categories before he did the CfDs and you were wrong that my message was in response to yours. Not only that, but you've continued calling me a liar about both even after it was clear that you were wrong. Instead of just admitting that you were wrong. An editor who does such stuff is not an editor we can trust, and not an editor I think we should keep around. Or, you could can just take the L since your currently 1 to 2 and move on. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: indef block Adamant1

They were blocked for 2 weeks last year, and narrowly escaped another block just weeks ago. They are now constantly trolling (see above). Enough is enough, this isn't an editor we need to keep around any longer. Please read the above and the previous two ANI discussions about them. Without trust, we can't build a collaborative encyclopedia. Fram (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Originally, you asked someone to read through the discussion and give their opinion about if I was trolling or not. Dumuzid did and wrote me a message on my talk page that I wasn't trolling. Yet, you've ignored it and are continuing to accuse me of constantly trolling and your trying to get me blocked for something I didn't even do. How exactly is that a way to build a collaborative encyclopedia? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Since I have been invoked, I figure I had better chime in. I wrote on your talk page, Adamant1, because I wanted to offer advice rather than weigh in on an AN/I matter. I take no position on this proposal, but I will say even with my assumption of good faith, there is a lot of tendentious editing and bludgeoning here. If you are not blocked, I would again advise you to try to be a bit more succinct and that not every slight--imagined or otherwise--demands an elaborate response. As ever, just the way I see things, and you are more than welcome to disregard. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for chimming in and the advice. It's always welcome when given in good faith. I've been a lot more succient in this complaint then past ones and its something I plan on continuing to work on. Reminders in the meantime don't hurt though. Cheers. Adamant1 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

(see above) - The above thread in turn points to another long thread, which points to various other threads. Proposing an indef based on such a "see above" seems like a big ask that would make it hard for people to evaluate without having already been involved. Is it clear-cut enough that there are specific diffs of trolling? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW this may or may not be relevant (I think it may be, looking through some of this, so I'm just going to leave it here in case anyone finds it useful). I remember some years ago talking with DGG about heated discussions on Wikipedia in general. He said -- and I think he won't mind my paraphrasing here -- that he really tries to set a hard two-reply limit for himself in any particular thread. That way he thinks more about those replies and doesn't get dragged into a long, fruitless, and perhaps escalating back-and-forth. While I don't personally keep a number in mind, it's something I remember when I ask myself "do I really need to reply again." Jury's out whether I'm successful :) but I found it to be a simple and interesting approach to a common challenge. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll try, but it is more of an accumulation of stuff than one or two very clear diffs.

• Ridiculous comparisons: in a discussion about whether e.g. Odessa University may be in a category for establishments in Ukraine in 1685, they posted this as a reply: "Category:Trees of the United States (dis)establishment during the Silurian period or whatever just wouldn't make sense because the United States wasn't around during the Silurian period." A previous reply already included "At that point the big bang/god/Neanderthals should be mentioned in every article."
• Making false claims: they repeatedly claimed that JohnPackLambert had removed categories from articles before nominating these for CfD (instead of during the CfD), e.g. here, here, here and here (another good example of a trolling post as well). Each time, I pointed out that no such edits were made, that even in the example Adamant1 provided, the category removal in the article was done 5 days after the CfD started (and when multiple people had already opposed it), but then suddenly they didn't understand what I was talking about[354]
• When the discussion restarted 6 days later, I confronted him with the above false statements, only to again be met with a lack of understanding what I meant[355]
• He then suddenly changed direction, and claimed that they had already acknowledged their mistake[356]: "It's been clear this whole time. At least it has been for me. Apparently it's not clear on your side though. Since as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. Accidentally Miss-reading something isn't a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact." " Fine, it shouldn't be too hard to provide a diff of where this happened then, surely? But despite four requests so far, no diff of where this happened has been provided.

This is just a summary of some points, there are other examples (e.g. when I talk about the POV of JohnPackLambert, the reply I get starts with "First of all, I fail to see how it's JPLs PoV when he wasn't the only one in the CfDs with that view point." Apparently, when there are others with the same PoV, it is no longer correct somehow to call this the POV of the one that started the CfD?) It's all these small and larger issues which make having a meaningful discussion impossible. Fram (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

With your first point, in hindsight I probably could have used a better example. I'd hardly call it trolling though. With your second, I provided the date and times of when JPL made the edits and they were done half an hour before he started the CfDs. So in no way was that trolling or making false claims. It's ridiculous that you keep saying it was. On your third, I'm pretty sure I had already said I miss-read the date of one of his edits. Maybe I said it to someone else though. I don't have the time or urge to look through a weeks worth of messages to figure it out. Someone forgetting what they said or who they said it to isn't trolling anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

For people reading this, just look at this diff[357] and the two edits preceding it (included in the diff). First post is Adamant1 stating or pretending that "How was me posing a hypothetical question about trees that are located in America a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact"?" I then explained again that the incorrect statements were about the dates of JPL's edits, not about that tree thing. The reply (see diff): "It's been clear this whole time. At least it has been for me. Apparently it's not clear on your side though.", and then followed the claim which they now can't remember any details about and is unwilling to look for. Despite claiming in this very section "From my side I've been more then willing to explain my actions and provided evidence for everything you accused me of." And all that isn't trolling? Fram (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it isn't trolling, but if not then it's very definitely a case of WP:CIR. The fact that this editor comprehensively fails that has been obvious ever since he started editing. Why has everyone let him carry on, despite several trips here? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm pretty incompetent about how to indent messages. I have like an 88% success rate on AfDs though. So at least I'm competent where it matters. My guess is that your AfD success is a lot lower. Adamant1 (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1, no no no you don’t talk to Phil Bridger in that manner, even though you struck it out, you never should have made such statement. Celestina007 (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Its wierd how when I provided the details of JPLs edits I was trolling, but if I don't provide the details of something else I'm still trolling. Is there anything that Fram is not going to say is trolling? At this point I really doubt it. And then he wonders why I'm not in a hurry to figure out who I said what to. There's really zero point when its trolling all the way down either way. Adamant1 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef ugh. We have a comment thread about trolling (and that you shouldn't be trolling), and Adamant makes this edit, which is pretty obviously trolling. There is absolutely no need for My guess is that your AfD success is a lot lower., and I don't want to hear more explanations of how they didn't know it was inappropriate. I would suggest a project-space ban, but Adamant1 doesn't seem to be editing articles either. I don't see any good reason to give them another chance which would just waste more time. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh come on. I just don't think people with low AfD success rates should be criticizing other people's competence levels. Especially when it has nothing to do with the ANI complaint. More so because Phil Bridger is always saying stuff about my edits in AfDs. That said, I struck it out because I probably shouldn't have said it anyway. Adamant1 (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I have given this advice several times at AN/I, and it has never been followed (somewhat understandably), but I will try again. I think by far the best thing you could do to avoid a sanction at this point is to say "I'm sorry, I understand why what I did is problematic, and I'll do my best to avoid it in the future," and then to completely ignore this thread forevermore. I don't know if I could do it myself, but I genuinely think it's the best course of action. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

As far as the comment that I made to Phil Bridger sure. I'm sorry that I said it. I shouldn't have made the comment. Clearly it's problematic to say anything even remotely trolling in an ANI complaint about trolling. I was more then civil up until then though, way more then I have been in the past, and I'm not going to undermine the progress I've made by apologizing for things I didn't do. Whatever the outcome of this I feel like I let myself down with the comment to Phil Bridger though. It was wrong of me to say. I should have just ignored him instead. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Why not just look at the facts rather than make such wildly wrong guesses? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I couldn't find the link. Why assume incompetence is the reason people are having issues? Its kind of hurtful to be accused of incompetence considering how much time and effort I put into my AfDs votes to make sure they are fair. Adamant1 (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You seemed to be perfectly capable of finding your own AfD stats, but you then go on to say that you can't find mine, which show that I disagree with the outcome less that half as often as you? And it's OK for you to base further discussion on your wild inaccurate guess? Sorry, but that can only be incompetence or trolling. If you have no idea about something then you simply don't talk about it rather than making things up. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone said what my stats were a few weeks ago. That's where I got them from. I know though, everything is trolling. At this point I'm not going to be that surprised if I get blocked considering the bar for what's wrong, trollish behavior is apparently literally anything. Adamant1 (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You are, as so often, missing the point. You said above, "I just don't think people with low AfD success rates should be criticizing other people's competence levels. Especially when it has nothing to do with the ANI complaint." You were talking about me in the first sentence, and it is a bare-faced lie. You did not know anything about how often my opinions agree with closures, but you chose to base a whole sub-thread on this lie. As for the second sentence, who brought up AfD statistics to start with? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh. I thought you were talking about me saying mine was 85% or whatever it is. I never claimed to know what yours is. That's why I said I imagine its low in the crossed out comment. True, you didn't bring up AfDs, but its the only place we have ever interacted and I don't work on much else. So naturally I figured that's what you were saying I lack competence in. No harm, no foul. Adamant1 (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1: You never claimed to know what Phil Bridger's AFD correct rate is, yet felt it necessary to insinuate his rate was a lot lower than yours? Why? WP:NPA quite clearly says in the very opening statement of that policy "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." I seriously doubt there is any part of this that is unclear to you, most especially given that three different threads in the last eight months regarding your behavior (November 2020, December 2020, July 2021) concluded that you were out of line in your behavior towards other people. Saying "So at least I'm competent where it matters. My guess is that your AfD success is a lot lower." is deliberately antagonistic and is a blatant violation of WP:NPA. You are insulting him by way of insinuating he is incompetent. You can either choose to stop attacking and bludgeoning people on this project or you can find yourself not on this project anymore. Great, you struck out the comment. Make comments like this again, stricken or not, and I'm very confident you WILL be banned from this project,^* even if this thread doesn't conclude to ban you. It's your choice. Either be nice, or be gone. Full stop. Is there any part of this that is unclear to you? Please acknowledge you read this, even if you have nothing to say in response. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) (* - just to be clear, I'm not stating it would be me doing the blocking, but I would be making a strong case why it would be necessary)

For the record; Adamant1 responded to my comment by way of thanking the edit [358]. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't normally insert myself into discussions of this kind, but the indef support above had me take a look at your contribs and your habit of continually copy-editing your discussion comments... well, it's certainly something. This alone could justifiably be called disruptive, even if (possibly?) unintentionally so. I don't think your Wikipedia career is necessarily beyond saving yet, and I don't mean to be patronizing – however, if you do get through this, maybe you really should consider taking a second look that obscure article namespace from time to time, instead of getting bogged down in whatever exactly this is. AngryHarpy‍^talk 20:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I have a disability that makes it hard to write messages that don't contain errors. Dealing with that by editing my comments multiple times after the fact probably isn't the best way to deal with it though. I use to copy messages to Word so I could proof read them before posting. I'll probably go to back if I'm not blocked since how I'm doing it now clearly isn't effective. Adamant1 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That does seem reasonable. If nothing else, you could take it as another reason to keep it a little more concise in the future. AngryHarpy‍^talk 21:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I have a similar problem and sometimes copy paste as well. The typos are maddening. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I note for the record that while making and revising remarks over the course of an hour may cause problems on high-volume administrative pages such as WP:ANI, it is almost always fine and unremarkable when writing non-controversial articles. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment In the meantime I deleted my watch list and unsubscribed from notifications. Since I've found it helps on other Wikimedia projects if I'm not getting emails or other notifications about every minutia that's going on. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef per fram they were blocked for incivility for 2 weeks last year and recently dragged to ani few weeks ago for same issues and narrowly survived it, they have been given too many ropes and their behaviour at this report includes WP:BLUDGEONing, incivility and badgering of other users,there has been no improvements.Ratnahastin(t.c) 07:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry I let people know that I'm taking measures to curb the issues. My behavior has been a lot better then what I was blocked for and I'm doing things to make sure it doesn't happen again. In no way is what I'm being reported for this time comparably to my behavior when I was blocked either. People shouldn't get blocked just because of past blocks or reports. Especially if the behavior isn't even on the same level and they are actively taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. Otherwise, it would be a punishment. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm doing things to make sure it doesn't happen again. What things? Levivich 14:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I opted out of notifications and deleted my watch list so I want have an immediate urge to respond to things anything. I'm not going to write important or long messages on my phone anymore either so I can proof read them in word first and send them the second they are written. Also, if I'm not indefed I'm going to request an extended block ( right now I'm thinking six months) so I can have some time to reflect, deal with things IRL that are stressing me out, and work on other projects. When I come back id like to do other things besides just AFDs. Since the toxicity involved in them really gets to me. I had looked into doing article review. Maybe I'll do some of that. Over focusing on AfDs has been to much of a stresser though. If you have suggestions of other things I can do or where else to put my efforts I'll look into them. Oh yeah, I think the whole "only write two responses" is a good idea to. Adamant1 (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  That all sound like good ideas, but the question I have is: when will you begin implementing them? This is not the first or second or third time... even just drilling down on a small issue, the "success rate" comments in this thread ("I have like an 88% success rate on AfDs though. So at least I'm competent where it matters. My guess is that your AfD success is a lot lower." and "Oh come on. I just don't think people with low AfD success rates should be criticizing other people's competence levels."), this isn't the first time you've made such allegations: you also did it here, here, and here. These are repeated, chronic issues that are being raised. The time for change is now. You don't need to be blocked; if you want to take a break, just take a break. Stop publishing edits. If you disappear for six months, I believe this thread will eventually archive unclosed, and the issue will die and be forgotten, and when you come back, as long as you don't cause new problems, no one will object. If instead of taking a break, you edit productively for six months, basically same result. What's keeping this alive--what's keeping you on the track to being sitebanned--is that you keep posting to ANI. You are demonstrating that you cannot walk away. The time for change is now. Levivich 15:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  It's a little unfair to ask me a question and then malign me a few messages down about how unable I am to walk away from this. Outside of responding to direct questions and pings I'm done with this. I already implemented 99% of what I said I'm going to do and I requested a six month block a while ago. It didn't happen though. So I'm going to request one again when this closes if I'm not indefed. I'm done with it otherwise, but don't be upset if I answer a question or ping. Also, I struck out the rude comment I made to Phil Bridger and apologized without hedging on it. 100% that's not something I would have done when I was blocked before. So changing now is exactly what I'm doing. Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  More lies. You struck the first comment that you made about my AfD stats, but you then went on to repeat it by saying, "I just don't think people with low AfD success rates should be criticizing other people's competence levels", which you did not strike but have continued to make excuses for your behaviour that would shame a three-year-old. What weird universe are we in where you claime that you "apologized without hedging on it"? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think I'm not seeing an indef here. Not before trying something else. I'm not sold that what's been called trolling is something other than a mixture of two parts poor communication, one part confusion, one part too many replies, and a soupçon of WP:BATTLEGROUND. That's not great, and is really difficult/exhausting to try to work with, but but it's also not jump-to-indef problematic yet IMO. Adamant, given there are clearly many people who find your behavior problematic here and in the previous thread, I think it would be a good idea to think about some kind of voluntary commitment to put people at ease. One thing that immediately comes to mind is voluntarily taking a break from deletion-related discussions for [3? 6?] months. Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sure. I'm willing to commit to that. Which ever. Like I said, if I'm not indef blocked I want to be blocked for a while anyway to cool down and work on other things. I'd be fine with a 3 or 6 month block as part of that. Which would include not participating in deletion-related discussions. Adamant1 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Not indef, but FINAL WARNING; We've had three different threads in the last eight months that concluded that Adamant1 was out of line in their behavior (November 2020, December 2020, July 2021). I said in the July 2021 thread that we'd be back here again [359]. Just two weeks later, and we're here again. I'm not really interested in a cool down block, even if self imposed by Adamant1. The necessary behavior changes do not appear to be happening, despite several requests for such changes. We'll be back here again when the cool down block expires. Adamant1's been directed to our policies regarding these issues multiples times. This comment given by Adamant1 in a thread regarding his behavior is frankly unconscionable. There is no justification for it. It's an outright attack. In isolation, maybe not much. Given the prior threads regarding Adamant1's behavior, and given the comment was made in this very thread? Wow. Just .... WOW. Ok, Adamant1 struck it out, but if you look further down in that diff it feels like Adamant1 is doubling down on the accusation. For the record, Phil Bridger's AfD correct rate is just shy of 95% [360]. That said, his AfD correct rate shouldn't be pertinent to the discussion anyway. So, why not indef? A site ban is a serious thing. Yes, Adamant1 has seriously violated WP:5P4. But, I believe in final warnings. Whether the person who closes this thread issues such a final warning (assuming there's no site ban) or not, Adamant1 needs to understand there are no more chances. This is it. Adamant1 needs to avoid making any negative comments about other editors, bludgeoning, or otherwise being incivil, broadly construed. Either they improve their behavior or they are permanently gone from this site. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I apologized after I said the second part. Sure I didn't strike it out, because I didn't think to and I assumed it was part of the apology because I said I was sorry after the comment. What was I supposed to do, apologize for what I said before I said it? Also, I meant I didn't double down on the apology. I just apologized and left it at that without using it as another chance to take a dig at Phil Bridger. Which I would have done in the past. Adamant1 (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If I were you, I would strike out both comments, in total, not just the bit you struck out, and issue a frank, and honest apology to Phil Bridger for calling their competence into question and doubling down on that accusation. You were completely, utterly, and unconscionably out of line. There is no excuse. Ok, you apologized before [361], but the part of that comment were you said "Clearly it's problematic to say anything even remotely trolling in an ANI complaint about trolling." can be construed as decidedly snarky given the context in which you said it. This is one of the problems I have with your behavior. You do not appear to be understanding the impact your words have. I echo the advise given by User:Dumuzid above ([362]). WP:JUSTDROPIT. This might seem counterintuitive. Your righteous ire might balk against it. But, the best thing you can do for yourself is to just drop it. Let this thread play out on its own. You might consider not even reading it anymore. Just walk away from it. Go back to doing productive things on the project and avoid (at ALL costs) making any uncivil comments anywhere on the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support as a time sink who is clearly more interested in trolling/nonsense, then building an encyclopedia. [I came here from his AN thread requesting a self block, which shows the continued lack of Clue.] Star Mississippi 18:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Indef and move on (again) Seriously, not just my vote, but everything else I said before remains completely relevant. Grandpallama (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Indef after reviewing this thread and the thread from earlier this month, I think it's clear that Adamant1 needs a community-imposed indefinite break from editing. Ideally, they will be able to come back in a year and demonstrate that they have made the necessary adjustments, but for the time being their battleground behavior is simply too disruptive to continue. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef and move on Enough is enough. The aspersions, trolling and the false claims have to stop. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 22:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment — both Fram and Adamant1 are friends of mine and I have worked with both of them separately and say FWIW, can you both be mature about this, close this thread and settle your differences like men? Adamant1 does good job here although have their shortcomings, I don’t know if it’s possible, but Fram is it possible for you to close this thread and try and settle your differences, one which wouldn’t scar Adamant1? Celestina007 (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Considering that they have now repeatedly called this complaint "meritless", I don't really see how it would be possible to settle this. Our positions are too different to find a middle ground, and the issues in my opinion to serious to simply let it drop (as they are recurring ones). Fram (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Indef – the behavior above is precisely the conduct for which Adamant1 was warned not two weeks ago. The fact that it's continuing shows that he has not heeding the warnings given to him, and that's sufficient reason for a block. An indef isn't intended to be permanent, and I genuinely hope that Adamant1 is eventually able to return and contribute constructively. But until he's able to truly understand that incivility, aspersions, and battleground-type behavior aren't acceptable, his continued participation does the project more harm than good. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Promises of improvement are well and good, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. At this point, given repeated issues, some compulsory time off is necessary. Then, the burden of proof will be on Adamant1 to demonstrate a real commitment to change rather than simply promising it until the next ANI appearance. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as too harsh and out of proportion. A final warning seems more appropriate. I also sympathize with editors with a disability. Adamant1, sometimes saying less is more, especially at AfD and here on the drama boards. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: While I have no time or the patience to read through these walls of text, I do recall this thread from last year (followed by this) where Adamant1 was confronted over persistent disruptive behaviours. Bludgeoning (replying to every single comment in the thread that they disagreed with), battleground mentalities, making broad unprovable generalisations about groups of users, walking back previous statements in dubious ways (which trolling would explain), deflecting blame, and generally not getting the point. I am both disappointed and not surprised that they are currently facing an indef proposal that's gaining traction. I was hoping they would improve after being talked to, but that didn't happen. Darkknight2149 08:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose- Permablocking someone over an argument that either participant could have walked away from seems overkill to me. And if we permablocked people just for making long-winded, difficult to follow arguments it seems like we'd have to cull half the ANI regulars. Reyk _YO! 10:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Strange vandalism on Jimbo Wales and other pages, possible socks

