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

H2ppyme and Estonian POV

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

---

Shorter version - editor involved in disruptive editing, edit warring, and clear POV edits.

Longer version - H2ppyme (talk · contribs) is involved in edits like this, removing reference to the historical Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, and this, adding in clear POV of 'Soviet-occupied Estonia' and very concerning POV edit summaries like "Estonia was illegally occupied at the time". A quick look at their contribs shows that myself and many other editors have been reverted, sometimes multiple times. We need a topic ban or block to prevent ongoing disruption. GiantSnowman 16:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

He also insists on adding information with an Estonian source that doesn't contain the purported information, see [1], [2] and [3]. This is an editor who has been around since 2006, long enough to know about WP policy.--Berig (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

They do appear to have a POV, but their edits based on that POV aren't entirely wrong; there appears to be a lack of consensus on whether we should use "Estonia" or "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic" for place of birth/death (the only source in that article which provides a place of death uses "Estonia"), while 1940 in art shouldn't use "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic" or "Soviet-Occupied Estonia" as both are undue in that article - it should just use "Estonia", in line with the use of "United Kingdom", "United States", and "France". BilledMammal (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of which version should be used (and I am firmly in the 'use the historically accurate name' camp, but this is not really what this issue is about), this editor has a clear POV and has engaged in significant disruptive editing to push the same. GiantSnowman 17:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with this editor, my first encounter with them was yesterday when I undid their edit on Geats because it had added content about the Estonian language that did not appear notable enough to warrant being in the article, which I can see that they reverted this morning. Berig then discovered that the source does not even contain what is being added to the article and H2ppy conducted some minor edit warring to keep the content, that in combination with taking a look at the contribution history makes it pretty clear to me there's at least some level of Estonian POV pushing at play here. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be one thing if H2ppyme were involved just in content disputes about Estonia v. Estonian SSR. However, they are also accusing other editors of "pushing age-old Kremlin propaganda", [4][5] and that crosses a different line in my book. —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The tone used here is clearly unhelpful. --Soman (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

What is wrong with having a "POV" that adheres to facts instead of age-old Kremlin propaganda? Why are you pushing the narrative of a systematically lying dictatorship instead of the narrative accepted in mainstream interpretation of historiography and international law? H2ppyme (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I note this editor in question has repeated his nonsensical "pro-Kremlin propaganda" accusations agains other editors in his response here. Very telling. GiantSnowman 18:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, how are they non-sensical if your argument is to copy-paste the narrative of the once Soviet Union and that of modern Russia instead of the mainstream international view and the view of legal scholars and historians? H2ppyme (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is a collaborative environmental, and accusing editors you disagree with of being somehow in cahoots with/supporting a foreign Government you dislike is a) ridiculous and b) WP:UNCIVIL. Are you going to withdraw your accusations and stop your disruptive editing or are we going to have to block you from editing to prevent further disruption? GiantSnowman 10:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Just wanna mention that the editor in question has been engaging in this behavior for years and was already warned and blocked for exactly the same actions. --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