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

---

• Wikedneeded (talk · contribs)
• Flylikeaseagull (talk · contribs)

The first one, Wikedneeded, has been spamming the entirety of the article Nightingale College along with a plea for help for someone named "Ikip" and a lawsuit. To Mr. Sanger's page, to Mr. Wales' page, and so on. I'm not sure why they have not been blocked already, these are high-trafficked and watched pages. Also the posting of a youtube link to an article, which was reverted. Next, Flylikeaseagull restored some of the reverted edits here, and also posted the same youtube link in another article. ValarianB (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, so for some background User:Okip (formerly Ikip, but he lost his password) got himself permabanned almost a decade ago for trolling and socking. While "inclusionist (wiki)lawyer" isn't an inaccurate description of this editor, I don't think he is an actual lawyer, and it's unclear what he could possibly have to do with whatever these two people are agitated about. This seems like an incomprehensibly bizarre false flag operation somehow. Reyk _YO! 14:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, Infinitepeace and these two editors are in the same city. That's not really saying much given the size of the city, but they're editing the same articles, restoring edits made by Okip socks, and referring to Okip/Ikip in bizarre rants. I really don't have the patience for this any more. I used to, and I would take hours if necessary to get to the bottom of what was going on. I would read every tl;dr rant posted to someone talk page, and I would engage with them to find out what their grievance was. I just can't keep up that level of engagement with the project any more. It's too emotionally draining, a huge time sink, and I can't even recall a single time when something useful came of it all that effort, anyway. So both editors are blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • As the numbers of people who can root out problems like this dwindle, the need to not dig that deep will increase. There just isn't time to do it all. I don't blame you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • My thanks as well. I ducked the issue but reverted Wikedneeded and thought I should have had the courage to indef them. I agree that as the number of long-term troublemakers increases, we are going to have to start getting more ruthless to avoid arguing for hours every day. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

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

SiddhaAS

SiddhaAS (talk · contribs) has been warned multiple times (or just User_talk:SiddhaAS#June_2021), including final warnings this month [363], [364]. They have continued to add unsourced material [365], [366]. Desite 500+ edits, they have only edited a talk page when forced to because of ECP protection and never edited a user talk page. At this point, a block is needed. Two requests [367], [368] where left on AIV yesterday but both timed out. This editor is a time-sink for other editors, this needs to stop. Ravensfire (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support block Despite multiple warnings, the editor doesn’t communicate/respond to the warnings or stop adding unsourced content. Jerm (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Just want to add, the editor does mobile editing but doesn’t use the Android app, so it should be much easier to respond to messages. Any thoughts on this? Even now, I’m using my phone to add this message but the desktop version of Wikipedia. Jerm (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Partial block from mainspace until they start discussing? That would get them to a talk page, presumably. Levivich 15:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich, That might help. They clearly know how to use a talk page when forced there [369]. This may be a good first option, but if they continue to ignore concerns, the block would need to swiftly change to a full block. Ravensfire (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Continuing today - [370], [371] - based on the lack of admin replies, I'm assuming the answer is stop worrying and love unsourced editing? Ravensfire (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding maintenance template; refusing to discuss the item tagged. User Andrzejbanas.

• Quique (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cambial Yellowing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On the article Quique (album), following several edits to repeatedly try to completely blank the "genre" parameter in the infobox 1 2 3, User:Andrzejbanas tagged the parameter for discussion on 28 June. They said they want to make changes to it. Since that time, on article talk they have simply avoided or outright refused to discuss the issue they tagged. I have reminded them of the purpose of cleanup templates multiple times. I have been trying to elicit from them some discussion of the changes they want to make to this small infobox list for 3 weeks. But despite repeatedly reinserting the template, they refuse any discussion of the item they tagged. I have pointed the editor to the relevant WP:CLEANUPTAG and WP:NODISCLAIMERS. We are now 3 weeks since they added the tag, and despite responding to messages, every attempt to engage in discussion of the issue they have tagged is met with refusal or evasion. Diffs:

Editor posted a wall of text 3 weeks ago which did not contain a proposed change to the infobox.

I proposed one from Andrzejbanas’ summary. They indicated no opposition, but reverted the change anyway.

I asked what the editor found problematic to the changes to the infobox. They ignore the question, talk about the article body.

I ask again what change they wish to see to the infobox - that they tagged. They say they do have a proposed change, but refuse to share it.

I ask again what genres they wish to change. They continue editing but ignore the discussion, so I ask for their proposal and point out the purpose of the tag. They claim they are discussing it (while also claiming they don't know what "it" is, despite their repeatedly tagging the infobox parameter).

I ask them again to discuss the issue that they tagged. They refuse. Every attempt to point out this reality denial (claiming "I am discussing it", but then refusing to engage in discussion) is met with uncivility templates on talk and little else. Andrzejbans also claims the problem arises because they haven't replied in about 3 days, despite me being very explicit in three preceding messages that the issue is their refusal to discuss the aspect that they tagged for discussion (not a slow response on talk).

To be clear, I think the infobox is fine as it is. But as I've made clear to the editor, I'm perfectly open to discussing and implementing a change (I've even suggested one for them from their summary of some sources they selected). This editor seems to want to keep the cleanup tag on the article indefinitely, and avoid discussing what they've tagged – despite finding time to respond to messages with evasion or outright refusal to discuss it. I will appreciate a reminder to the user that maintenance templates are not there as semi-permanent features of the page, nor as a "badge of shame", and that after tagging an aspect of the page At the very least, tagging editors must be willing to follow through with substantive discussion. Cambial foliage❧ 21:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Just as as a heads up, i've stated with this same editor to not remove the tag, as we have not reached a conclusion. They have forbid from editing their talk page and after posting an exhausting research on the topic, i was wiped out and needed a break before re-organizing the information. This was made clear on that talk page. They have continously removed the tag and when i asked what rule I was breaking, was never given a straight answer. To user is not following WP:CIVIL and has removed maintenance tags over 4 times in over a manner of days. I'm feeling reletiveily bullied and genre-warrior'd over here and it's not encouraging me to get to work faster with someone being as unco-operative as this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Further to the record, i've reached out to several wikiprojects to get more of a consensus with this article (WP:Alternative music, WP:Electronic music, and WP:Albums) to get more people. Prior to this user coming in, the genre was left blank and passed its GA status. I've attempted to take this article seriously and follow the rules. Outisde not running within this users patience, I don't know what I've really done wrong. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

As half-expected, this editor continues to simply make things up to fit their narrative. It's true that we have not reached a conclusion – because the editor refuses to discuss any change to the item they tagged. When on article talk they asked "what rule" this was contrary to, the answer was given with a link to the relevant content guideline. They didn't respond directly, but responded on their own talk with I'm specifically asking you to point out the wiki rule. Which one is it?. Contrary to Andrzejbanas' claim, the infobox was stable for 10 weeks prior to their moves to blank the parameter, and I hadn't edited the page in roughly a year. Cambial foliage❧ 23:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You say nobody is trying to rush me, but then you remove templates and say I haven't replied in various times (three days, etc.). You don't ask the status of things or what's happening, you just remove it. And also, before that the article was stable for years and passed its GA reiview with no genres in the lead. And you didn't say what part of WP:NODISCLAIMERS i'm breaking here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

More making things up. It was you who mentioned three days, not me. The lack of discussion from you that I am talking about is over a period of three weeks, as I've been very clear about several times over. I've explained to you multiple times (diffed above) the problem with misusing maintenance templates. You might also look at the relevant WP:TM/DISP. Cambial foliage❧ 23:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There may still time for both of you to promise to stop warring, to avoid enforcement of the edit warring policy. None of the recent reverts is exempt from consequences under WP:3RRNO. This is a classic long term edit war. A common response is to block both parties. Between the two of you we are up to about 14 reverts so far. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Cambial Yellowing I just don't understand why you haven't considered pinging the other editors who tried to add genres (and were reverted) on the article's talk page? Wouldn't that have established consensus more easily? JBchrch talk 00:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston – A fair comment. I commit to stop edit warring immediately over the inclusion of this template. When a dispute arises, with or without a dispute template, it is expected that editors discuss the issue. This dispute is occasioned by Andrzejbanas' stated desire to alter the infobox. Here are the occasions on which I have tried to carry out this discussion with them: [372][373][374][375][376][377][378][379]. They have not entered into any discussion, and several times simply refused to.

User:JBchrch I pinged the most recent editor, I think. I don't wish to be accused of (or in fact to be) canvassing. Cambial foliage❧ 00:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not canvasing if you are just asking people to weigh in. You don't have to ask them to side with you, you just ask for requested comments, like I did when I asked on the WikiProjects. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

No, Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions is considered an inappropriate form of canvassing. I'm also perfectly fine with the status quo. Happy to discuss changes (and very open to them, as demonstrated). Andrzejbanas is also free to use the methods available to them to gather input. Leaving dispute templates on the page long-term and refusing to discuss the issue tagged is not one of those. Cambial foliage❧ 00:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to be corrected if the following is not true: I don't think it would be votestacking/canvassing if you notified all the editors who had try to change the genres section, even if their contributions seem to only go in one way. What would not be acceptable, hypothetically, is to cherrypick the editors based on their perceived opinion. On the other issues, I think you are both to blame, Andrzejbanas for displaying a mild WP:OWN attitude and you for losing your temper somewhat. JBchrch talk 09:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas continues to edit war. No sign of discussion of the issue they tagged. Cambial foliage❧ 11:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas blocked from that page for a week. Easier to discuss. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why this happened as I had just responded right here to why I wanted to add discussion. Cambial Yellowing is false in stating I have not made discussion, and I'm actually reverting what they have removed several times and have yet to fully explain why removing a template for discussion was wrong. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yet once again your comment contained no mention of what your dispute is, what the problem you have with the infobox is, or what changes would resolve the problem. Instead you falsely state there is an ongoing discussion. Despite saying in the preceding sentence that It's not that I want to discuss anything per se. The claim that Cambial Yellowing is false in stating I have not made discussion is already discredited by the diffs above. Cambial foliage❧ 13:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to state that you and I going back forth is discussion. If not, what is it? Simple edit history shows we have been going back and forth each day. Thoughts @CambridgeBayWeather: ?Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the title of this section you'll note it says "refusing to discuss the item tagged". The problem is a lack of discussion of the supposed issue you have tagged, not your stream of messages refusing to discuss it. A continual refusal to on your part to discuss what you tagged is not a discussion. This has already been gone over in detail. Cambial foliage❧ 13:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I find that incredibly vague, i've created several points of discussion. I feel like your twisting the terms around. Regardless, removal of the template was wrong as there hasn't bene a solution to the problem. If the problem was with the tag, propose another one that suits the situation, if the problem was with my lack of discussion, you could easily ping or ask me whats up on my talk page (and you've asked me a dozen times that's the discussion, and i've replied and just because you are personally not satisified, i'm not sure what you are expecting. I've given my response. ) Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You well know that I gave you more than ample warning on your talk page,[380][381] and a detailed explanation of the problem with your lack of discussion of what you've tagged.[382] You also know I pinged you on two occasions before posting here, asking to know what your dispute or desired change is. Your response each time was to avoid any mention of what change you want, saying "I am discussing it" and then "I'll get to it". Cambial foliage❧ 14:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You are taking my statements out of context. I'm discussing with you, i have not provided my alternative solution. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, you seem to be stonewalling. Either provide your "alternative solution," or drop the matter entirely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have had trouble dealing with the editor which is not exactly encouraging me to move forward. They've even just told me after a month that if I did write up my proposal, they were not interested in it as a solution. It's easy to burn-out on this site, and this is a good example of it @HandThatFeeds: Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

A diff would make this more believable, but as I’ve written nothing close to this fabricated claim you'll not be able to provide one. It’s looking less and less like you’re here to build Wikipedia. Cambial foliage❧ 22:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this Andrz is just here to give anyone a hard time even if they provide sources. I'm surprise he hasn't been blocked on pretty much every article. If a source doesn't fit his narrative, he'll just keep giving normal users a hard time no matter how good a source is. 47.147.70.139 (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I've added a suggestion on the article talk page to get this discussion back on track, as it appears to be going nowhere, and consuming huge amounts of text in doing so.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

IP 74.88.193.39

After being blocked twice for persistently making unconstructive edits, and not communicating a word, the user has made another unconstructive edit on Monmouth County, New Jersey. Needforspeed888 (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by user:Eltur Mirzayev

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

1. Changed "Safavid Iran" into "Azerbaijan". No edit summary/explanation.[383]
2. Replied "FREE SOUTH AZERBAIJAN" after being given his second warning.[384]
3. Changed "Iranian-French" into "Azerbaijani-French". No edit summary/explanation.[385]
4. Did the same thing once again. No edit summary/explanation.[386]
5. Replied "Tabriz is the land of Azerbaijan! And everyone born in tabriz is Azerbaijani." when being given his first warning. [387]
6. Changed "Tabriz, Iran" into "Tabriz, Azerbaijan" (even though the city is literally located in Iran). No edit summary/explanation.[388]
7. Changed "Iranian-French" once again into "Azerbaijanian-French". Edit summary: "Don't change the edit i made".[389]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say said "user" is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks somewhat similar to this recent case (now archived). This is more extreme though. I agree with the suggested block, clearly WP:NOTHERE. Jerm (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

After viewing their contributions, they're really not active. The editor also does mobile editing which explains why they don't fill out the edit summaries, and they have only received three warnings total since their account was created; two in May and 20 July. Eltur Mirzayev hasn't received much complaints about their edits via the three template warnings. I'm not entirely sure anymore if a block would be the appropriate action. Jerm (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because "Eltur Mirzayev" has made comparatively few edits, it doesn't mean he/she should be given a free pass. Its not about the quantity of his edits, its about the overal quality (or better said, the lack thereof). The attempts of "Eltur Mirzayev" at a) changing sourced content b) adding unsourced content c) making irredentist ethno-nationalist WP:SOAPBOX statements when issued warnings (i.e. "FREE SOUTH AZERBAIJAN") speak for itself. Not a single edit that he/she has made so far, which includes the accounts' very first edits back in 2020,[390] were actually constructive. In addition, most of the articles he edited are well within ArbCom (WP:AA2) territory. Take a look at the contributions of similar WP:SPA drive-by accounts/IPs and please tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking about proposing a tban, but based on their behaviour on their own talk page, perhaps a block might be the only course of action. And the evidence you provided concerning edits made on articles does seem to warrant a block. So it would be safe to say their other edits are not really accurate, and if a block was implemented, the Wikipedia community wouldn't be taking a loss. Jerm (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

User:PPP001 Will Not Listen

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

---

The user talk page, User talk:PPP001, has an advance warning that I didn't hear that (because I have cotton in my ears). The talk page says:

You aren't allow to add any discussion without my permission,thank you. PPP001$$ 05:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If anyone want to add ,please inform me. PPP001$$ 14:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If anyone add any discussion without my permission, I will clear the discussion. Thank you PPP001$$ 04:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no indication of how one obtains permission. Although it is a rule that an editor may state that certain editors may not post to their talk page, that has never been meant to mean that an editor can forbid their talk page from being used. (I will notify them of this post, and they will probably erase the notice, which is permitted.)

I became aware of this after they created approximately twelve poorly sourced or unsourced stubs on Malaysian electoral districts in both draft space and article space. I was in the process of declining the drafts, tagging the articles for notability, and reviewing whether to nominate the stubs for deletion, and I noticed the strange talk page. This editor is not here to work on a team. (This is not a case of a mobile editor who does not know that they have a user talk page. This editor knows that they have it, because they have told us to go away.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this a linguistic barrier? Or is it really a case of someone who thinks they can prevent others from posting on their talk? I honestly cannot tell. There are plenty of users who blank their talk pages continuously. I will say, in my experience, that is usually correlated with disruptive or tendentious editing, but I don't think it's against any rule. I would say that this user's statement certainly may serve to suppress speech and warnings against them, which are inherently necessary. And, in that way, it may be a good claim for TE/battlegrounding. I'm honestly puzzled by this one.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been bold about it and just cleared the section. Nobody can reinforce those rules on their talk pages here. Obviously there are exceptions with IBANs, and some people do tell specific editors to stay off their talk pages when conflicts arise, but this is simply not acceptable. Pinging PPP001 so they can see this explanation, too. Patient Zero^talk 00:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:UOWN, users are permitted to remove notices from their talk page, which carry an implicit acknowledgement of receiving the message; the exception to that is the removal of declined block requests from active blocks. I've blocked the user 72 hours for repeatedly redirecting drafts into article space despite those warnings. If the behavior resumes when that block expires, I'd recommend an indef block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you’d be spot on there Ohnoitsjamie - would that apply to not letting anybody post to your user page without permission in the first place? That’s mainly what I took issue with, in all fairness. That, and the issue with drafts, which I wasn’t aware of before. Patient Zero^talk 01:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

No, you can't preemptively forbid other users from, nor require permission for, posting notices on your talk page, provided that the messaging doesn't cross over into harassment.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ohnoitsjamie, I'd like you to reconsider the block. While the user seems to lack some collaborative skills ... in two years and 250+ articles, as far as I can see, they have not produced anything which has been deleted [391]. Given the editor's history, and assuming good faith, I suspect the editor was expressing frustration at having a raft of pieces at AfC not approved (by me) and their talk page filled up with the rejections (and those pieces had been moved to draft space earlier). All their previous work has ultimately passed...and that the articles were then approved at NPP adds to the complexity (albeit they circumvented the AfC process...but I see that as a reflection of their frustration). Yes, there's behaviour there which is not collaborative, but they have not specifically targeted incivility at anyone, and the lack of verification is not an egregious breach ... seems to me further gentle engagement could be applied. Pinging two involved editors Onel5969 Mccapra. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. We’re here to work collaboratively. Refusal to have messages on your talk page, let alone work with other editors, pushing improperly sourced drafts into mainspace and expecting others to do the work of sourcing your creations isn’t working collaboratively. I have no view on what should best be done about it. Mccapra (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The first block is temporary, and they now have a little bit of time to develop some collaborative skills; they could get the time reduced if they acknowledged the reason for the block, etc. Additionally, unilaterally redirecting rejected drafts to article space is disruptive. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, Fair enough and thanks for the quick reply. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• I spent some time going through their article creations, both back in 2019 and this year. I've audited over 50, and not a single one of them has a valid source. 50. You click on the single link, do control F for the article subject, and nothing comes up. This editor appears to latch on to a single reference, which might be valid for one article, and then use it repeatedly. I'm not saying these entities don't exist. Mccapra did some digging and encountered sourcing to show that they do. The issue now is that you have a hundred or so articles without a single valid reference, if the trend my audit found continues throughout them. I'll give a few examples, such as his first article creation, Jalong (state constituency), Rim (state constituency), Lenggeng (state constituency) (2 refs, neither of which refer to it), although some now have permanently dead links, like Aulong (state constituency), Kota (state constituency), Kuala Sepetang (state constituency), Bercham (state constituency), Bukit Naning (state constituency). Take that last one as a perfect example, the ref is about the election in Johor, but the list of election results does not mention Bukit Naning. I don't want to list all the articles, but you just have to click on any in his article creation log. Not sure what to do, but I don't think a block from creating any new articles until they demonstrate that they understand notability and WP:VERIFY is out of line. And then something should be done about those they've already created. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  Onel5969, the editor's behaviour certainly strains one's commitment to assuming good faith... :) Nevertheless, my reading is a mixture of carelessness and stubborness, rather than outright malintent. Yes, it is disruptive and can understand the reason for the block, but as far as I can see they have not mass created hoax articles. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  Goldsztajn, my apologies if I gave the impression that I thought these were not valid article subjects. On the contrary, part of the issue is that they do appear to be valid article subjects, just with no sourcing to meet WP:VERIFY. I had thought my mentioning of Mccapra's research showed that. I'll try to be more specific in the future. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Onel5969: I'm still on wikibreak so won't investigation this further but just as a quick comment, I have not looked into the other referencing problems but you are mistaken about Bukit Naning. A quick check of this ref [392] confirms it is mentioned. Please note that Bukit Naning is a state constituency not a parliamentary one (as per the disambiguation) so you will need to click on state to show it in the ref as it defaults to parliamentary constituencies. An unfortunate but not uncommon problem with fancy sites. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a common problem with referencing since (federal) parliamentary constituencies are more important in Malaysia, so most will show them by default. Referencing could obviously do with improvement and I do not know the general notability requirements we impose for state constituencies in countries with federal election systems, so whether these should be considered automatically notable or what. But from what I've seen I strongly suspect these all did or do exist and you could find primary table/database sources and secondary table/database sources confirming their existence and actually most of the sources they used did or do mention these if you can work out how to navigate the site. I say "did" because some of them might have changed, and notably archive links especially on archive.org may not work properly and so be unable to show content that was there. If the site is in Malay look out for negeri (not negara!) or DUN. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  Nil Einne, thank you. I had not realized that different button at the top of the source. I'm glad that those earlier articles will not need to be looked at. I realized after posting the above, that back in 2019 I must have discovered the same thing, since I reviewed several of them, like Membakut (state constituency), and Klias (state constituency). However, the most recent ones still have the referencing issue, unless I'm misreading those as well. Regarding notability, they will pass WP:GEOLAND, being populated legally recognized places. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Request edit review (personal attack)

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

---

Greetings. I'd appreciate an admin review of this edit. Being an experienced vandal reverter, not much surprises or upsets me, and my concern is for others who may be subjected to this kind of thing. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

As one who reverts vandalism a lot, stuff like this isn't surprising. You don't need to start a ANI case just have an admin assess obvious disruption/vandalism. Just report the individual to WP:AIV which I have and has already been dealt with. Thank you Admin Ohnoitsjamie. Jerm (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not an inappropriate place to post this. While AIV could probably handle this, it is not simple vandalism. It is a serious and gross threat of violence that required revision deletion. Jusdafax made no mistake here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC Never said ANI wasn't the right or wrong noticeboard, just said AIV can handle it and has always handle these type of disruptive individuals. And there was nothing inappropriate about my comment. Jerm (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay that is fine. By the same token I never said you comment was inappropriate. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You posted "This is not an inappropriate place to post this." right after my first comment, and you're saying you weren't referring to my comment? Yeah, not buying that but whatever. Jerm (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

And you said "You don't need to start a ANI case". I felt Jusdafax could interpret that as not being welcome to post this here, so I clarified that they did nothing wrong. Look if you want to get into this then you can post on my talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, this is very much problematic and I can appreciate why you would be disconcerted Jusdafax. If I had the mop and the range block knowledge, I'd be working out a block right now. But the best I can do is add an assessment here to improve the odds of getting admin action on this by stressing the severity of the behaviour here. I don't want to repeat the content of the edit verbatim since I expect it will be revdelled, but it involves an offhand reference to the sexual assault of a fellow editor, combined with a BLP violation. It is extremely weird and worrying. Let's hope it is addressed with alacrity, though it will require someone to work out the range. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind. Mops are on it today. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 04:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks to all. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• What an obvious BLP violation that is. Requesting RD2 via WP:IRC... –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Even better! Much obliged. Jusdafax (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have revision deleted several revisions due to RD2. Sorry you had to experience that here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have also blocked talk page access and e-mail for the range. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Why? I don't see any edits on talk pages in the range. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Their user talk page, not talk pages in general. Given the postings by this person they do not need access to their user talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The IP hasn't used any talk pages yet so there isn't a need to revoke user TP access. Jerm (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

When a user makes gross threats of violence then pre-emptively removing talk page access before they use that talk page to do it again is perfectly sensible. I very much see the need. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say this falls within the purview of administrator discretion regardless, but I would have to go with HighInBC on this one in any event: once someone has, in any context, glibly used the verb "rape" in relation to another volunteer on this project, we can safely determine that they have no legitimate need to communicate with anyone on Wikipedia. In that light, blocking the user talk in addition to mainspace editing has no downside, even if we don't yet know whether the user would have used it as a last avenue for disruptive behaviour. All of this is, of course, subject to the usual caveats regarding duration that come with blocking an IP address, but without going into the detail there (WP:BEANS and all), HBC is clearly in conformity. The potential upside of completely silencing an editor willing to make such comments is entirely warranted when weighed against the extreme unlikeliness that the IP talk page is going to need to be used for legitimate purposes over the duration of the block. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

damn. vandals don't like you. Of course someone making such a threat loses TPA and email. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Vandals used to go after my User page, but it's been a while. Lately it's been my Talk page. As noted by others here, this case was more extreme than the garden variety threat, and I appreciate the measures taken. As I say above, my concern is for inexperienced vandal reverters not previously exposed to this sort of thing. Add in the blatant BLP vio, and it seemed appropriate to bring it here. I'd like to thank you all, everyone, and suggest we close this. Best wishes! Jusdafax (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

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

User:FormalDude

User:FormalDude responded to an RFC request for the Talk page of the template for The Beach Boys, which asked if Bruce Johnston should be included on the top line. He gave his initial two cents in favour of the status quo. But then I responded to Alsee's response suggesting to have the template reflect the standards of other music-related infoboxes, which is to include the current, active band official band members on the top line, and historical members on the bottom. My response was neutral and basically to detail what that was to entail, and I did not indicate support or opposition to Alsee's suggestion. For that, I was accused of "moving the goal posts" by FormalDude, an accusation I found blatantly false and contemptible under the circumstances. I asked him on his talk page to withdraw the accusation, to which he doubled down and began to act, in my view, in very bad faith - responding sarcastically to my response and completely ignoring what I had said when I was responding exclusively to Alsee's suggestion and nothing more. If this user had engaged in the discussion respectfully and without making accusations, there would have been no issue. Hopefully this can be resolved in good time. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The conversations at User_talk:FormalDude#Slander and Template_talk:The_Beach_Boys#Discussion speak for themselves. Thescrubbythug apparently hasn't read WP:ABF or WP:CIVIL. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 06:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Your conduct speaks for itself more than anything. Your accusation towards me and your antagonistic, sarcastic responses - which you are still doing here - is at the heart of this issue, and why this report has been filed. Had you not made your accusation, and had you conducted yourself respectfully and without any shred of antagonism, there would be no issue here. This has gone far beyond the original discussion about the template itself. Thescrubbythug (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thescrubbythug, FormalDude's contention about you "moving the goal posts" is not slander (or libel, or any kind of defamation). It isn't even uncivil. Please don't use legalese to browbeat your content opponents. That is highly inappropriate and is a cause for sanctions. El_C 07:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

He made a false accusation about me and proceeded to respond with sarcasm and condescension. I asked him to withdraw, and explained how responding neutrally to somebody else’s suggestion and what that suggestion would entail does not constitute “moving goal posts”. How else am I to react to that? Thescrubbythug (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You say it's false, they're permitted to argue otherwise. How are you to react to that? Like the intellectual challenge it reads as, rather than it being about your integrity, somehow. El_C 07:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm looking at that RfC myself right now, and I'm thinking the WP:BATTLEGROUND here is certainly running in both directions. Mind you, I don't want to be hyperbolic: the level of tendentiousness is minor all around, and I think we should be able to repair this discourse without the need for any more substantial action than reminding these two to AGF and attempt some geniality. But to the extent there has been some tension here, I don't really see it starting with Thescrubbythug , necessarily; FormalDude started his involvement in the discussion by making a statement that TST's prompt was not neutral or concise, neither of which assessment I think is reasonable: it's a pretty straight-forward prompt of one sentence which provides a query without biasing language that I can see. After that, several of FormalDude's comments were...if not super-inflammatory, at least kind of passive-aggresive (in my opinion, any time an editor begins a talk page comment with "Gee", they really ought to take a pause to consider the tone of what they are about to say). Up until several comments in to the back-and-forth, TST was pretty scrupulously polite.

Of course, Theccrubbythug pretty much completely lost the plot and dipped off into histrionics starting with the post which begins with "This is slander". But in any event, I think both sides need to take a pause for the cause and consider their approach here. There's more than a bit of apparent hostility to the mere fact that an RfC has been started, but unless there has been a previous one (or similarly large and explicit discussion) treating this issue, this was the appropriate process to use to break the loggerheads. If TST's opposition on this issue is convinced they will prevail on the consensus, they should lean into that support rather than utilizing loaded terminology, such as invoking WP:SNOW prematurely and language such as "knock it off" and "utter waste of time" (to be clear, though, those last two comments are not FormalDude's, but those of another editor on his side of the issue). TST seems to be implying that they feel they are working against an WP:OWN attitude here, and such rhetorical tactics will only feed that perception. The RfC should proceed, but more to the point, I think these two (having for the moment exhausted reasonable commentary on eachother's thoughts) should not pursue the meta discourse further and should avoid responding to eachother altogether until the discussion has evolved some. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You're going into what our actual debate was over, and even further back than that by bringing up my comment about the RfC neutrality, which is not what this AN/I is about and wasn't even been mentioned by the reporter. I believe this noticeboard is for evaluating the conduct of users rather than weighing in on who was right in edit disputes.

Furthermore, I was not the one who said "knock it off" or "utter waste of time", that was @Alsee here. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 08:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

explanation for striked comment

striked as I see you've changed your comment. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 09:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC) Actually, no: I took care to make sure those comments were not attributed to you in my original post ([393]): you must have missed it. But that happens, no worries: appreciate the strike. Snow let's rap 09:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC) @Snow Rise: My bad, I did miss that somehow. By the way, do you know why my strikethrough isn't appearing correctly? I can't for the life of me figure out where I'm going wrong in the syntax. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 10:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC) Unfortunately, no, I don't! I only saw the content of the striked statement by examining the wording in the edit console. But I think it's fine to leave it as is: can't see as what difference it will make at this point. Wikicode can be finicky at times: you probably have a random apostrophe somewhere in your post that the template can't countenance the look of. ;) Snow let's rap 13:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware of the purpose of ANI. I believe my comments are very much on point to the behavioral questions involved. I mentioned your comment about the prompt because I don't think the observation was an altogether accurate one, and I'd like you to consider that maybe you came out swinging on this one, and that your tone towards the RfC and its author might have been a little more...let's be diplomatic and say more strident than it necessarily needed to be. It seems that you don't find the RfC a worthwhile use of time, but the fact of the matter is that it is the appropriate and recommended community solution for formulating or ascertaining consensus in these circumstances. I don't think the specific comment which prompted Thescrubbythug to come here violates any behavioural policy (certainly not to the degree of requiring community action), and I think he needs to take that feedback to heart. But with equal frankness, I must tell you that I think there was a more than perceptible undercurrent of unnecessary hostility in the manner in which you responded to TST envoking the RfC, and I think he continued to show restraint in the face of that attitude...right up until the point that he didn't and seriously overreacted. I'll repeat my advice to both of you: you've each said your peace regarding eachother's read on the issue, and now it's time to wait for the FRS to do its work and bring in additional perspectives. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I can understand your concerns with my bluntness, but it's just bluntness–not stridency. If I didn't find the RfC a worthwhile use of time I would not have commented on it. My comment suggesting a procedural close is participation in the process of reaching a consensus. I don't think I "came out swinging" by politely asking for a more neutrally worded RfC. Especially since TST's summary of the RfC states his argument so well that he didn't even feel the need to make a comment on his position in the RfC, as it completely explained in his supposedly neutral summary. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 10:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, fair enough: personally I didn't see a problem with the wording of the prompt, from a neutrality standpoint--and just for context, RfC is an area I spend a lot of time on, and I've handed out my fair share of admonitions in that area, as an FRS respondent. But clearly that's a question on which reasonable minds may differ. But putting that question aside, I just felt that the build-up of tension between you two was not entirely one-sided. Let me put it that way, even as I attempt not to stoke the issue myself: because I really do think this issue is a tempest in a teapot to the extent that there has been feedback provided here and we should probably let it go at that so the situation doesn't become larger merely as a consequence of excessive examination, which unfortunately is one of the downsides to ANI at times. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The only part of this I will respond to is that I did not comment on my position explicitly because I already gave my two cents and explained my position in great detail in the original discussion with ILIL, and the purpose of the RFC was already summed up succinctly by Snow Rise above. While I admit there was overreaction on my part, as I explained in my response to Snow Rise, I still find your overall tone from the “goal post” response onwards contemptible (even if it doesn’t necessarily break the rules here), and I do not wish to have any further interaction with you - on this matter or in general. Have a good day. Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not saying you're not entitled to defend your conduct in the light of feeling put upon, but since you made a point of saying you would consider my feedback, let me add this: I think the wording "contemptible" might be another example of something that is a bit heavy for these circumstances. FormalDude's comments may have had some slight amount of bite to them, but you've already admitted your own response was not entirely measured, so please consider applying any lesson you take from that situation to the immediate circumstances. Slight criticism from yours truly not withstanding, FormalDude's conduct was good faith in motivation and certainly not warranting of an ANI filing, at the end of the day. Beyond that, I get the sense that he is happy to let the matter go from here, same as you seem to be. So let's apply de-escalating language, if there is anything more to say--though I think that backing away from the topic (as you have proposed to do of your initiative) is even better and shows level-headedness. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your even-handed, fair response Snow Rise, and understanding precisely where I took issue with FormalDude - I think you summed it up better than anyone else could have. I’ll admit at this stage that I overreacted a tad bit and will continue to reflect on your feedback, but I also do not take kindly to users taking such a tone particularly when it is insinuated that I attempted to “move goal posts” - and when such an accusation was not levelled at the user I was responding to (Alsee). For my part I’m going to stay out of further discussions on the RFC, and certainly intend to have no further interactions with FormalDude. But as you put it very well, starting the RFC in the first place was important so that we could get the viewpoints on the original issue from more than just two (admittedly passionate Beach Boys fans) users, and to get more solid consensus on the issue one way or the other. Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that makes a lot of sense--thank you for being willing to take that step to help seal the end to the matter. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Ya, there is no slander, libel, or personal attack here. This is just regular discourse. When one standard is being argued and another standard is brought up then "moving the goal post" is a perfectly polite way to complain about it. This does not need admin attention. I suggest you go back to your content discussion and carry on with the point you were originally trying to make. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur with El C and HighinBC: there is nothing here that approaches a personal attack, or even plain incivility. 'Moving the goalposts' is not an accusation of bad faith, it's just an indication that someone thinks you're trying to shift the focus of the discussion. You can respond to that perfectly politely by explaining why you thought your comments were relevant and on-point: it's not the kind of thing to demand that someone retract. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I see no incivility in that RfC at all, and don't even find hostile/strident. I didn't read the discussion above the RfC, maybe things were already brewing up there and the goalposts characterization just set it off, but there is no personal attack. —valereee (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest Thescrubbythug and FormalDude both pause for a breather, that both try to dial it down and just to see what the RFC brings. Right now there appears to be no need to sanction anyone - if this doesn't flame up further. It was not reasonable for FormalDude to blame Thescrubbythug for "moving the goalposts". *I* was the one who rejected the previous goalposts and I introduced new ones I believed more in line with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and norms. In an RFC it is absolutely appropriate for involved parties to seriously consider the input of outside parties. It was also not reasonable for Thescrubbythug to escalate such a trivial error into an ANI against FormalDude. I perhaps deserve some of the blame for voting "Knock it off" directed at everyone on the page. Sometimes the solution to a dispute is to realize both sides are arguing the wrong issues, and I was not gentle about it. The prior discussion was a wall of Original research and fan-opinions on which band-members were "worthy" of top line billing. I was a little irritated at having wasted my time reading it and finding nothing constructive. Alsee (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Syan Atta

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

---

Syan Atta has repeatedly failed to use descriptive edit summaries; please see their contribs as there are too many edits without proper edit summaries. Additionally, they have been repeatedly warned for MOS violations [394][395][396]. They have also tripped the notable people disruption filter [397] (false alarm). --Firestar464 (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hang on a minute - am I missing something? This looks like a three-day-old account, and you're bringing them to ANI because of poor formatting and a lack of edit summaries? I see a couple of unhelpful templates on their talk, has anyone actually tried speaking to them directly and explaining what the problems with their edits are? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that the filter trip looks like a false alarm. That filter is there to prevent vandals from adding their friends' names to articles while noting the remarkable phatness of their asses. It's not there to stop people adding the names of local politicians. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

A good-faith editor would and should probably try to discuss with the editors on their TP. (As a side note, courtesy ping Rdp060707.) Firestar464 (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Firestar464, a good faith editor who registered an account just three days ago might not know how to respond appropriately to templates telling them they're being disruptive. Before reporting brand new accounts for disruption, you could try actually talking to them (without the use of templates) and seeing whether you can get a response. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Firestar464 (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this account has never edited a talk page, including their own. Probably haven't discovered them yet. And unfortunately they may be editing on their phone, which means it can be really hard to get their attention. If the edits they're making to article space are actually disruptive, and they don't start discussing, we can p-block from article space to try to get their attention. It looks like their edits at Kingharia may be an attempt to correct what they see as misinformation -- they're changing that the Kingharia are singers and beggers to singers and farmers, for instance? —valereee (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Kevinlansmann

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

---

Kevinlansmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly violating WP:LIVESCORES. Most of this user's edits had been reverted due to that. Have been warned and did nothing to improve. Flix11 (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

User is one of several reincarnations of globally banned account Charli_250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Several sockpuppets have also been blocked/banned in deWP (de:User:Charloottinutzhorn, de:User:KevinKevin03, de:User:Kevinkevin0306 et al.). --Roger (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I entered punctually at the final whistle and not before. This is not a live ticker and if you then reset my change, it is simply not fair. One could also have added the substitutions and not to revise them. Kevinlansmann (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, there is no case for this group of socks. I have blocked Kevinlansmann and all of the accounts noted by RoBri (they all have been created this month and edited on en.wiki). Roger, if you know of more, please post them here; my German is very limited. My guess is there are more of them, so a CU would be helpful. Some may have edited only at de.wiki, but Kevinlansmann has edited only at en.wiki. I think it's important to start a case and, unless discovered otherwise, assume that Charli 250 is the master. Perhaps an SPI clerk can do so? Blablubbs? Anyone? Doesn't have to be a clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Bbb23:  Done, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Charli 250. Blablubbs (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Blablubbs: As always, thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  Happy to help – for what it's worth, I'm seeing no additional socks in the archives of dewiki's Vandalismusmeldung (which also handles block evasion). @RoBri: Thanks for catching this, please feel free to give me a ping if anything new pops up on dewiki – I speak the language, I'm just not around on the wiki much. Blablubbs (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I got blocked from WP:AIV by Materialscientist for reporting this sock. Can you unblock me? Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You didn't report the account to AIV as a sock, but as a VOA. It was a bad report. I agree with Materialscientist's block.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: How am I supposed to know that he was a sock? I don't know who Charli 250 was. I reported simply because I noticed he had a substantial amount of reverted edits. I usually reported blatant vandals, even when he/she was let go by others. Maybe I was too harsh. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The IP Special:Contributions/78.54.234.224 has also been used in deWP and enWP. Charli250's/Kevinlansmann's sockpuppets are quite easily recognisable in Special:RecentChanges (RC); he(?) edits disruptively and in a hectic manner in current or seconds-ago-finished sporting events and -matches in various WPs, mainly in deWP and enWP. --Roger (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Vandalism

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

---

Wikipedia administrators please take action on User:Kevo327 and User:BaxçeyêReş users. Articles about Azeris and Azerbaijan are being vandalised and I have to open a new Wikipedia page to do something against these users. Please check the edit history of these users and then ban me. Thank you. IsmayilovAkif (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EljanM, you just made admins jobs easier by admitting your a sock. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You will also be banned. I won't you allow to delete Azerbaijani names. Shushi is not the main name! [398], [399] IsmayilovAkif (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Nope, but you were indef'd by NinjaRobotPirate. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Vandalism in Special:Tags?