State continuity of the Baltic states, please have a read. I'm pretty sure H2ppyme acts in good faith, unless the user broke the 3RR. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I find it very hard to assume good faith from editors who provide sources that don't back up their assertions (see [6], [7] and [8]). If I weren't involved in the article, I would be very tempted to enforce a ban.--Berig (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: - Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, please have a read. GiantSnowman 18:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't covered what's been going on at non-ice hockey articles. But, I do know it's frustrating for us WP:HOCKEY members, to have to continue to revert such PoV edits on ice hockey (particularly player bios) articles, from time to time. Regrettably, if such PoV edits continue to be pushed on those articles-in-question? I fear that eventually, Arbcom may have to step in. This is no longer an issue of content dispute, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Obviously ice hockey was especially important for Soviets, and is now for Putin (to alleviate the inferiority complex). Should his troll factory ever target wiki-topics, then hockey would be a logical one to start with. Of course, hopefully there are no paid trolls participating in the incident here. Nevertheless, in case there are some, let's have some human empathy for them – it's better to work, work hard, and hang on to a nice warm office job instead of being treated as cheap cannon fodder and sent to some seriously snowy, muddy and bloody battle in Ukraine, for example.80.26.203.48 (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Expanding on that, WP:HOCKEY has been very consistent on how to list place of birth. This looked, at first glance, like a similar case of not understanding the rules. While there is a muddier situation that Pelmeen10 refers to with the Baltic states, that is a content issue, and I don't think that matter should be resolved at ANI. The matter at hand here is the conduct of H2ppyme and the accusations against other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - and this is conduct which they have been warned about/blocked for before (please see diffs above) - although they have not edited in 2 days so the disruption has technically stopped. I suggest their edits are reverted and we monitor from there? GiantSnowman 09:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Long standing edit consensus on Baltic States related articles have been to use only short name, not full political name, as is standard in WP as also noted above by BilledMammal. Even the hockey does it China is listed as just China, not People's Republic of China. He Xin (ice hockey), Ying Rudi etc. I noticed that a user with administrator privileges was reverting the edits. So i went to their page and asked few questions, but all I got was smirky sarcastic FO by WP admininistrator saying that Estonia should be removed and just Soviet Union be left. No explanation, no arguments. That's the level of administration in Wikipedia. what about WP:ADMINCOND? Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. --Klõps (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

That is because our article is just on China, not People's Republic of China. This is not, despite what you think, a political decision - it is merely reflecting the historical name of the country as confirmed by WP:MOSGEO. GiantSnowman 09:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

What are you trying to tell me? China is the common name, People's Republic of China is full political name of the state. China covers all the culture and history of China, same as Estonia covers all about Estonia including the Soviet period. --Klõps (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Estonian SSR was commonly known as Estonia btw. --Klõps (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

People's Republic of China and China are the same article, whereas we have separate articles on Estonia and Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic (and Governorate of Estonia) to reflect the changing political nature of the country over time. GiantSnowman 16:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Per Infobox person Countries should generally not be linked.That's why opening random Chinese hockey players most are China unlinked He Xin (ice hockey), and even Xi Jinping article has Beijing, China (unlinked). That's not a factor, and besides that Article Estonia has section about Estonian SSR. This is not really convincing argument from you. --Klõps (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Klõps: Perceived incivility does not justify obvious incivility. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Come on. You have higher authority here as a moderator, but instead of moderating you just answered with a sarcastic insult. Nothing to Percieve here. As a moderator you should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. WP:ADMINCOND, what you did was WP:ADMINACCT failure to communicate.

It's clear whats is going on here. User H2ppyme (talk · contribs) made some good faith edits restoring the articles with what has been a long standing edit consensus of having only Estonia listed as birth/death place in infobox. As seen it is standard to use common name even in WP:HOCKEY biographies (eg China instead of People's Republic of China) He Xin (ice hockey), Ying Rudi etc to take some random articles. What followed is really toxic, he got attacked by a couple of moderators with highly opinionated opposite POV as you and GiantSnowman have clearly stated to support the opposite POV. WP:ADMINCOND if an administrator cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem with poor conduct. administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith. You have both misused the moral highground that you have been given. --Klõps (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yea no, I don't think it's that simple at all. As was noted above H2ppyme synthesized ″information″ from a source to include content about Estonia on Geats and then participated in some minor edit warring once that was pointed out, that doesn't seem like good faith editing to me, that seems more like shoehorning Estonian content into where it doesn't belong. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

So now @Klõps: is engaged in the exact same edits as H2ppyme was (same article as well!). Disruptive edits, meat puppetry. GiantSnowman 15:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it time for a sockpuppet investigation?--Berig (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I restored it to the state before the edit war. I do not know H2ppyme. This is my only account. --Klõps (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

If so you would not mind a sockpuppet investigation. It would only prove that you are not the same user.--Berig (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem, what do I have to do? --Klõps (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

There isn't anything; requests to prove you are not the same user are not accepted. If Berig believes they have sufficient behavioural evidence, they should submit a request at WP:SPI. BilledMammal (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is sock puppetry, but definitely a small group of editors closing ranks and covering each other's backs. Offline collusion? I couldn't possibly say. GiantSnowman 17:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Klõps, why are you removing in-line citations and valid parameters from infoboxes? GiantSnowman 17:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, given the comments here that removing reference to Estonian SSR is disruptive, please can somebody restore the previous version on Friedrich Karm? GiantSnowman 12:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