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

---

The following tags have had their display names changed to gibberish:

mobile edit - displays as: Golygu ar declyn symudol

mobile web edit - displays as: Golygiad gwe symudol

visualeditor - displays as: Golygu gyda'r llygad

Nathanielcwm (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Tags_in_Welsh. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

All of these problems with Welsh translations reminded me of this story. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That's hilarious —valereee (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Welsh is not gibberish, but we should be displaying things in English if the viewer has not asked for another language. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be an ongoing technical issue here with the Welsh displays which is being discussed elsewhere. And as a Welsh speaker, it has made me chuckle a bit that it has been misinterpreted as gibberish or vandalism! Girth Summit, thank you for reminding me of that article, too. :-) Patient Zero^talk 22:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Removal of verified contents

Edu1388 (talk · contribs) and J1577 (talk · contribs) removed a verified contents without giving legitimate reasons or evidence on List of 2020 Summer Olympics broadcasters, it was multiple times repeated. Suspect both also the same person giving the history --Aleenf1 12:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You've already filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/J1577 which lists both users, so maybe let that run its course...? El_C 13:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

User:GorillaWarfare and Nick Fuentes

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

---

My dignity is seriously violated. I am making this page because an administrator user User:GorillaWarfare has reverted my edits,where I provided a reputable source ( Anti Defamation League) and citation of the fact that public figure Nick Fuentes is a White Supremacist, Anti-Semite, Homophobe, and Neo-Nazi According to the ADL. After I made only 2 such edits to the article, as my first was reverted by the same user, I received spam messages on my talk page totalling five edits in total and four in rapid succession by this same user, So that my Talk Page is now over 5000 bytes. I am gravely offended by this rude conduct not even two hours after after I created my Wikipedia Account. I am Jewish and I was personally offended how this user discounted Nick Fuentes history of racism and antisemitism. I have a serious issue here with the rude and demeaning behavior of your administrator Gorilla Warfare. AlbanianHernia (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Note that AlbanianHernia vandalized my user talk page while leaving the ANI notice... at first I thought perhaps they were just a strongly opinionated POV-pusher (who somehow thought it was appropriate for an encyclopedia article to say that attendees of this conference were "racist white trash scumbags"), but now I think they're just trolling. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I did not mean to vandalize your page. I was scrolling down and thought I had reached the bottom. AlbanianHernia (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

...and then a cat walked over your keyboard, changing the text "sunandclouds" to "sunandbutts"? Please. Indef. Levivich 16:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You wrote, in an encyclopedia article, "racist white trash scumbags." Undoing that (and the rest of your edits) isn't because (a) you're necessarily wrong, or (b) nobody has said such things about these people before; it's because we adhere to a neutral point of view and have strict rules for how we talk about living people. If you have questions about why an article is written in a certain way or want to propose changes, use the article talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• curved flying stick should be applied to filer.--Chuka Chief_talk 16:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• This is probably trolling - few rational humans over-reacts like that, and the article edits appear designed to be reverted so fake outrage can be expressed - but on the off chance it isn't, I've left a final warning on AH's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, allow me to explain what has happened here. GorillaWarfare reverted your edit, because it added the qualifier "notorious white supremacist, anti-Semite, and homophobe" to Nick Fuentes' mention in the lede of that article.

That's highly unencyclopedic writing, and an entirely unnecessary POV insertion in the lede of the article. The lede does mention that it's been described as far-right and white nationalist, and Fuentes' page describes him as a white nationalist.

GW thus rightly reverted your edit. You then edit-warred the information back in. In response, GW reverted you again, not citing our policies about writing about living people, but certainly well within the spirit of them (and within the exception they carve out in our rules prohibiting edit warring), and placed some welcome templates on your talk page, along with some mild warnings about your edit.

Everything GW has done has been very proper, thus far, with her only possible misstep being not explicitly mentioning WP:BLP in the edit summary of her second revert.

The fact that you are offended by all of this is really immaterial: ANI does not exist to satisfy your sense of decorum, but to stop disruptive editing. As it was your edits which were disruptive, your best course of action is to (politely) ask GW to explain why she's reverting you (or take that info from my message here) and recognize that we won't be writing that way about living people. If you need further guidance on how we write about living people, then asking for assistance at the article talk page, at GW's talk page, at my talk page (see the "tell me all about it" link in my signature) or even at your own talk page. Someone is almost always ready to patiently explain such things. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

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

It's probably worth taking note of the fact that, among AlbanianHernia's less than a dozen total edits, several of them demonstrate more substantial technical knowledge than a legitimate first time editor is likely to have: their first and second edits were to bluelink their user and user talk pages, they created and utilized an archive, and otherwise demonstrated a working knowledge of our markup. I think it's safe to say, these telling features combined with the targeted disruption, that we are dealing with a sock here, and I wonder if there is anyone working in sock control in the context of the American conservative politics who might be able to recognize the most likely sock master. That said, with the user account indeffed regardless, this might be superfluous...unless they are still an active contributor with their main account. Worth considering, I think. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Apparent CIR/vandalism issue with new user

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

---

User:MrAfternoon has made a total of 32 edits, most of them reverted. Today I reverted an edit they made on Bob Kerrey's BLP falsely stating that he was Mayor of New York City. They've been warned about unconstructive edits several times on their talk-page. What convinced me to bring the issue here was when I saw that they'd copied Mitt Romney's BLP to their user-page. NightHeron (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The user page was an unattributed copy of Mitt Romney. Therefore I've deleted it as a copyright violation. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed by NinjaRobotPirate. We're done here. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I came across a user with a copy of Mitt Romney's article on their userpage recently, but it wasn't this guy. What's going on? Girth Summit _(blether) 18:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Found it - see the deleted versions of DragoWinsInRussianRockyIV. Some weird overlap in editing George W. Romney too. I've blocked, will raise an SPI to record and see if there are any other sleepers. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Continued disruptions by unresponsive editor

Mark P. 8301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See former discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068#Long-term disruptions by Mark P. 8301.

Since I last encountered them and wrote a comment om their talk page in March, I see that they have had a short block in May for adding unsourced content and were warned again in June. When I came across them today, I can see that nothing has changed. On the contrary, of the handful of edits I checked, they all were additions of plausible-looking, but questionable and completely unsourced material.

During their almost 2000 edits, they have never edited a talk page or a user talk page, and they have never used an edit summary. --T*U (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP on Brown Line (CTA) and other Chicago-area rail lines

76.29.49.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This is a blatant case of WP:NOTHERE. IP has repeatedly added false information to Brown Line (CTA) regarding an unsourced closure date for supposed line maintenance. The IP also uses vague edit summaries such as "Google", when in fact no verification of news or stories about this line closing can be found via Google search (the IP is actually referring to a temporary closure of the Epcot monorail in Disney World). IP has been asked to use the talk page after their second block, the Brown Line article has previously been set to Auto-accept Autoconfirmed users, IP ignored a warning from this morning and has previously been blocked for 24 and 48 hours. Cards84664 20:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The IP seems to have been the same person for many months, so I've assumed it's static enough that a 6 month block isn't unreasonable. At the very least maybe this will cause them to discuss this on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

AfrikaMoja

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

---

AfrikaMoja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging is some fairly extreme POV pushing at John Magufuli, trying to portray any criticism of Magufuli as Eurocentric, adding editorial commentary not supported by sources, and posting hateful comments about LGBT people. I'd suggest that WP:NOTHERE applies. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

There is also an element of WP:3RR here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. The homophobia expressed by this account is beyond the pale. Also, the English Wikipedia project is subject to US law, not Tanzanian, and that presumably includes any relevant hate speech statutes. El_C 21:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

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

SimsWikiaLover19

I'm almost certain that SimsWikiaLover19 is a sockpuppet of a long term abuser. I mean what are the odds of someone having "Sims", "Wikia", "Lover", and "19" in their name and randomly choose to leave a message on my talk page of all the user's talk pages they could have chosen? While I do need to assume good faith, I feel that the odds of this user being completely innocent are very small. Especially given that I've already had a couple of sockpuppets pester me on my talk page in the past few days. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 22:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

C.Syde65 I was going to suggest starting a case @WP:SPI, but there really isn't much evidence to link the account with any editor whom you suspect to be the master. SimsWikiaLover19 has only made one edit, and their filter log is empty. Jerm (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, though they still seem very suspicious. Since they clearly know that I'm active on The Sims Wiki and on Fandom. And they picked the number "19" which was the number that a longterm abuser from 2014-15 used. While that particular user hasn't been active to my knowledge since 2016, I am almost certain that this user drew inspiration from the user from 2014-15 when choosing their username. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bucktony? User C.Syde10 (talk · contribs) created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/C.Syde65, which was previously created by a known sock of Bucktony in 2017. And Bucktony also vandalized in the The Sims topic area. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

User: Maurice Mo Jordan

Maurice Mo Jordan (talk · contribs)

This user keeps trying to discuss a editing issue on my talk page. Despite me telling him/her what the issues are with their posts (and no matter how many times they get BLANKED) they keep coming back. At issue are edits made on the Three Tramps page:[400]. Forgetting the RS issues, this guy keeps trying to discuss this on my talk page (rather than the Tramps talk page), without signing their posts or even bothering to read about what things like RS are. If a admin could speak to them, I'd appreciate it. Regards.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

At least the editor is trying to discuss the issue. Rja13ww33 you should start a discussion at the articles talk page and ping the editor to discuss. Maybe that will get them off your talk page. Jerm (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

There is such a discussion on the Tramps page: [401]. This user is ignoring it. It's clear this person does not know how to edit. Here are some samples: [402] [403]. I mean come on....I am a tolerant guy but this is nuts. He/she isn't even trying to post properly.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

And by the way, I've told the user several times on my talk page [404] where to post these issues. It's like I am talking to a brick wall with him/her.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Damn, there goes my ideal. You've tried to guide the editor, but the editor doesn't want to continue discussing the issue on the article talk page. Instead, Maurice Mo Jordan has bombarded your talk page. An admin should either send a warning to the editor for a possible block if they don't stick with the articles talk page or go straight for the block. Other than that, I see no other way to resolve this matter. Jerm (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully a warning (from a admin) will be sufficient to wake him/her up.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Well as it stands I don't really know how to correctly post to Wiki, I posted something to the Zodiac channel and that one was fine but again, I honestly have no idea how to comment on these sites and I have zero idea how to add that little end tag I see on both your post. There is nothing I see that makes this easy or understand able. The issue I have is this which is clearly stated.

In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that forensic anthropologists had again analyzed and compared the photographs of the "tramps" with those of Hunt and Sturgis, as well as with photographs of Thomas Vallee, Daniel Carswell, and Fred Lee Crisman.[8] According to the Committee, only Crisman resembled any of the tramps; but the same Committee determined that he was not in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination.[8]

While I disagree with Hunt (cause I think it could be him) the committee states, "only Crisman resembled ANY of the tramps; but the same Committee determined that he was not in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination." So what does this mean? It means they didn't identify ANYONE, yet all those side by sides remain up, even though they were dismissed it would seem. So when I have an assumption that Roscoe White might be one of the 3 Tramps, it gets removed over and over and over again. Does this make sense or sound fair at all? Considering they clearly state they didn't identify anyone, yet those post remain up. I basically posted that Roscoe White might be one of the Tramps, it gets removed and I'm sorry but this doesn't seem right or fair at all. So yes, I got a little annoyed. Sorry about that.

Anyway, sorry I don't know how to put the end tag line on, it's kind of hard to understand. Not sure how to work Wiki. Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Maurice Mo Jordan Once you've finished typing your response, type the four tiles "~~~~" then "Publish changes". That will develop your signature. Jerm (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch Jerm, that helped a lot... So what do you think of all this? Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Maurice Mo Jordan Before I elaborate, I just want you to know that this notice board (WP:ANI) is meant to report disruptive/inappropriate behaviour of an editor, not resolving content disputes. The issue is, you have been constantly messaging Rja13ww33 on their user talk page about content pertaining to Three tramps. User talk pages are not meant for discussing content of an article which is why Rja13ww33 was constantly removing your messages on their talk page and trying to point to you the appropriate talk page which is the article talk page, and in this particular case, it's Talk:Three tramps. You did start a discussion on the article talk page: Talk:Three_tramps#Carswell but left it and started continuously messaging Rja13ww33 on their talk page. Please, you need to return to the article talk page for discussing content. Do not continue to message Rja13ww33 about content on their talk page. That is all Rja13ww33 is asking for and it would be the appropriate thing for you to do. Jerm (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Maurice Mo Jordan I also want to add that you need to fill out the edit summary every time you make a change to an article or any other page before you "Publish changes". Jerm (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Jerm, this helped. Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Is an admin going to act on this or what? This joker clearly doesn't have a clue what they are doing: [405]. Enough is enough.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Super.mix5101 WP:NOTHERE

The aforementioned user, in the past few months alone, has vandalised beyond a Level 4 warning, threatened to sockpuppet and edit war, and is now creating nonsense articles. Patient Zero^talk 00:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Talk:ملف:اسلمي يا مصر.ogg, the editor is making a personal attack but to who? I assume you Patient Zero. Here's also the threat to sock: [406]. Jerm (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Deep joy. Well, that's also worth taking into consideration. Thanks for the heads-up, Jerm. Patient Zero^talk 01:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Patient Zero a more fullsome report would help in getting a quicker and more comprehensive review of the purported disruption; can you please provide at least a few diffs of the vandalism, and especially the threat to sock? Some degree of support for accusations of policy violations is expected here, as per the notice at the top of this page; it's just not reasonable to supply just the user name and expect the community to dig through the entirety of their contributions to find the bad faith conduct, especially when you, as the person raising the concerns, are in a position to direct us to the particular problems.

I do see on the talk page the promise to the keep re-adding the content in dispute (which yes, I think might be interpreted in the circumstances as a promise to edit war) and I also note there is a previous ANI about 90 days back, brought by Indy beetle ([407]), but it seems the report was not acted upon. But further context regarding the "nonsense articles" and threats to sock would be appreciated and will get the admins and community members here to the heart of the matter much quicker. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh nevermind on the threat to sock: that has been supplied by Jerm--thank you Jerm. Still, some of the other details would be helpful, particularly with regard to the articles you find problematic. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, here's an example in diff form should anyone need it, though I'd posit the user talk page provides enough detail. Patient Zero^talk 01:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I also found this personal attack. I have no comment on the accuracy of the content, but with the threat to sock and this comment to continue edit warring, it's quite obvious the editor is WP:NOTHERE. Jerm (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup, enough wasting time, blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, RickinBaltimore. Patient Zero^talk 01:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I can certainly do that, Snow Rise. The disruption can mostly be seen at the editor's talk page, and the nonsense article was ملف:اسلمي يا مصر.ogg. Jerm has kindly provided a diff of the threat to sock, however given the transparent and highly visible nature of the threats I saw no reason to provide a load of diffs when finding them on the TP is more accessible. Patient Zero^talk 01:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree this is all adding up to WP:NOTHERE (or at least WP:CIR), though I'm not sure whether there is enough disruption as yet to geenlight a block without further attempts to rehabilitate the user's approach--though you may get lucky on the draw and attract the attention of a more pro-active admin. Personally, given the indications, I doubt there is much use in trying to reason with this editor, as they have evidenced little understanding of our consensus processes or willingness to educate themselves about them. Still, as a pro forma matter, we usually have at least a little more engagement with a new editor before a block.

But the nature of the article ملف:اسلمي يا مصر.ogg might help press for action here. Since not everyone here can look at the contents of deleted articles, can I trouble you to characterize the contents of that article? Did it appear to be outright trolling? Or a good faith effort to create real content that was merely inappropriate or infeasible for a Wikipedia article. From the previous ANI, I rather got the impression that they were POV pushing (possibly against consensus), but had actual encyclopedic goals--but there seem to be language and technical competency gaps making it hard to know for sure.

Anyway, again, given the ambivalence to contrary views and working toward consensus building, compounded by outright PAs (which aren't the worst in the history of the project by any means but do contribute to the general sense of tendentiousness), I don't see this editor staying and I wouldn't weep if an admin dropped a WP:CIR block right now. But realistically, an admin may want to see additional efforts at engagement before acting. Let's see if Super.mix responds to the notice and can provide even a little context for their actions and demonstrate one way or the other whether they can accept the constraint of policy and consensus on their activity here. I think we are all probably on the same page as to how that is going to play out, but it is the typical way forward from this point, unless an admin just decides to cut through to the quick and block on their discretion. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind: said proactive admin has manifested in the noble personage of RickinBaltimore. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 01:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Snow Rise, it was just the same string of letters typed into the main body of the article. Nothing of note or value --Patient Zero^talk 01:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, well that would seem to foreclose the possibility of anything else but straightforward vandalism, justifying the block even further--not that it was really needed, imo. But I think we should probably presume that efforts at the promised socking may be forthcoming at Egyptian revolution of 1952 and related articles. So I'll repeat my ping of Indy beetle so that they are aware that they may see this user return to that space under another account. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely worth keeping an eye on the article and the situation. Patient Zero^talk 01:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Problem edits to Nepenthes species articles by User:Nrajah587

Nrajah587 has made a recent series of edits to Nepenthes species articles (and a few others). Some of the edits are vandalism, for example: 1, 2, 3, 4. Another addition is likely a hoax with a made-up reference. Many Nepenthes are endangered, in one article the editor claims to be protecting their location. In another, which I won't post directly here, the location was withheld by the botanists concerned, but this editor added a location. A reference this editor has added to some edits is The Tropical Pitcher Plants (Vol. 2) by McPherson. However, according to the publisher's site, these books are currently available for pre-order and no page numbers are provided in such references.