In agreement, that it should be restored. But, if I restore it? members from WP:ESTONIA might disrupt the ice hockey bios again, particularly Leo Komarov. There's a kinda truce between both WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: feel free to post at Talk:Friedrich Karm and see if you can persuade @BilledMammal: to change it back... GiantSnowman 18:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing BilledMammal involved in this topic-in-question, in the past. Would suggest that he back away from it. He seems to have taken the side of the Estonian-POV argument. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Topic bans for Estonian POV

There is a very long-standing issue with Estonian editors doing this sort of thing, and when challenged, several of them will turn up to the same discussion to back each other up (exactly as has happened here). Personally I would strongly support a topic ban for anything related to pre-1991 Estonia for these editors, as this has been going on for over a decade. Number 57 17:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds serious, indeed.--Berig (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, broadly construed, for all pre-1991 Estonia related edits for Klõps and H2ppyme (I am personally unaware of any other editors involved in this behaviour). GiantSnowman 17:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. While this is edit warring, the example provided includes edit warring by both "sides" (four reverts by GiantSnowman, three by H2ppyme, two by Klõps, with the status quo being the one supported by H2ppyme and Klõps), and it is not sufficient to warrant a full topic ban, particularly as such a sanction would go far beyond the issues discussed here. Give warnings to all parties, reminding them of WP:BRD and MOS:RETAIN, and if any party attempts to implement a change to the format through edit warring in the future we can return to ANI and consider actual sanctions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  I would also note that so far the only evidence of Klõps "misbehaving" is two reverts to restore the status quo at a single article - it is not clear why they are grouped with this proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Because they are engaged in the exact same disruptive editing and have been for some time (i.e. removing all mention of Estonian SSR/Soviet Union from appropriate historical context - see this and this and this and many, many more). GiantSnowman 18:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

How are those changes disruptive? You obviously are on one "side" of this content dispute, but as there is no global consensus (attempts to find one have always ended in "no consensus") it is appropriate to find local consensuses, and that can include finding such consensuses by editing as it appears they are doing in those examples. BilledMammal (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you look at something like Leo Komarov, you will see that H2ppyme was making the same edit (changing Estonian SSR to Estonia) multiple times between 2014 and yesterday, calling their opponents "Kremlin trolls", every time they were reverted back, and they have, as far as I see, zero edits at the talk page, where the topic has been extensively discussed (and there is either no consensus, or possibly even consensus against H2ppyme). This is massive edit-warring for 8 years, mixed with personal attacks. Irrespectively of who is right and who is wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, but that doesn't answer why Klõps is being grouped with H2ppyme - I am not seeing any basis for them being brought here, except for the fact that they are on the same side of the content dispute as H2ppyme.

H2ppyme does have a case to answer beyond edit warring, but I don't believe that a topic ban is appropriate for them at this point; they've only been blocked once, eight years ago, and aside from this recent discussion no one has attempted to discuss WP:CIVIL with them, or WP:EW since that block eight years ago. In other words, I've seen no evidence that a warning won't work, and I believe we should give it a chance. Specifically, give GiantSnowman, H2ppyme, and maybe Klõps a warning for edit warring, and H2ppyme a warning for personal attacks, and if any of them continue the behaviour we can return here and implement topic bans. BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, Klops has retired. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