In summary, the contributions by this editor appear to be mainly a combination of vandalism and misinformation. In edit summaries, the editor often asserts that they are "correcting" existing content based on sources and information available to themselves. I'm not sure that such assertions can be accepted at face value given the high proportion of misleading and vandalising edits. Thanks, Declangi (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly a very bizarre combination of subtle vandalism and outright trolling. They are doing a rather nuanced job of mimicking an editor who is simply pushing WP:OR in one edit, and then in the next, they are adding sophomoric "butt"/"gay" jokes to similar articles, and then in the next they are mixing the two types of disruption. It really is quite strange and technically involved vandalism, but ultimately I am inclined to agree with you: I think the whole body of the disruption is just one big convoluted effort at trolling. So, for what it's worth, I endorse a WP:NOTHERE block and suggest that even their non-disruptive-seeming edits should be reverted, where the assertions cannot be independently verified with sourcing by other editors. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Indefinite. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

User:MfactDr, non engagement on the talk page, disruptive behaviour

Hello, can you look into the behaviour of user User:MfactDr?

• On july 16th i reverted him and mentioned WP:BRD [[408]], and asked him on the talk page to discuss the edits he made [409], since we reached consensus on the talk page and edit summaries not to include incidental claims of what happend in another region(Tigray Region) on Amhara Region article, this is the reference to the (cow incident) reinstated by user.
• The User then ignored the call to discuss on the talk page, and reinstated the incidental claim on july the 17th [410], [411], [412], [413] over 4 edits, so i couldn't revert user. I saw it on the 20th of July and out of good faith asked User:MfactDr again to engage on talk page [414],
• Another user saw it on July 21st what occured on the article and reverted User:MfactDr [415] and pointed him to the talk page to discuss. User:MfactDr then reverted the other user [416] and confirmed that he deliberatly ignored any calls for discussion on the talk page. User:MfactDr has ignored my calls for discussion twice, and the other user once, he ignored the calls for discussion 3 times total. User is also belligerent and accusatory in his edit summaries towards users.

Thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria, You have not engaged in the discuss. You removed war crime committed by Amhara militia. No one understand why you want to remove it. War crime included in the Amhara Region § During Tigray war section. if you are disputing reliability of the source, you are more than welcome to discuss. you deleted the the whole content and source here[417], However I am restored the contents and source here[418].MfactDr (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@MfactDr Everyone can look at the talk page history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amhara_Region and see that MfactDr has contributed zilnch. The same edit i reverted and now mentioned here 3 times [419] clearly shows i said WP: BRD and said come to talk page. I reverted MfactDr because there was a consensus on the talk page, not to include incidental claim(cow incident), and the wordpress source. On my part after discussion with other editors i dropped that, TPLF attacked federal soldiers and that a TPLF official admitted the attack. MfactDr did not contribute to any discussion, after being called 3 times to do so. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

And another article Oromo language just 2+ hours ago when i was posting this, MfactDr overturned all edits made on the article through consensus, not by reverting but through 5. The first 3 edits, [420], [421], [422], (look at the time of the edits), then came in the Notice on his talk page [423], then in an attempt to cover up MfactDr [424], [425]

• See consensus at talkpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oromo_language#Afaan_Oromo_the_use_of_incorrect_source and agreed on [426]
• Also notice how accusatory MfactDr was, and then dissapeared from the discussion, only to overturn all the edits made through consensus, as diffs above has shown. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

And while we are at it we can go further back, and see a history of ignoring talk page discussion on Oromo people article on the subject of Malik Ambar.

• On May 6th i reverted MfactDr [427] and asked him to join talk page discussion, i openend a section there to discuss the source, arguing there was a contemprary source versus the indian times source he used. [428]. The section is still open there, and he hasn't responded not even once https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oromo_people#Malik_Ambar_source.
• On July 16th after two full months, MfactDr reinstated Malik Ambar [429]. Now i want to make it clear, i don't care one bit whether Malik Ambar comes from Maya, Oromo or Outer space, i just wanted to discuss conflicting sources, and MfactDr just ignored the talk page for months and very recently quitely reinstated Malik Ambar. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria, I think you have problem of understanding how Wikipedia work. Still, I don’t understand your problem and accusation. If you believe the contents and sources I have added to article is wrong, let Admin judge!, wait for the response.MfactDr (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

To notify you that I filed a similar ANI report here. Sorry for doubling the effort, but it seems that I was approaching this from a slightly different angle, and didn't know of this report when I started out. LandLing 11:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist: I have moved your thread here, as a subsection. --JBL (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that will do! LandLing 15:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Losing my patience with POV pushing by User:MfactDr

This was originally created as a separate complaint, I have moved it here as a subsection. --JBL (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

User:MfactDr created an account in early 2019. Since then he has performed almost 3000 edits on Wikipedia. I think it is fair to say that, judging from his lists of contributions so far, MfactDr only makes edits that either say good things about the Oromo people or that say bad things about other ethnic groups of Ethiopia, particularly the Amhara people. Of course that in itself is perfectly permissible on Wikipedia, as long as it happens in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. As a fresh editor, MfactDr of course didn't know these rules to begin with, but after being confronted by other editors, he made an effort to learn things like not marking substantial edits as minor, using edit summaries, citing sources, and, over time, only citing reliable sources. Initially, though, this could only be accomplished through a block at a time when the edits were becoming more and more disruptive.

At the same time it cannot be denied that some of the editor's edits were indeed useful, and this raised hopes that the overall behavior would improve to a point where MfactDr would grow into a valuable contributor towards the Wikipedia project, once he learned all the rules and could bring himself to apply them, in spite of his strong ethnic nationalist motivation. But these hopes were several times disappointed when MfactDr would engage in edit wars (as on the pages Hachalu Hundessa and Hachalu Hundessa riots in July 2020) and going on editing sprees in which he apparently forgot or ignored all his newly learned skills; he would then spread questionable claims based on unsuitable sources across several pages (as in one case here, here and here). It was increasingly difficult to convince him desisting in these cases.

In January 2021 I was asked by Keith_D to see what could be done on pages that were damaged by an edit war between MfactDr and another user (now blocked), and I took it on me to bring things into what I believed was a reasonable state. At that time I still had hopes for MfactDr's development and defended him against a proposed block (also here. But since then I did more clean-up work after POV edits by MfactDr and therefore had more and more run-ins with MfactDr, where he also became increasingly hostile and belligerent in his language, accusing me of POV editing, being an enemy of his people, and being engaged in edit warring.

His talk-page history is full of warnings by other users (such as here, here, here, here, here, here and here), which he keeps deleting after some time, even being warned about doing this. In general, MfactDr pursues a WP:IDHT approach to receiving policy advice and warnings, as is evident in the recent discussion on sourced information being undue on the Oromia page.

In the last few weeks MfactDr's reverts and disruptive edits without edit summaries have increased, and his recent behavior indicates he is currently not inclined to take steps to improve his behavior. I therefore request that a temporary block is imposed against him, hoping that it will have a similar effect as his first block two years ago, calming him down and reminding him that he needs to follow the rules of Wikipedia in order to stay a long-term contributor.

During the writing of this I noticed that another editor today filed another ANI complaint against MfacDr. As this user has similar issues to those of MfactDr, I thought it worthwhile to continue with this filing, although I know that this is not ideal. LandLing 11:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Repeated Personal Attack by LandLing

Dear Admin,

Allow me to explain what happened between me and the user I have mentioned above. truly speaking user joined Wikipedia 15 years ago , had contributed 2449 edit to wkipedia while I joined Wikipedia 2 years ago I Have made 2949 edit. I Have created several pages and edited improved several page more than user above in useful way. recently LandLing keep personally attack me on several occasion to prevent me from editing

1. user rash to judge me as I edited article without even checked who exactly edited! calling me putting junk all over the pages of Wikipedia, repeatedly" User talk:Landroving Linguist § Regards Minilik Articles

2. user excessively biased toward others language of Ethiopia except Amharic speakers as he introduced 2007 census for other speakers and Amharic speakers data from ethnologue. I was asking him to use same data for all and user attack me personally threats me from editing by saying "Honestly, don't you realize that the stuff you do makes Oromos look ridiculous by its sheer pettiness? Probably not what you want to accomplish. Why can't you reign in your nationalist feelings if they drive you to this kind of actions?" I felt not safe to contribute to Wikipedia and I have Invited User:Eostrix to intervene on here User talk:MfactDr § Languages of Ethiopia and LandLing finally changed the data for all groups language of Ethiopia to ethnlogue after User:Eostrix step in. deny his biased and calling me nationalist, petty ridiculous.

3. user make fun of me by insulting indirectly calling me "ethnic nationalist", "Oromo firebrand" Again on here Talk:Oromia § History Section user biased toward other group except Amharic speakers even removed whole source and content from "war crime" of Amhara Militia here[430]

• user engaged edit war on here [431], [432], [433]

Dear admin, I believe Wikipedia is community website not personal website. I believe Wikipedia has strict rule on personal attack. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans.

I am genuinely don’t know why I am targeted by LandLing Over and over again while I am able to work with number of users not attack me at except LandLing.

LandLing damaged my integrity, values by his remarks comment by attacking me rather than the ideas.

Dear Admin, I am really getting sick because of this user. Please admin, Please stop LandLing from threatening and Verbal abuse again. Thank You MfactDr (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Coming at defense of LandLing, and highlighting MfactDr accusatory behaviour and bias(to the point of scary) against Amharas.

• I have had heated discussions with LandLing on Amhara related articles such as on Talk:Amhara people, to suggest/accuse he is biased towards Amharic speakers as MfactDr did is flat out wrong.
• MfactDr on the other hand no problem reinstating Original research on [434] just because it demonizes an Amhara figure
• MfactDr uncivil behaviour of ignoring talk page discussions and filling the Amhara Region article with events happening in another region, contrary to consensus reached with other editors on Talk:Amhara_Region page, lead me to open this ANI against this user.
• MfactDr hypocrasy about a 2007 census, has reinstated on the Amhara people article [435] while ofcourse having no issue with a updated source on the Oromo people article, updated by the same LandLing [436] & [437] he is accusing.

Summary: MfactDr appear to have a resentment against a specific ethnic group to a point that is unhealthy for any human being and frankly is terrifying, and MfactDr is willing to combat other editors and ignore any discussions to force content he sees fit to that end. Although some terms used by LandLing to describe MfactDr edits is unfortunate, take notice of MfactDr behaviour and sense of (ethnic) victimhood in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oromia#History_Section and the generalization of a ethnic group Amhara people as criminals. No sense of NPOV here. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Azerbaijani vandalism on Armenia-Azerbaijan-related articles

The IP address 185.81.81.2, out of Baku, reverts my and other users' edits by using deprecated or straightforwardly unreliable sources, mostly governmental or fringe ones, all in Azerbaijani. I suspect that this address is operated by the banned user EljanM, whose sockpuppet IsmayilovAkif was banned earlier today. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

103.246.39.46

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

---

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

17 July 2021 ANI thread

Immediately after coming off their block, 103.246.39.46 goes back to edit warring Legal History of Saudi Arabia and adding poorly sourced, negative content about Middle Eastern figures [438] (none of the sources say that Said is corrupt). JBchrch talk 08:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Archi 1293

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

---

Will someone checkuser this Archi 1293 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since his behavior is just like Charli 250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by User:ChicagoWikiEditor

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

---

The editor ChicagoWikiEditor keeps throwing personal attacks at me stating that I'm a sockpuppet without stating any evidence whatsoever which I'm guessing is to scare me off the article 1 , 2 . The particular editor want the term Internet celebrity removed stating original research such as it does not apply to youtubers and that you need to prominent on multiple platforms which is false from referencing Internet Celebrity. Hehexd101 (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

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

ModernMan99

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

---

ModernMan99 (talk · contribs) has been blocked three times (twice in March 2021 (the first from me) and again in April 2021) for the addition of unsourced content to BLPs. His talk page is littered with warnings for this. He continues to add unsourced content to BLPs, see e.g. this. I suggest an indef. GiantSnowman 14:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Indef'd. Hopefully THIS gets the message across to them if they wish to edit in the future. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Bludgeoning and WP:OWN by Andrew Lancaster

For quite some time now, user:Andrew Lancaster has been bludgeoning discussions at talk:Germanic peoples and talk:Goths, posting huge walls of text and driving away most editors.

• At talk:Germanic peoples, he's added 44.2% of the edits and 56.3% of the text. The next closest editor, Krakkos, has added only 9.3% of edits and 16.6% of text.
• The disparity at talk:Goths is even starker. There Andrew Lancaster has made over 50% of the edits on the talk page and added 61% of the text. For perspective, the next closest editor is Krakkos, who's added only about 17% of the edits and added only 23.1% of the text.
• This has been a long term problem, beginning probably about a year ago. It involves endless repetitive discussions in which almost everyone disagrees with Andrew, but he somehow gets his way. See the discussions and RFCs about "what the article is about" whenever anyone else starts editing: Talk:Goths/Archive 10#Review of new proposal by Krakkos 31 March 2021, Talk:Goths/Archive 11#RfC on re-focusing the lead, Talk:Goths#RFC on article focus Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 9#Revisiting the article topic controversy, Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 11#Future of the article talk:Germanic peoples#Structure ideas again, Talk:Germanic peoples#the question of what this article is about. (I've probably missed some)
• The neutrality of Andrew's POV and the direction he has pushed the article has also been a topic, resulting in Bloodofox tagging Germanic peoples for neutrality [439] and eventually me reverting back to a version before Andrew had made his changes, as had been repeatedly suggested on the talk page. This has been a long-term issue that's been brought up numerous times before, see Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 11#Drastic and highly problematic edit to the lead, Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 13#Agenda Anyone, Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 15#Rewrite and NPOV as just a few of the more explicit examples.

Recently, Carlstak and myself have repeatedly reached out to Andrew to stop bludgeoning the process, but to no avail, (see [440], [441]). The issue of Andrew's wp:WALLSOFTEXT was also brought up by other editors, such as Bloodofox [442]. It is my belief that Andrew is at this point the main obstacle to ever getting anything done on the article, that he has some serious wp:OWN issues on the topic of early Germanic peoples. He's driving away other editors who simply don't want to deal with him - including myself, for a long while. I think that a topic ban is most probably in order.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging involved editors @Berig, Obenritter, Alcaios, Ealdgyth, Srnec, Avilich, Dynasteria, Yngvadottir, Austronesier, SMcCandlish, North8000, Krakkos, Bloodofox, and Carlstak:, my apologies if I missed anyone.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I can only concur with what Ermenrich writes above. It is a clear case of WP:OWN, by an editor who appears to have developed a method for bludgeoning away other editors. I don't know how many competent editors he has pushed away from these articles, but I am one of the editors who don't feel it is worth it to engage in interminable discussions.--Berig (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I also concur. Unfortunately, Ermenrich's assessment is exactly what I have witnessed. Other editors have been very patient with Andrew but this has been going on for far too long. As editors, we can disagree on this or that—that's perfectly natural—but Andrew's consistent and extensive bludgeoning is a real problem. He's well aware of what he's doing. Several editors have mentioned it to him, including myself. At this point it's difficult to assume good faith about his approach. I think a topic ban is the only solution here. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I must concur based on my observations as well. Andrew's lengthy and incessant walls of Talk Page discourse are simply too mentally exhausting for most editors, myself included. A topic ban seems the right solution in this case, as he is a valuable contributor otherwise. He simply cannot get out of his own way on this particular subject arena.--Obenritter (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• My knowledge of the situation is from being a medium-close observer of the Goth article for almost 4 months and just a quick glance at the Germanic peoples article when I got the ping for this ANI, so I'm talking mostly about the Goth article. As a preface, on the Goths article, the situation is unusual. There are only minor differences of opinion there; the biggest challenge is that they are dealing with huge amounts of material there on a complex, multi-faceted topic and Andrew has been trying to use a very cautious Wikipedian process (including large drafts) to move it forward. And it's still mired down, again, with no real disputes. IMO partially because the main person trying to move it forward, Andrew has been too cautious and too thorough in his approach. And I think that there have been no complaints about his behavior. In short, the hard work on the article which Ermenrich noted should be cause to give Andrew a barnster not an ANI post. That said, the sheer quantity and complexity of material being discussed and the size and complexity of Andrew's proposals certainly is an in-advertant barrier for entry and participation; this could be a source of frustration including for Ermenrich, Berig, Obenritter and others. It needs a tough simplifier-facillitator for the conversation. I'd be willing to try to be that at the Goth article for 1-2 months if they wanted me. IMO there is no behavioral problem there.North8000 (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm convinced that Andrew is acting in good faith, but this is true that those walls of text on talk pages are often exhausting. You should try to be more concise in your answers, or perhaps to open a blog if you like writing lengthy posts about Germanic studies. Alcaios (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that the contributions of Andrew Lancaster in the talk page come in a length and speed that makes it hard to keep up with the discussion. Some editors react less voluminously, but just as quick. What happens is that people like me who prefer to read 100 pages of good sources first before writing a single paragraph in both mainspace and talkspace will just withdraw (and read sources instead). It is my dearest wish that Andrew Lancaster could "come to senses" without measures like TBAN, because I consider his input very valuable in principle. There's bludgeoning and there's bludgeoning: some people do senseless rants and rambling, but Andrew Lancaster talk contributions always convey a message; unfortunately however, too often repetitive, little to the point, and with a seeming intent to "convince" people instead of accepting each of our POVs as they are. –Austronesier (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Andrew Lancaster is certainly capable of contributing in a constructive way, but his extremely verbose talkpage commentary is a real obstacle for other editors who want to work on the Germanic peoples article. Whether he intends to be obstructive or not, his unending objections and suggestions wear out other editors who've been part of the conversation, and scare away knowledgable editors who would like to contribute but don't want to deal with the morass of commentary, most of it generated by Andrew Lancaster. His general response to admonitions to be more concise is to add another wall of text in response. Our crew of subject experts can't get anywhere because of his obtuse behavior, and one does begin to wonder after a while if his obstructionism is deliberate. I support a topic ban; he can contribute more productively on other articles—he's absolutely an impediment to progress on this one. Carlstak (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• My personal experience has been that the length and frequency of Andrew Lancaster's posts have been off-putting and something of an obstruction to further contributions. My central objection may not be shared by others, that too great a reliance on the "consensus" of recognized academicians is not a strategy for arriving at the truth as best we can know it. But the demand for a consensus seems particularly to be AL's platform for deciding the entire thrust of the article. This shuts out divergent opinion through exercising authority by proxy. "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes." Similarly, it's who chooses which scholar to give legitimacy to that determines which version of the truth is being put out there to the inquiring public. OTOH, I have found Andrew's contributions to be sincere and knowledgeable. Dynasteria (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Belatedly, yes, I agree. Andrew Lancaster is undoubtedly editing in good faith at both Talk:Goths and Talk:Germanic peoples, but his rigidity and aspects of his manner of argument—invoking names of scholars in a sometimes almost talismanic way, voluminous posts including at Talk:Goths a seemingly unending series of requests for comment, and sometimes personalization of discussion—caused me to walk away from Talk:Goths and I have several times been on the brink of doing the same at Talk:Germanic peoples. I am aware both that people of different academic backgrounds can have different assumptions, and that people can have very different reactions to the same style of argument. But for example I find this edit unduly personalizes the discussion, moreso toward Berig and Krakkos than me, while responding to my concerns over sources in a manner that I do find redolent of article ownership, hoping I don't mean he should rehash all the earlier discussions on the page. There and elsewhere, I consider his reference to "old and low-quality sources which equated large language families with ethnicity" to be reductionist. I'm not sure he realizes that such responses are intimidating; I'm pretty sure some would not find them so, but I was put off. At Talk:Germanic peoples, I tried to meet his argument partway by demonstrating awareness of the problematic history of the field under the Nazis (I thought it might as well be me taking the "Godwin" charge rather than someone else), and I pointed out what seemed to me to be a crucial difference of assumptions about the range of the article. Andrew Lancaster didn't bludgeon that discussion as much, and also came to my talk page and I think thought about what I said in response. But Ealdgyth stepped in at the article talk page as a neutral arbiter, and is both a highly experienced editor (and administrator) and a fine medievalist, and I do not think this article section where he interacts with her is polite. (@North8000: I think this illustrates the difference of perception; but I also want to stress that at least one highly qualified person has tried.) Andrew Lancaster rewrote the Germanic peoples article, and I can understand he feels invested in it and it must be hard to see agreement being reached on the talk page to start over with a version of the article prior to that rewrite. I can see why he found it impossible to stay away after I mentioned him on the talk page. As I say, he is undoubtedly editing in good faith. But someone can mean well and yet be intimidating and overly concerned with their own viewpoint and their own rights and insufficiently cognizant of others' rights or open to consideration of their points of view. And perhaps another factor is that this editor's style in the articles, particularly Germanic peoples, is long-winded and not very clear, similar to the style of the "walls of text" they have usually posted on the talk pages. (I am of course open to the same accusations, both with regard to argument and to length and lack of clarity in writing.) Yngvadottir (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Reaction. IMHO the posts of Ermenrich and Carlstak are misleading and overdramatized, written when annoyed, though obviously I am not perfect, and can improve. We all have our different skill sets. But Goths is basically frozen and should have strange stats due to the admin decision pushing the main editors to RFC before any edit. The situation has changed again totally on Germanic peoples, so it is a bad time to judge it based on its past. Ermenrich has totally rewritten the article. No one blocked that or anything else. As can be seen in the calmer reactions above the only way I “block” or “own” discussions is by analyzing the pesky complexities which come from published sources. I find the advice of North, Austronesier, Alcaios, and Yngvadottir (and Ealdgyth) very useful and will try to follow it. Much less helpful, Carlstak writes increasingly about their impression of my character, sometimes positive, sometimes negative, but almost never about content and sources. Ermenrich has been an important on-and-off editor who was (like Austronesier and Srnec) an advisor to me when I drafted a new version in early 2020. That drafting period had a big impact on my talk page statistics. I had the time and energy to do it, and no one was stopping any imaginary team of experts from contributing more. That a rewrite was needed at that time was not controversial after several months of bold editing created a mess, and there were also RFCs which guided my work, and then later guided the way I answered complaints by visitors. I have often been involved in discussions about the article scope because that exact question has always been controversial on this article, long before I got involved. NOTE. The idea that the article structure was holding us up, and that we should return to the version of July 2019, which was NOT the version prior to mine but one from a half year earlier, was a recent proposal of Austronesier, and Ermenrich went and did it soon after. Now that Ermenrich has totally rewritten the article, the focus of POV complaints from editors with heterodox positions won’t be me anymore and that will naturally decrease calls upon me. As Dynasteria points out, I’ve been associated with the “POV” of using mainstream scholars, and in such discussions Ermenrich has often appeared as someone supporting my explanations. Why is Ermenrich now focussing mainly on discussions which happened in the past, which Ermenrich supported in the past, and which are now likely to stop naturally? IMHO the trigger has been normal BRD editing disagreements which should be resolvable and are not described as part of the complaint above. So we are in a new phase on this article, and we are all still adapting to it. A critical review of these articles would show a wide range of human imperfections, and no super heroes. Now is not a good time to be over-dramatizing or trying to exclude editors who've spent the last year looking at the sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the singling out of Andrew Lancaster as the problem here. Here's some findings and comments to explain why.

1. I'm new to this topic and so went to take a look at the article Germanic peoples. The first thing I notice as a reader is that it has two banner tags at the top: {{POV}} and {{cleanup rewrite}}. These indicate that these issues will be explained on the talk page but it's not obvious on the talk page which of the many sections relate to these tags.
2. Looking at the history of those tags, we find that they were placed on 8 July 2021 by bloodofox. On that day, Bloodofox posted 32 times on the article's talk page but I can't find any posts which clearly explain or even mention these tags.
3. The main section which bloofofox started on the talk page was instead a proposal to split the article. This is quite a radical suggestion but the process did not fully conform to the process described at WP:SPLIT. In particular, a {{split}} template was not placed on the article to notify the readership.
4. It seems evident that Andrew Lancaster is not the only editor who is very active in this topic and so generating actions and discussions which are difficult to follow and keep up with. If you look at the article history, you can see a flurry of recent edits by other editors – many edits being made on the same day.
5. In this situation of intense activity, it will naturally be difficult for editors to agree or even follow the details. WP:FAIT has a ruling from arbcom which states that "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change." So, we should be expecting lots of discussion in such a case. Insofar as Andrew Lancaster is engaging in lots of discussion then he's doing the right thing.
6. To resolve this complex dispute, the editors should be following our processes closely and carefully – processes such as WP:SPLIT and WP:RFC. If there isn't a clear process then naturally the result will be chaos and confusion. The onus is on all editors to do this, not just one of them.
7. It's not clear that any admin action is required yet. Perhaps editors need to slow down a bit and so a WP:1RR regime might be appropriate.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Just on that last bullet, according to me we are in a new situation and actually the high volume is mainly positive right now. (Many of Ermenrich's examples are from the past and quite different situations.) I think we'd all like Ermenrich to continue re-writing the article, and 1R would mainly affect them right now (or it might make others scared to contribute). In the background, there is a chance this article scope topic might hit a wall again. (The fact it got mentioned by me - "hand wringing" - is apparently what frustrated Ermenrich and led to this case.) But Ermenrich's idea of editing for a while and then reviewing this probably makes the most sense so far. I think other editors concerned in how to eventually handle this probably agree. See Austronesier and Srnec here. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm an uninvolved observer, here on this page for different business, but I had a look at the Germanic peoples page, and now I wonder what is going on here. Everybody seems to agree that AL is a good-faith editor with lots of merits. As far as I understand the accusations thrown at him consist mostly of a) slowing down the process by insisting on more discussion, and b) being wordy. These two things are thrown together into a WP:OWN violation, and now based on this people here are getting out of their way with demands for topic bans for the pages named and even every other page having the word German in them. Have you actually looked at the page WP:OWN? Nobody there makes a suggestion of responding with topic bans, which I consider one of the harshest sanctions available on Wikipedia, amounting to a block for those people where the topic ban basically covers the area of main expertise. Okay, I can talk easily here, as I'm not affected by AL's actions, but surely there must be other ways of moving the article forward than banning a good-faith editor in good standing and undoubted expertise. Please don't go this way. LandLing 11:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite topic ban on anything and everything even remotely related to any Germanic people, Goths and all of their languages

I have had many long and always fruitless discussions with Andrew Lancaster on those topics, over a long period of time, opposing his blatant POV, including basing articles almost entirely on an utterly fringe source with a self-declared agenda: removing the Germanic peoples and their languages, and even the word Germanic, from history. Describing his tactics as bludgeoning is spot-on, because that's what he's doing, in an attempt to drive all other editors away from all articles that has anything to do with Germanic, so that he can rewrite them all to fit in with his fantasy world. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Observation. As far as I can tell my "POV" on various related topics (which has developed as I've learned and read, because it is basically source-based) has, over the last year or more, generally been quite close, at least as far as what we think WP should say, to those of Ermenrich, Austronesier, Alcaios, and Srnec. That makes it indeed ironic that Ermenrich threw POV in the above complaint, but could only find examples where Ermenrich was also in the same discussion, but agreeing with me. Editors on Germanic topics attract a lot of intimidating anger and aggression from editors and members of the public who see themselves as members of an on-going Germanic race, who academics are denying the existence of because they are dominated by ideologies and political correctness. I don't believe any version of the Germanic peoples article will ever avoid problems from that direction. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Andrew Lancaster has resisted constructive criticism. I truly offer this as friendly advice: The rule is, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging! Andrew, stop defending yourself. Once again I point out the potential danger of mainstream "consensus" opinions. As an American I can assure you that fear of the tyranny of the majority is a bedrock principal for any free institution or government. Or I could sum it up with this query: Is it mainstream or is it groupthink?

• Oppose. Tom's characterisation of certain sources as "utterly fringe" is absurd. Srnec (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Tom's proposal seems intemperate but is not supported by solid evidence such as diffs. Note that this is their first edit in three months. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose It would be a travesty to sanction an editor for working hard on articles in a very Wikipedian fashion. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Can Andrew Lancaster suggest a solution?

@Andrew Lancaster: So, despite your best efforts, even those of us who applaud your work say that there is a problem at those articles as described above. Do you have a suggestion, even of some voluntary approach to try? North8000 (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by user:TheLionHasSeen

The editor has repeatedly made personal attacks, including statements to the effect that I should be banned. All the edits I have made have been in good faith but the user has assigned hostile motives to my edits. Talk:State_church_of_the_Roman_Empire DeusImperator (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, in my defense, I agreed to collaborate peacefully, with mediation from another more experienced Wikipedian, per the talk page listed. Nowhere did I state you deserve to be banned, but that it appeared to be WP:AGENDA pushing, which has been subject to prerequisites for being blocked. Banning, however, is the most extreme of measures Wikipedia takes, and that means something drastic. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocking agenda pushers and then calling me an agenda pusher??? What agenda is that supposed to be? You accused me of bias, but where is that bias even evident? Your immediate accuse me of bad faith edits when I stated in the edits that I merely brought the article in conformity with the cited work. Also, it is evident from the discussion that you have hostility to Catholics editing demonstrated by your statement I was greatly alarmed as they revoked the long-standing text stating "which recognized Nicene Christianity as the Roman Empire's state religion", for "which recognized Catholicism..."; those contributions were aggressively reverted, the same for Edict of Thessalonica, as upon investigation of the contributor, they appeared to be a Roman Catholic.. DeusImperator (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

At this rate, I have no further response toward you. I do not have the ability to block anyone; I merely assisted in doing so for others who pushed agendas on Horn of Africa-related articles, per example. I did not verbatim state you were pushing an agenda, rather implied (or have attempted to imply, judge however you will) your actions constitute a possibility of it. How can I have hostility, when I am Catholic by the way? I may not be a Traditionalist Catholic, but I am Catholic. Also, bear in mind there's a thing called conflict of interest. Good day. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

DeusImperator, I’m no sysop but if TheLionHasSeen, called you “biased” or an “agenda pusher” it generally would fall under casting aspersions than personal attacks, I do not see anything here so egregious that it would rise or be classified as a personal attack. Celestina007 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Where is anything in my edits which can be construed as pushing an agenda? Where? What is the evidence for making such a claim? What actions can be construed as evidence of this possibility? Anyone can claim to be anything on the internet. if you claim to be "catholic" is there not a conflict of internet on your own part? Given that you are editing pages that are related to Orthodoxy are you, yourself, not in a conflict of interest? What exactly is the evidence for your claim of agenda pushing? DeusImperator (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

This is quite hilarious now; you continue to have arguments pertaining to the defense of Roman Catholicism alone according to your contributions, regardless of the faith given; some, apparently, have also been through apparent insults and "ALL CAPS". Pertaining to pages relating to Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy, if there was a conflict of interest my contributions would have been reverted and cast aside ages ago. Several administrators and seasoned Wikipedians assist me in contributing to Wikipedia the proper way. I have stated in the talk page for that state church, a balanced approach must be presented without the jargon from the East (Constantinople) and West (Rome). Your argument is poor, and I refuse to continue going in a merry-go-round with you; consider yourself ignored until an administrator assists. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"This is quite hilarious now; you continue to have arguments pertaining to the defense of Roman Catholicism alone according to your contributions." Where is any evidence to make this claim? My most recent edit, which you attempted to overturn, was the inclusion of Oriental Orthodoxy and the Churches of the East. DeusImperator (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

To the Admins, this editor has repeatedly accused me of pushing an agenda, conflict of interest, and bias, without any demonstratable evidence of such and continues to do so as evidenced in this exchange. DeusImperator (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Any recently active administrators, please intervene. They will not stop here, nor on the talk page for State church of the Roman Empire. I gave them warning I am ignoring them, and I continue to be responded to and directed toward after verbatim telling them twice on that talk page. Nihonjoe, Liz, Paul Erik, any recently active administrator; I have grown irate at this moment. They do not persist to stop even when asked to be left alone. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

the only harassment here has been from that editor. The only time I edit is when I am researching for my own book research a subject and find a glaring error in an article. For my own book research, I try to find the cited source in the articles and read the cited material. It seems that I have stepped on the editor's toes editing pages that are of interest to the Orthodox and it appears the user is in fact Orthodox from the edit history of the user and appears to push an Orthodox perspective. Hence the reversions of my edits. Perhaps, it was the reason the edits of inclusion 'rivals' to the Orthodox such as the Oriental Orthodox and Churches of the East were reverted by him. DeusImperator (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Celestina007

I don't enjoy reading the ANI, let alone reporting an editor but it is antithetical to our goal of creating an online encyclopedia that anyone could freely edit in a collegial environment if we ignore conducts that are injurious on a large scale to our editors. User:Celestina007 is an experienced editor with interest in Nigeria-related topics and a "self-acclaimed UPE fighter". There is no doubt about her knowledge of Nigeria-related topics but her often unsubstantiated false accusation of UPE is concerning, worrisome and destructive to the project. I believe that something urgently needs to be done, as failure to act will give an impression that false accusations and similar behaviors are acceptable here. Today, Celestina007 tagged an article written by me in 2019 as UPE without evidence. When asked to substantiate their claim with evidences, they removed my comment without a response or any evidences whatsoever. However, I am not here because I was falsely accused of UPE but because this pattern of behavior from Celestina007 is disruptive on a large scale and should immediately stop. On closer review of this editor's contributions, I observed a large scale accusation of UPE without evidence and newbie bity.

Here are few examples of false accusation of UPE

• " @Yamla, you are spot on about the “violating WP:PAID part” I can categorically confirm as a Nigerian that 90% of any article pertaining to “businessmen” “entrepreneurs” “organizations” “musicians” and “actors” created by any Nigerian editor is undisclosed paid editing". This false accusation of Nigerian editors without strong evidences is not only insulting to the Nigerian editing community but also constitute an harassment.
• False tagging of a new user, User:Zvandofarira2 learning to create new article in good faith as UPE (here).
• False UPE tagging a good faith editor and another unsubstantiated allegation sockpupetry. The editor perceived this as bullying, and attempt to force them to quit editing Wikipedia. The user hasn't edited again since the accusation
• False accusation of UPE and aggressive demand for response
• Falsely accusing a brand new editor of sockpuppetry
• Irritating users with false claim of UPE
• Falsely accusing a legal intern who wrote about a well-known and notable lawyer of UPE and ignoring any sense of reason. Celestina who is expected to welcome new editors in fact took the article to AfD without a WP:BEFORE and the article was kept (see the AfD)
• Another unsubstantiated and accusation of new editor of sockpuppetry.

All of the above examples are from July 1 alone but randomly looking at their talk page archive, it looks like a long-term problem that has gone unnoticed for years . While we appreciate users who are enthusiastic about Wikipedia, users with this behavioral pattern should never be tolerated here. Beeblebrox advised this user to find something else to do, while they responded to Beeblebrox, they failed to learn from the advise and continue to falsely accusing users of UPE. I'd leave this here to allow the community to determine whether the conducts of this user with regards to UPE accusations is right. UPE is a criminal offense at least in the United States per WP:UPE. False accusation of crime is serious and should be treated as such. Regards. SuperSwift (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment — Just Another day, with more disgruntled staging a siege against me. Even after both onel5969 & I told you here that the UPE template wasn’t intended for you , you somehow still tried and made it about you. We literally both told you the UPE tag wasn’t intended for you oh well. Furthermore this isn’t accurate as there is literally no dispute here. Celestina007 (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I also found Celestina007 to be acting in a way which was far too aggressive, even if the recipient of their messaging was an UPE. At User_talk:Totalpoliticsuk#Sockpuppetry_warning they accused the editor of insulting their intelligence, stated they would get the editor indefinitely blocked, and them to both "quit Fucking with me". Even if this user was an UPE I'd consider this too far. Whether this combative approach is effective at deterring actual UPEs or not - and I doubt it is - it lends itself to substantial collateral damage and the furthering of a hostile atmosphere on the project, which we should not tolerate. Sam Walton (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Samwalton9, correct and indeed otp, but this was me before getting advice to tone it down which I have to the best of my ability upheld. Celestina007 (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad that recognize that, Celestina, because frankly I find the behaviour in that thread beyond the pall for a volunteer workspace on this project. Your comments literally read like you think that you are a hardboiled detective from a 70's crime drama interrogating a criminal suspect: "Don’t you dare insult my intelligence, you know how it is, either you comply with our rules or I see to it that you get indef blocked" -> "quit Fucking with me." -> "Don’t push your luck.". Sam is absolutely correct: no matter how certain you are that you have ferreted out a COI editor--and frankly, I also have concerns at the level of self-assuredness you adopt on the basis of your evidence, but even assuming you are correct, the following principle holds--it does not abrogate your from responsibility for scrupulously following the standards of WP:CIVILITY, a pillar policy of this project. You are not the en.Wikipedia Special Prosecutor for Undisclosed Paid Editing and you need to drop this unnecessarily aggressive mentality.

Now, you say you've reformed your approach, and it's true that the thread Sam links above is the worst of what has been presented here, but it still looks like you come at editors with an air like you are cleaning up shop from some position of authority persists. Based just on what we have seen here, I think even at this early stage in oversight of your behaviour, I would support a topic ban for you relating to accusations of UPE; I do not think you have the right temperament to be active in this area on this project. Even if you were right about every single one of your suppositions (and again, I'm far from convinced by your reasoning in each of these cases), your approach is still highly flawed and inconsistent with the measured, impersonal, dispassionate approach that is both expected and most effective in COI review.