To answer the question of "why Klõps is being grouped with H2ppyme", it's because they have been part of the small group of editors doing this for years – see the history of Toivo Suursoo, where they made these edits repeatedly. Number 57 22:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. However, that appears to minor (three reverts over a couple of months) and stale (three years ago) edit warring. It would add weight to the notion that we should warn them alongside GiantSnowman and H2ppyme, but I don't see any reason why we need to jump straight to topic bans, or what the issue would be with trying a warning first.BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Great another one who has always has had very strong one sided POV on this question. Yes add random diffs without any discussions that were had then. The pattern has been always like it's with Friedrich Karm, for ten years since 2013 it was one way, then in January 2022 some random user changes it and then you guys appear to defend the change. 90% of Estonian biographies are it the way Friedrich Karm was for a decade, it's a small group of editors who for years have been trying to change it. Always the same, some random user changes ca 10 articles, and then your gang appears to defend them, But yeah having a strong POV on this question won't stop you for demanding a ban for someone who isn not supporting your POV. Klõps 46.131.25.212 (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If you're retired, stop editing while logged out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support, per above.--Berig (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - There's something kinda odd here, concerning whether one chooses to accept or not, that the Baltic states were a part of the Soviet Union. Why would he or she concentrate on only Estonia? What about Latvia & Lithuania? Are those country names also being pushed in bios, where there's "Latvian SSR" & "Lithuanian SSR"? GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

What's odd? We had this discussion already at WP Estonia I said to You that I'm an Estonian, I mostly edit Estonian related content, fix, add sources, update, remove vandalism. Estonian community here is small, there's a lot of really outdated articles, old vandalism from years ago. As I'm a football fan I have created Estonian football league season articles, given them prose content so that their not just tables etc. I have created Kaja Kallas' cabinet, Jüri Ratas' second cabinet, Jüri Ratas' first cabinet, Taavi Rõivas' second cabinet etc all of the existing ones. And as I said, Lithuanian and Latvian community here is much smaller even than Estonian, I have worked on many Latvian articles also if I have seen really low quality articles there that scream for attention, one liners not updated since 2008. --Klõps (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Objection I have tried to have a civil argument and to find a solution, like here, but got slapped without even a hint of effort to give argumented replay, I tried to make sense at the discussion at WP:Estonia, here, but got insulted that I'm nationalist doing historical revisionism. All I have tried to say is that isn't black and white as Gigantsnowman, C.Fred, Soman are taking the problem. There's a huge gray area. I'm saying everywhere that both are right Estonian SSR existed and Republic of Estonia existed as Soviet occupation was never recognized by the international community. For heavens sake there's loads of articles about it State continuity of the Baltic states read about it get to know the backstory and facts. The solution has been to use just Estonia (without political additions ), As is standard with other modern states. As noted above by BilledMammal, as I have noted about only China being used instead of full political state name People's Republic Of China.