In short, I would seriously suggest you consider voluntarily backing away from this area: your own talk page suggests that you see the problem with actively seeking out ("hunting" as you put it) COI, and I think you need to take your own advice there, even as regards UPE you think you have spotted in the wild, as it were. You don't have to ignore what you consider problematic editing either: just consider taking yourself out of the equation by bringing these matters to WP:COIN or an admin when you think you have sufficient evidence to warrant examination, and ignoring your gut impressions in all other circumstances. I don't think I like your chances for avoiding a sanction if you just continue of the present course of grilling everyone you suspect of COI like they are just daring you to pull out the proverbial rubber hose. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Snow Rise, Snow, that is exactly what I’m saying that since June when I received advice from a functionary on how to handle suspected there I have made deliberate attempts to do just that, I pursue things through the proper channels via COIN and ANI, I have filed at least one report at each venue this month. rather than confront the situation as I would have done prior the advice and even when I UPE template editors I tell them exactly why I left the tag, snow please look at analysis of the diffs I did below, I understand how this would come off as rather tough but in order to appreciate this you would have to understand that I am under a calculated siege. Not only is this report wrong it is rather baffling as the OP misunderstood an action I carried out, even when told it was a mistake by myself and another editor they still brought it here when it was clearly established that the action did not concern them. Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, Snow, this is me two days ago literally telling Rich_Smith the importance of explaining why a UPE template should be accompanied by a personal message. Celestina007 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment  – This sweeping generalisation is demeaning to the entire WP:NIGERIA community and the good work all the good faith editors there do. I raised similar concerns on this board about a month ago but only a few of the participants noted this unchecked behaviour. Something needs to be done about this kind of behaviour that makes the environment toxic for others and basically undoes the efforts of the good people that go to different parts of Nigeria to recruit new wikimedians who inadvertently get burnt. Kind regards. Princess of Ara_(talk) 22:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Note — The editor above Princess of Ara was topic banned because of me. Once again an attempt from another disgruntled editor to get back at me. I am taking my time to explain everything so you all can understand the siege i am facing now. Celestina007 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that comment is objectionable--though I presume it is substantially inaccurate. As you can see above, I have some significant misgivings about Celestina's approach here, but the comment you are presenting as inappropriate is that of an editor expressing an opinion (perhaps an exaggerated one, but good faith nonetheless) about what they perceive the extent of a problem to be in a given content area. Our editors must be free to share their perceptions about the nature and expanse of disruptive behaviours on this project, even where it incidentally reflects a negative impression of a large class of contributors. No behavioural policy or principle of community consensus limits the scope of good faith commentary in this regard, and it would have significant negative knock-on effects if we did adopt such a rule.

Now, you could argue that this comment (particularly the 90% figure) is evidence of Celestina's bias in this area, which in turn reinforces their propensity for jumping in with accusations on limited evidence: that I might buy. But we cannot afford to treat observations about problems in certain content areas as a PA, merely because they happen to incidentally involve a class of person that might take umbrage to said observation. Celestina is entitled to their opinion when it comes to the numbers here. What they are not entitled to do is act upon them without limitation. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 keeps making reference to my being topic banned in discussions like it means I'm not allowed to have an opinion. Same thing she tried at AfD. I clearly linked the ANI discussion with the closing statement so this is not a discovery. Princess of Ara_(talk) 07:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Analysis of the diffs from OP

• Their first diff has nothing to do with any matter relating to UPE. Their second diff against has nothing to do with UPE it shows me moving an article back to Draftspace. Their third diff is me asking an editor how they got an image in the article as their “own work” Their 4th diff is me placing an AGF sock tag on an editor who knew our mark up and knew how to add scripts to their commons.js in their first 20 edits. Their 5th edit is me placing a placing a UPE tag and initiating a discussion(not against policy).
• I would analyze all the diffs but I have shown a pattern of mixing real diffs with deliberately misleading diffs that have nothing to do with UPE (or even me) to inundate the readers. They have stalked my page ever since and this is exactly why i wrote out on my page before now on how to address UPE on my userpage before this. There was literally no reason to bring this to ANI, it had long been established to the OP that by both myself and onel5969 that the UPE tag wasn’t intended for them several hours ago but it was still an opportunity to bring me to ANI.
• For transparency sake, even though their first diff perhaps was an error, what was quoted there was indeed a comment I made to Yamla in response to them declining a block, but again they are being being deliberately deceptive this if the diff here, they said i had no strong evidence but the comment in itself had two cogent facts, that happened here on Wikipedia. I find it disingenuous of them not to mention that I am equally a Nigerian.
• I however remain unfazed since as I have in no way violated policy, I’m conscious of this hence every and any UPE or AGF sock tag I leave on the tp of an editor I always try to leave a rationale so as to avoid situations as thus If SuperSwift says they dislike drama boards then one begs the question why they still deemed it fit to bring a problem which was established not to be related to them to ANI.
• I dislike coming here, but I hope the diff analysis of this goes to show you what I’m talking about when I say they intentionally(or mistakenly) include diffs that have no business with me negating UPE and mix it with accurate diffs in bid to inundate the community and force a mirage.
• Since I received advice(in June) from Beeblebrox on how to tackle UPE without less confrontation I have done do so by reporting appropriately to either ANI or SPI, whenever I UPE template an editor I always give a personal rationale. I would provide diffs shorty to portray this, using a mobile device give me a minute to do that.
• This is getting tiring the OP mentioned the diffs are from July 1 but haven analyzed them can you now see subtle deception at least three of those diffs were false, in their own words in diff 2 they claim I UPE tagged an editor but please can you all take a look at diff 2? Can you all see the deliberate deception?
• Is deliberately being deceptive and outrightly lying about someone else not in itself warrant a boomerang block? Celestina007 (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the analysis of the diffs:

• Their first diff has nothing to do with any matter relating to UPE. Except that it does; a blocked editor's appeal was denied, and Celestina007 chimed in to make that wide-ranging statement about Nigerian editors and UPE, even though the editor wasn't blocked for UPE. Her comments made it about UPE.
• Their second diff against <sic> has nothing to do with UPE it shows me moving an article back to Draftspace Celestina007 moved the article to draftspace (not back to draftspace) immediately after tagging it for UPE.
• Their third diff is me asking an editor how they got an image in the article as their “own work” Actually, the third diff is to a UPE Warning discussion Celestina007 started (followed by a sockpuppetry warning below that). And as SuperSwift mentioned, that editor has not edited since their conversations with Celestina007. That could be intepreted as evidence of guilt or evidence that a new editor was bullied away.
  The rest of the OP's diffs seem to be what they say they are. I do not see a pattern of mixing real diffs with deliberately misleading diffs by SuperSwift. Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd,

• @Schazjmd, In my third bulleted point, I expressly point out their error in diff one, and I provided the correct diff the editor was talking about. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see deception, subtle or overt, in the original report. That the 2d diff is to the move rather than the preceding edit in which the UPE tag was applied isn't "deceptive". I do see that this was how Celestina007 told SuperSwift that the UPE tag wasn't intended for them: Whilst I largely remain unimpressed with some articles you have created I don’t think anyone was accusing directly of UPE. I do however concerns about you holding the NPR perm as I do not deem you competent enough to hold that right. Schazjmd (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, like, I literally was not talking to them about UPE, agreed a tough manner to say “no it was intended for you” I accept and take responsibility for that but they went off like I had falling into their trap or something, I believe i can count on one hand how many times I have interacted with this user, then they began replying me as though I had specially offended them. Like we literally told him/her this wasn’t intended for you. That was like an hour two hours before this ANI, I assumed they understood rather than come back to my page and say “what are you implying” “what did you mean”? boom! I’m hit with this ANI. Celestina007 (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Schazjmd, I’m largely offended by this ANI, this is quite personal to me, look at my TP and see how I’m living with a life long health condition and I’m here helping out within my capacity and doing the best way I can, they claim I target Nigerian editors but this is me reaching out. Not once have I ever had a problem with any co Nigerian editor who is in good faith editing here, even when my self and good faith editors butt heads we reconcile immediately I edit via a mobile so I can’t do some things with ease but when you can under “Appreciation and Barnstars” and take a look at the very first Barnstar I received. The attempt to paint me a villain is not true please I beg go through my TP and see how I have extensively helped my co Nigerian editors and other editors regardless of race, sex, or country. I’m at WP:TEAHOUSE helping out also. Celestina007 (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If @SuperSwift claims they do not appreciate being here just as I hate being the center of any form attraction also this can be handled by a conversion between myself and them(should have handled in this manner from the start) Baring in mind that they opened this ANI because they believe I left a UPE tag for them which was established by both myself and onel5969 that the UPE wasn’t intended for them. Celestina007 (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, the OP was clear that they were not opening this conversation because of the UPE tag or an accusation against them, but because of a pattern of behavior. I don't think anyone thinks you're a villain. I know that you contribute a great deal to the project and that you spend countless hours reviewing AFC submissions. It's clear that you take pride in your efforts against UPE. I think what's a bit concerning is that you've taken on UPE as a personal crusade, and that in pursuit of that crusade, your approach might appear to be that of a vigilante.

I used to patrol recent changes. What I learned was that by spending a lot of time reverting obvious vandalism, I was beginning to view all edits as suspicious and all unknown editors as suspects. I wonder if by immersing yourself in UPE/COI, you might be experiencing a similar phenomenon. Maybe spending more time on other aspects of editing and a bit less trying to ferret out UPE rings and take down the "bad guys" might not be better for you? The world is not going to end if an undeclared-paid editor slips in an article that is dubiously notable, and it most likely will get caught eventually. Schazjmd (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Schazjmd, I promise you I am not actively looking out for bad guys, asides UPE, I’m happy at the WP:TEAHOUSE, infact on my Userpage I advise against actively hunting for UPE, but if I stumble upon one I report to the appropriate venue, I come here to enjoy myself, I really do love editing here. Honestly I’m tired mentally, I have explained over and again that I play by the book, but editors keep trying discredit me by bring up my past of incivility which I taken responsibility for. Celestina007 (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Siege mentality

There's numerous references above, by Celestina007, to a 'siege' mentality, to an 'us v them' situation, and some kind of vindictiveness in this report - plus taking things '"quite personal[ly]". My view is this is deeply unhelpful, and potentially speaks to a bigger problem around the attitude that this editor takes to UPE and similar actions. When handling all new editors, regardless of your suspicions, editors may be firm, but ultimately must be fair and kind. I question whether someone who displays such an abrasive, combative approach to handling new editor contributions can achieve this level of kindness, welcoming and fairness as consistently as is required. Daniel (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(examples:)

• "with more disgruntled staging a siege against me"
• "I understand how this would come off as rather tough but in order to appreciate this you would have to understand that I am under a calculated siege"
• "The editor above Princess of Ara was topic banned because of me. Once again an attempt from another disgruntled editor to get back at me. I am taking my time to explain everything so you all can understand the siege i am facing now."
• "They have stalked my page ever since"
• "I’m largely offended by this ANI, this is quite personal to me"
• " look at my TP and see how I’m living with a life long health condition and I’m here helping out within my capacity and doing the best way I can"

Daniel (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel, Daniel please look at my contributions at the TEAHOUSE and I believe that answers that. Daniel this is still me look at the latest message. The siege I reference is more of revenge from editors I have reported to the ANI which resulted in them being topic banned or their sensitive user rights removed an example is this. I have diffs, which shows me begging editors join WP:NIGERIA. Celestina007 (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The third sentence of your response is yet another example of what I am saying. This is not an 'us v them' situation, and seemingly being gleeful or discrediting editors because you've had them "topic banned" or "their sensitive user rights removed" is exactly what I'm talking about. I am not going to engage further on this, I am happy for others to assess what I have written above and either agree or disagree with it. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment — It would be disingenuous of me not to mention that SuperSwift(OP) answered a very very imperative question I have been asking in the last two years, I have in the past always asked certain editors, the question of if they ever received coaching because they were too new too be too that proficient with either templates or our markup, the editors never replied, but today Super Swift mentioned in our of their replies that I had “frustrated” some of his students. This answered a question I had been asking for a while now, I don’t go to any social gatherings so that this happens is something I’m hearing for the first time today. I believe it would largely explain editors with less than ten edits creating a somewhat decent article, why they didn’t say this all this while I really do not know. It would have been so much easier. AFAIK UPE or COI isn’t the problem but failure to disclose this is the problem. Celestina007 (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• I should also add that with this new awareness of editors teaching people how to edit Wikipedia (in a formal event or non formal/Personal manner) I see no reason why I can’t work with Super Swift moving forward, for record sake I’d state prior June 2021(before new techniques of handling suspected UPE was advised to me by a functionary) I agree that some comments I made were harsh and in retrospect whilst reading some of them I too cannot believe I made such harsh comments. I know I have been quite harsh to what seems like UPE) but as God is my witness, I honestly cannot remember a situation whereby I have crossed WP:CIVILITY or made unfounded accusations anyone(after functionaries told me a better way to deal with UPE, yes sometimes I do forget to insert the personal message to editors I UPE template as to why I believe their article to be UPE or why I believe they are actively engaging in UPE, but for every article I affix the UPE tag on, I largely have evidence, some of which I just send straight to WP:ARBCOM, if they contain material that is sensitive. I honestly do not know what else to say. I’m mentally drained at this point. Celestina007 (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• I've interacted with Celestina007 over the past year and while we have been friendly, she reminds me quite a deal of Jytdog in that she does a lot (quite a lot!) of good work and receives a great deal of support from fellow editors, but she is often in danger of crossing the line regarding privacy & civility, especially towards new editors.

I respect much of the work that she does but have told her that a) she can not tell editors that she can get them blocked (if you believe this, have a RFA) and b) she can't demand that other editors answer her probing questions as if she is in a position of authority and could prevent them from editing if they don't comply. I've seen her acting tougher on new editors than most admins would be and complain elsewhere that most admins aren't, in her opinion, doing anything about paid editing. Like the siege comments, this seems like shades of a savior complex to me.

I don't come here to ask for sanctions because she does contribute so much but my comments on her talk page haven't had any effect and I hope this discussion will lead to her moderating her approach and tone and to not see herself as the paid editing police. As others have said here, even if some of her accusations are true, it's something Wikipedia can and does deal with every day. It won't lead to the demise of the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments Liz, moving forward I propose not to (a) see myself as boarder patrol for paid editing as I have largely described on my UP even before this ANI, (b) to provide a rationale for UPE templating an editor, (c) adjust my tone even further to be more accommodating. Celestina007 (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

UPE tagging of articles and templating editors without evidence is an integral part of the problems we are discussing here. When you tag an article written by a good faith editor as UPE, you are directly accusing the editor of UPE and that’s unacceptable. I respect your contributions as an editor but when it comes to false UPE accusation, it is unhealthy and has sent lot of good faith Nigerian editors away from the project. Also, you haven't shown in this comment that you understand the problem. So, I think a formal restrictions such as the one I proposed below will be in order, atleast for now. Kaizenify (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have to agree with the idea that Celestina should step back from the language used in some of their UPE accusations. They have done some excellent work in that area, but the attitude is very much that of a gunslinger sometimes. There was a recent case at COIN where I ran into this. After defending what looked to be a good-faith editor (one who Celestina accused very strongly but presented almost no evidence beyond the idea that it was a gut feeling), Celestina commented to another editor that " I literally laughed when I saw an editor defending this account." Well, I was the editor defending the account. I've chased down what must be hundreds of UPE and COI editors by now; I have a pretty good radar on who is and isn't UPE and COI. The thing is, I am on the same side as Celestina, I'm not some COI or UPE editor trying to game the system. The further statements by Celestina are at a level of mistrust and aggressiveness that is just not necessary: "That I’d tell those supporting this COI promotional gibberish “I told you so” is an eventuality. I have unwatched the AFD, Wikipedia indeed does get the editors they deserve. My accuracy when nabbing UPE is near perfect, that a non anti spam editor is arguing with me in my field of expertise is just funny." Some kind of commitment on the part of Celestina is needed that the attitude is going to change. I feel quite badly for the portion of innocent editors who are on the receiving end of that attitude. If there is no willingness to change, I'd support the UPE topic ban. --- Possibly ☎ 07:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me also add Celestina's afd comments to me for the same COIN issue, which are basically just a personal attack: "@Possibly, I’m not looking to sway you, I have brought this to AFD, if you can’t comprehend sources and tell a reliable source from a reliable piece or tell when a piece is a sponsored or an extended announcements not fulfilling SIGCOV, that’s really no concern of mine, it’s many people who can’t tell the difference so I’m unfazed by your rationale." The thing is, I have a ton of experience in this area. There's no need to insult people who disagree with you. And the AfD closed Keep. There was no proven juice behind any of these Notability/UPE/COI accusations and the ensuing personal attacks. There was a point where it was time to AGF, which was soundly rejected. That has to change. --- Possibly ☎ 07:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Considering that this is a pattern of behaviour that needs to be nipped in the bud to protect our editors and the project, I am proposing a ban from WP:UPE for Celestina007 as a mildest solution that has a good chance at resolving the problems highlighted above. User:Celestina007 is also warned that further hostility towards new editors may result in a block.

• Support as proposer. Kaizenify (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – I agree with much of the commentary above (particularly by Liz and Daniel), and I hope Celestina takes it to heart. But such a broad topic ban seems distinctly premature, especially when she's committed to do better in the future. At this point, AGF mandates that we take her at her word. For what it's worth, I'm fairly confident that Celestina doesn't mean to appear hostile: more likely, she just sometimes gets carried away in her zeal to keep spam out of the encyclopedia. That's certainly a problem, but it shouldn't require the blunt instrument of formal sanctions right now, particularly when she's already agreed to address the issue. Again, I hope and trust that she'll think more carefully in the future about her words are perceived, but at this point a topic ban appears unnecessary and disproportionate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with EW above. I expressed my concerns, above, because I had concerns (something I had witnessed over a number of months, not just today, although I didn't have bank of diffs to demonstrate it so I focused on what I read today). I don't think the best remedy in this situation is a blanket ban for Celestina from this area of editing. What I do think is required is a) an undertaking from Celestina to improve moving forward (which has been given); b) demonstrated improvement of this occurring; and c) increased scrutiny from uninvolved editors & administrators as to ensuring b) occurs in the coming weeks and months, with a good-faith discussion one-on-one with Celestina occurring should someone believe the standards aren't being met. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest closure with no action at this time. In Celestina's defense, she has made many valuable contributions to the project and even the words/actions being criticized in this thread are obviously intended to improve Wikipedia. I've seen how Celestina has learned and grown as an editor since she began editing. I've seen her take on board past criticism and change how she approaches different tasks, and so I believe that she will consider the concerns expressed in this thread and moderate her approach to other editors in response. Schazjmd (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the first time this user is promising to change their behaviour . As early as June 2021, the user made the same promise in this ANI thread, here, here. Here we are again with another promise. SuperSwift (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Noting that the four diffs are all promises to do better, and all about a month old. --- Possibly ☎ 07:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Extend some WP:ROPE. This is a close call and the irony is not lost on me that I said I could imagine myself supporting just such a measure above. There's a lot to be concerned about in diffs presented here, including in recent interactions and to some extent into the present discussion. But Celestina seems to be genuine in their assertions that they are working on assimilating to community standards. I'm also concerned that the ban here would be an atypical one, as I think about it. A usual narrowly tailored topic ban can be easily followed without chance of putting an editor in a position where they have to choose between reporting bad faith behaviour and risking sanction or just letting obvious examples go to preserve their own editing priveleges. While I'm not saying that this is something we absolutely should not consider if the behaviour persists and Celestina shows they cannot keep perspective in these areas, I'm also thinking a higher threshold is needed before we hobble and contributor in this fashion. By the same token though, I personally think Celestina has gone right up to the edge on this, even considering their well-advised decision to listen to community feedback and continue working on reforming their approach. Afterall, there was a bit of WP:IDHT up until that point, and only the fact that I believe them when they say they are frustrated but still willing to listen that tips the balance for me. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to flip my !vote to supporting the TBAN if Celestina ends up back here for behaviour even remotely resembling the pattern discussed here in this thread. But this community is in the habit of extending some rope in these situations and I'm willing to lean into that here. Hopefully I won't regret the !vote later. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The "siege" commeent is unfortunate, but this user has genuinely caught more legitimate UPEs than not. Furtherore, per EW and Daniel, this user does appear to have taken to heart the comments about unnecessarily un-AGFAGF comments, and quite honestly considering their previous behaviour I have no doubt that they will rectify the problems listed. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 07:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think if we're going to avoid a sanction here and hope for the right attitude from Celestina moving forward, we need to frame this as a question outside of their batting average for catching UPE's. First off, we need to be stressing that a certain tone is required regardless of how certain they are that their concerns are legitimate. Second off, I genuinely think that Celestina needs to reassess the baseline level of evidence they have before they leap into action on some of these cases. There are examples in this thread where their presumptions far outstripe the evidence they are working from. If Celestina doesn't learn to temper their approach in both regards, I have little doubt they will end up the subject of another thread here eventually. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Clearly keen as mustard, does some good work, and seems to have the right ideas if somewhat overzealous methods. A number of people have provided sage advice, both in this thread and previously, and I would strongly suggest that (regardless of outcome) Celestina takes a step back for a while and carefully considers all the feedback they have been provided and what they will be doing differently in the future (not just in terms of behaviour and interactions with others, but where they see themselves fitting into the somewhat strange world that is Wikipedia). My sense of optimism and what I have seen thus far gives me some hope that, if given this opportunity to do so, they will seize it and move forward as an ongoing positive contributor. However I would also suggest that if this does not pose a wake up call, nothing will; if we have to come back here again, I doubt many people would consider that we haven't reached the end of this particular length of rope. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Celestina007 promised to change and stop casting aspersions and accusing editors of UPE without evidence on 23 June and 24 June 2021, in the ANI report initiated by Princess of Ara, as can be seen here, here and here, in her words, yes I accept that I have been ferocious and I have taken responsibility for that.... But yes, like I said I take responsibility for my less than civil approach, moving forward it wouldn’t be confrontational.... Some comments have been raised, yes I do take responsibility for some of my harsh methods of dealing with UPE.... I have seen the “cracks in the wall” and I’m going to correct them, moving forward i shall continue to tackle UPE but in a less confrontational manner, they continued However, I do agree that more often than not I tend to tackle what I believe to UPE ferociously, and moving forward I’m going to be a less confrontational but still as effective and further added I have learnt that moving forward I should do things like you have suggested. This has been a learning curve for me & I do appreciate your input. Rather then changing, this user even increased in their battleground behavior, accusing more good faith editors of UPE without evidence. As can be seen here on 9 July 2021 and in this AfD. Their comments in another AfD from 4 to 8 July 2021 and this COI thread as pointed out by Possibly shows they've refused to learn. Accusing a whole country (Nigeria) editors as UPE without evidence as can be seen here on 21 July 2021 is the worst personal attack I've ever seen here on Wikipedia. I'll also add that if this continues, I'll not hesitate to support an indef block. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 08:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  To misquote Shakespeare; The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - for the simple reason that Celestina is a net positive and giving them such a topic ban would cause more harm to the project than good. I have no doubt that they will reflect on what has been said here and adapt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose. Celestina is an extremely competent and valuable editor, but they have a hot temper and sometimes go overboard. But I am pretty sure that this can be worked on and that they can improve. My account is less than 1 year old and I barely have 5k edits, so nobody has to listen to what I say, but I would advise 1) always starting at a level 1 when it comes to UPE/sockpuppetry user warnings, regardless of the previous user warnings that the editor has received, 2) not adding personal comments to the templates and 3) exercising extreme care when discussing with the users accused of UPE/sockpuppetry. I would just like to note that the OP is also exaggerating quite a bit. As an editor who cleaned up the article written by the "Legal Intern" (which saved it from deletion), I am not personally convinced that this was the work of a volunteer editor, so I'm not sure on what basis the OP calls Celestina's user warning "false". Regarding another article that she "falsely" tagged as UPE, it's worth noting 1) that Celestina also proceeded to clean it up very thoroughly from its promotional content [443] and 2) that anybody who would have taken a look at the article in its original state, before Celestina's work, would also have suspected that it was the work of a UPE editor. JBchrch talk 09:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – yeah, I'm not seeing this. While I concur that Celestina should raise their bar for what constitutes indisputable evidence, we're yet far away from a point where I would call their behaviour "chronic and intractable". And certainly, there are worse things to be overly passionate about than UPE. AngryHarpy‍^talk 10:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Failure to close an RfC despite consensus has been achieved

An RfC was opened in 2021 Cuban protests' talk page on the inclusion of a cause in the infobox: [444]. In light of a consensus being achieved (a rough count shows that votes for Yes account for more than a double than those for No):

• I closed the RfC and posted a formal closure summary [445], and edited the article accordingly to include the discussed element.
• Davide King , reverted my closure of the RfC and my edit on the article. The editor that originally started this RfC added this note: "Note to Closer: There is quite a bit of discussion on this topic both above and below this RfC, which may be useful for any closure." Despite consensus has been achieved and despite the discussion ongoing at this point is by the same single user that reverted my closure: [446], [447] , [448], [449], [450], [451], [452], [453], [454] , [455], [456].

Please, this requires arbitration. Ajñavidya (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Notes to admins and my version (Davide King)

As far as I am aware, the closure must be done by an uninvolved admin, certainly not by an emotionally involved user who took part to the RfC, i.e. the same user who took me here. For context, they also previously did not respect removal of the contentious (see this discussion and revision history, such as this, while I respected embargo's removal due to an RfC being opened about it). As noted by the user themselves, the RfC opener BSMRD noted "Note to Closer: There is quite a bit of discussion on this topic both above and below this RfC, which may be useful for any closure." Rather than asking an immediate closure, the RfC opener actually asked the closer (an admin, not an user who took part to the RfC itself) to consider the whole discussion, which in my view actually means to take all the necessary time to review the RfC before the closure. The user who took me also seem to ignore that Wikipedia is not a democracy based on voting or the numbers of 'yay'–'nay' but whether the arguments are based on our policies and guidelines; it is not up to them to "declare consensus", that is the job of the admins. If there is anyone to be sanctioned, it is not me. Davide King (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

When did I ask for an early closure of the RfC? Do you any evidence of that? Also, the contentious piece that you removed wasn't being discussed in a RfC at the moment I re-added it (I don't recall doing it while on RfC, but if did, I wasn't aware). You say: "[...] while I respected embargo's removal due to an RfC being opened about it." Are you sure? Consider [457] and [458]. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

By prematurely closing the Rfc, when that is the job of an admin or uninvolved and experienced user. Did you ignore the part of the edit summary where I literally stated "try possible, bold compromise for the infobox" and tried to appease with you by adding 'authoritarian', 'lack of civil liberties (freedom of association and political freedom)', which you wanted? See also Wikipedia:Be bold, this, and this. The RfC was whether to add or not the embargo, not whether to add it with a caveat among pharentesis, which would be a compromise, and I made the edit to see what other users thought and if they supported this possible solution and compromise. Clarified this, if you want to reply me back, write me to my talk page; this is neither the moment nor the place to discuss this. Davide King (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Ajñavidya, it appears that you attempted to close the RfC the same day that it was opened, with a result that favours a position you have advocated for on the talk page in question, and as such, David King's reversion was entirely appropriate. RfCs generally run for at least a month before there is a procedural close and can in fact run for much longer if contributions remain steady. One of the major advantages of an RfC is that they pull in opinions from editors disinterested in the content of the article who can give an unbiased policy read on an editorial dispute. They absolutely should not be closed by someone who has already been party to the underlying dispute, and certainly not mere hours after the RfC is opened. The 4:2 strict !vote ratio (which you described technically accurate and yet at the same time rather misleading terms of a 2:1 ratio) is not much of a consensus when you consider there have been a half dozen !votes total and you really haven't waited for input from the broader community. Furthermore, note that despite the sometimes confusing nomenclature, "!vote" consensus discussions are not decided purely on a straightforward numerical support basis: rather the closer will need to consider the result in light of broader community consensus as codified in project policies, which is another reason why said closer should ideally have no previous involvement in the dispute.

Please let the RfC run its course (there is WP:NORUSH here) and then let an uninvolved party close the discussion--it needn't be an admin, but ideally would at least be someone with experience sorting consensus conclusions from community discussions on contentious issues, and (again) should definitely be someone without "skin in the game" as the idiom goes. If push comes to shove, and you find yourself waiting after the 30 days, you can always ping me and I'll make an effort at figuring out where consensus has landed. You can also make such a request at WP:AN, WP:VPP, and other central community discussion spaces. Regardless, there is no behavioural issue here with regard to David which require community intervention. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll definitely consider it. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Ajñavidya, consider reading WP:NACINV, which states: "editors should never close any discussion where they have !voted", which appears to be the case here. As noted by Snow Rise as well, this seems like a premature close, having been done only four days after it started. Isabelle ^🔔 00:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The outcome for "yes" is pretty clear, but the lack of awareness that would lead one to think they can close a discussion that they also voted in is pretty staggering. Zaathras (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Repeated WP:BLP violations in the Zina Bash article.

See the recent article history. [459], and in particular the repeated addition of content like this. [460]

In brief, two contributors (User:TrueQuantum and User:Attic Salt) have been tag-teaming to insert content into the Zina Bash article, in contravention of WP:BLP. Since it has been made perfectly clear, in reliable sources already cited in the article, that claims that Bash made a 'white power' sign are based on nothing more than 4Chan conspiracy-theory trolling, the material being added, which implies that Wikipedia takes this nonsense seriously, is a gross violation. Further comments about Kavanaugh are likewise improper, given that they simply have no bearing on events that actually occurred, rather than on a particularly silly conspiracy theory.

Any responsible contributor would surely understand that if there is a dispute about possible WP:BLP violations, the proper course of action is to resolve the matter through dispute resolution. Since however those responsible have acted in the manner they did instead, I suggest that appropriate sanctions be taken against them.AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, when I asked you what specifically is the BLP violation that concerns you: [461], [462], you did not provide an answer: [463]. Attic Salt (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no 'I didn't like the answer I was given' exception to WP:BLP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I should probably have also linked the earlier WP:BLPN discussion too - comments there seem relevant to assessing what happened later. [464] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I fully protected the article for a week and will watch the talk page for a while. Let me know if the issue cannot be resolved with normal discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Death

I wanna announce the death of my friend AbhiMukh97 who passed away a week ago due to covid. I figured out he used to edit wikipedia and hence informing. 223.223.136.222 (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

223.223.136.222, I'm sorry to hear about this. If you have evidence of their deceased status, I suggest following the instructions here, and possibly contacting the oversight team. Please accept my condolences, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 07:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

User:VNHRISHIKESH

User:VNHRISHIKESH already has a rather problematic editing history, with in a month one so far successful article creation, and 10 or so failed ones (mostly deleted, some draftified). This includes things like moving Paracelsus to Philips Paracelsus, a name not used anywhere else. They received warnings for the use of their user page for promotion, copyright violations, and general disruption.

On 13 July, they asked for protection of their user page and talk page[465] to preserve it from vandalism. Neither page had ever been vandalized, and the request was swiftly rejected[466].

Today, an IP appears[467], makes two vandal edits to All, and then makes the most gentle of vandal edits ever to VNHRISHIKESH's user talk page[468][469]. The IP then stops editing, and 3 minutes later our editor reappears and again asks for protection[470] (the last edited three minutes before the very short-lived vandal IP appeared). To put the icing on the cake, both the editor and the IP turn out to be from south Kerala.

Vandalizing Wikipedia to get your user page and talk page protected must be among the more stupid things I have seen here, but coupled with the waste of time this editor has turned out to be otherwise for most of their edits, I don't think they should stay around for much longer. (Oh, as an aside, with IP masking in place this would have been a lot harder to check of course). Fram (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiBullying by User:Aman.kumar.goel and User:Capitals00

I am compelled to report the said users for persistent wikibullying. The policy says: "On Wikipedia, all editors have fair and equal rights to editing all articles, project pages, and all other parts of the system. While some may have more knowledge or familiarity with a topic than others, this does not mean those with less Wikipedia jargon are at a lower level, or not entitled to their point of view."

In my case:

1. User:Aman.kumar.goel has been undoing all my contributions to the pages List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism and List of converts to Islam from Hinduism without even bothering to check the references and sources I added. I was improving both the articles with references and fixed some unreliable sources but next day all my edits were undone. My request in this regard to User:Aman.kumar.goel on his talk page was also unanswered[471].

2. I had to contact the Helpdesk[472] where User:331dot and User:Maproom advised me to discuss this on the article's talk page so I opened a thread on the article's talk page here[473] for discussion.

3. Despite all these efforts User:Aman.kumar.goel kept undoing my contributions without even bothering to look at the references I added (though I used only reliable sources which are being used in other Wikipedia articles). Instead of any explanation, he continued undoing my works repeatedly and threatend me of disabling my editing rights. Didn't pay any heed to the administrator[474] who advised him to discuss rather deleted my own message from my own talk page[475].

4. In the middle of these, suddenly another User:Capitals00 came with a similar warning and false statesments against my edits. I have not interacted with him before and did not even know him. He said I was making own calculations but anyone can verify that I added reliable sources for my every contributions.

Since, my contributions with reliable sources have been undone by them yet they have no interest in discussion so I am forced to report them to get my contribution rights please. --Bringtar (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Bringtar Just FYI you are required to notify any other users you are discussing of the existence of this discussion(see the top of this page for instructions on how to do so). 331dot (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe I am not aware of all the issues here but the question from the Help Desk does remain in that is it insufficient for an individual's statement of their religious conversion as evidence of their religious conversion? 331dot (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

331dot sorry, I am doing that now. Thank you again for all your help. Bringtar (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see "bullying". As asked on your talk page, can you tell us about your earlier accounts? You made your first edit only 2 days ago where you merely cited wikipedia articles as sources along with bunch of unreliable sources, and edit warred pretending to know everything and now you are forum shopping to ANI as you have failed to make sense of your POV. Only socks do this. I am pretty sure that you are plainly following the template of a WP:NOTHERE editor. Ratnahastin(t.c) 09:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ratnahastin I have no earlier accounts. I edited wikipedia in the past without creating any accounts and I did not plan to make regular contributions here but that does not mean I cannot contribute. Also I did not make any edit-war rather tried to discuss it with the other editor who has been edit-warring. Can you please list my unreliable sources because I was the one who replaced the Wikipedia article links with reliable sources. Bringtar (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  You are accusing me of WP:ADMINSHOP but FYI, I contacted the helpdesk first as this was the first place to look for a help when my edits were removed and like I mentioned above, when the other user were reluctant to discuss and gave me block threats then I have to report them here according to WikiBullying policy. --Bringtar (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this is acually a problem - but not from Bringtar. A number of the entries added by Bringtar do appear to have reliable sources, though some I am less sure about. Also, many of the entries added do talk about the subject's conversion from Hinduism in their own article, often with reliable sources. Thus, the behaviour of Aman.kumar.goel and Capitals00 jumping in with a totally unjustified final vandalism warning suggests to me some problematic POV editing from those two editors. Yes, clearly multiple accounts are trying to add that information. However, removing it en masse when some of the entries are clearly correct per the subjects own articles is equally as disruptive. Why not remove any poorly sourced entries, and leave the rest? Advice to Bringtar. Ensure that the sources you use are definitely reliable, and be especially careful if the subjects are living people. Do not add the entries if you are unsure, and you can always ask for advice at WP:RSN. You can also use many of the sources in the subject's own articles to source the entries. Black Kite (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the advise. If you see my discussion threads, I repeatedly asked to point me to the unreliable sources so I can improve with better sources. Anyway, I will use WP:RSN to verify reliability. Thanks again. Bringtar (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

IP 137.27.65.235

I got some concerns over the behaviour and attitude of the IP editor 137.27.65.235. They seem to be acting aggressive to people reverting or countering their arguments. For example, I commented with a warning in a discussion that their words "Undo revert or i will" was not civil and poor conduct for an editor, and they snapped back with "It wasn't a threatening attitude, yet your "warning" ironically is." I'm concerned they wish to be aggressive in responding to other editors comments, changes to their edits or reversions of their edits, and wish for an admin to check if my concerns are justified. GUtt01 (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

You must notify any users you are discussing about the existence of this discussion; please follow the instructions at the top of this page to do so. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. GUtt01 (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Other concern I have is some of the IP's edit summaries have included him claiming editors are harassing or badgering him. GUtt01 (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Per talk page comments, this is nonsense. Instead of addressing the issue i was accused of a "threatening attitude" with a 'warning' and i defended myself by simply letting GUtt01 know it was his perception but not accurate. For some reason this user is denying Nightbirde doesn't go by her legal name while performing. It was a calm reaction that i would undo the revert since the source clearly states she is Nightbirde. Not sure what the big deal is but it's irritating having to fight for what's right on here sometimes. Thank you for your time. P.s. Please see my discussion/input/comments here: Talk:America's Got Talent (season_16). I appreciate it. 137.27.65.235 (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, another editor started watching a page i edited on after i made legit contributions on Dion. This person can not stop posting messages on my talk page: [476] instead of discussing the sources i used on the article's talk page. That editor also keeps reverting edits [they] have been wrong about (see Dion & Dion DiMucci discography as well as Joe Bonamassa). It's frustrating to come on here and do good work yet be accused of bad attitude/behavior for being right. Please do not assume i'm like others because i'm defending myself. Nightbirde clearly states she goes by that name while performing which she did on the show and has done professionally before the audition. I'm not sure why this is even an issue but i've left the discussion as not to engage in problems just to prove a point. One day i'm sure it will be fixed/corrected. I regret you were offended. I hope you have a great day! 137.27.65.235 (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 and an INVOLVED protection of TFA

Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Peacemaker67 has semi-protected TFA, Arthur Blackburn, after only a couple of instances of silly vandalism, despite being the major contributor and the person who nominated it for Featured status. This contravenes WP:INVOLVED and is a massive overuse of protection, going against the Wiki philosophy of anyone can edit. Please unprotect the page immediately, and I suggest an admonishment for this admin. 188.232.142.69 (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I cannot notify Peacemaker67 of this thread as they have also semi protected their talk page. Interesting. 188.232.142.69 (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hyperbole much? It appears to be a reasonable measure, given the silly vandalism [477], is something any reasonable admin would have done, and doesn't contravene involvement.Acroterion (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the OP for block evasion, given the use of proxies and the vandalism diff noted in my response above. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with the protection of the article in these circumstances (TFA, no content dispute, only protected to end of day, etc etc.), but if it makes anyone who feels slighted feel better, I will take full responsibility for the protection as I 100% agree with it, considering the facts of the case. Daniel (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)