Per WP:ADMINCOND GiantSnowman and C.Fred shouldn't even be judging here as they are very heatedly having really strong one sided POV on this question taking part of the edits. As seen in edits and talk like here Talk:Friedrich Karm. They should leave this for impartial admins. This is really low to hand out bans just because someone has different opinion than you do. --Klõps (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban for both of them, a long-standing issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I remember having long discussions about it with you before, you supported really strongly the soviet naming. The long standing issue is that you and I had different opinion. Go on ban my dead account . Thats just bulling to demand someone to be punished because you have different POV. Klõps 46.131.25.212 (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought you retired? now you're posting signed out. BTW, you messed up BM's above post. GoodDay (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for H2ppyme as this appears to be a long term issue, the misrepresentaton of a source seemingly in an attempt to shoehorn Estonian content into where it doesn't belong, edit warring and personal attacks makes this seem warranted. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, support warning given how both sides have engaged in edit-warring and Klops in particular does not seem to have done enough to warrant a topic ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurritoQuesadilla (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Do you people not understand how you are defending the age-old systematic propaganda of a fundamentally sick warmonger?! To hell with all Russian propagandists on Wikipedia! This is not a neutral encyclopaedia anymore! H2ppyme (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, broadly construed, for all pre-1991 Estonia related edits, especially since this is a discretionary sanctions area, especially with me just reverting an edit of H2ppyme's where his edit summary was "No to Kremlin propaganda, to hell with Russian propagandists!" Obviously this is going to be an especially touchy subject for quite some time to come given Putin's aggression, but we don't need the war played out on Wikipedia: it is plain that H2ppyme is NOTHERE. Enough is bloody enough, and this is coming from someone whose great-grandfather was from Lithuania. Ravenswing 14:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Sick Kremlin propagandists should be the ones who get banned. You are the lowest of all human forms, you warmonger apologists! Disgraceful that people like you are even allowed to exist on Wikipedia! This is an encyclopaedia, it should be based on facts, not on the fundamentally sick propaganda of systematically lying hostile dictatorship like Russia! You people make me sick for defending their sick crimes! H2ppyme (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    • ... whereupon H2ppyme immediately reverted [9], with the edit summary "Leave fundamentally sick Russian propaganda out of Wikipedia and stick to international law and mainstream interpretation of history!" At this point, while he isn't (yet) in 3RR territory, given the viciousness of his personal attacks and his plain intent to editwar these changes Wikipedia-wide, I think an immediate block for H2ppyme's in order, and I would willingly support any proposal to indef. Ravenswing 14:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
      • I will make a new account, don't worry. Our fight against sick Kremlin propagandists will never end! You are the lowest of all human forms and the entire democratic and developed world is against your sick positions! Facts will win, your propaganda will die, your memory will be disgraced. H2ppyme (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Rather than simply a topic ban, I think a block is now necessary. Mellk (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • All you Russian propagandists should be banned and never allowed to return! Wikipedia is no longer neutral, it has been overtaken by sick Kremlin propagandists! H2ppyme (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • This has gone beyond blocking territory, I think. I'm proposing an outright community ban on H2ppyme; it's plain that he's declared war here, and given his long history it doesn't seem likely that he'll ever be an asset to the encyclopedia. Ravenswing 14:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Russia is literally invading peaceful European countries, you keep defending age-old Russian systematic lies, and I am the one who has declared war, lol? H2ppyme (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    • @Ravenswing: "Declared war"? slightly unfortunate choice of words, old chap SN54129 15:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Not particularly contrite. We none of us can do anything about Putin right now, and I called it exactly as H2ppyme is acting. I have this tight-lipped feeling that we're about to see a tidal wave of such disrupters from all sides, and we'd better be prepared for the onslaught. Ravenswing 15:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban or at least a topic ban from all topics related to Estonia, Russia, and the former Soviet Union, broadly construed. They have demonstrated that their personal opinions about Russia have overpowered their ability to constructively and collegially edit the project. (I have no particular love for Russia. No country is perfect, but they've got some pretty atrocious things on their track record, and...they aren't exactly on a PR and goodwill tour right now. But I am able to compartmentalize my opinions and not let them cloud my judgment while editing. If there were a topic where I couldn't maintain neutral point of view, I'd step away from the topic.) —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• I've blocked for 1 week due to the above aspersions, which have also spread to other threads on this page. This is a stopgap measure to halt current disruption, and can be superseded by whatever outcome this thread arrives at. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  Incidentally, for anyone who is interested in examining the extent to which Wikipedia has a bias related to Russia, check the relative ratings of Russian state media at WP:RSP and WP:NPPSG, as compared to both independent Russian media and media from other countries. (Spoiler: as a community we don't consider Russian state media to be reliable on anything controversial, and there currently isn't a single Russian source, state-backed or otherwise, that has unequivocally been judged as "generally reliable" by the English Wikipedia community). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Considering their latest comments, I support an indef block. Isabelle ^🔔 15:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Coming here to post this diff and edit summary to one of the disputed articles - please can somebody revert this editor's disruption? Given this response to their block I think we need an indef? GiantSnowman 15:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Austet H2ppyme, Klõps and all honourable wikipedians, make no mistake, during putinist rule the Russian govt and intel agencies have been putting great many technical and human resources into propaganda and modern "hybrid warfare", including aggressive disinformation campaigns on social media channels. What you may have noticed here is just the tip of the iceberg, not only an odd Wikipedia editor or two with a pro-Kremlin-Stalin-USSR-etc-trolling hobby but a whole network of hundreds of editor and admin accounts, in concerted action and manned 24-7-365 by professional staff. For these operatives, inserting "SSR" somewhere, deleting "Estonia" in another article, or reverting another edit somewhere else once every 2-3 minutes is nothing but routine paid work (with getting an honest anti-Soviet editor blocked or banned sometimes as an additional bonus). Just my two kopeks' worth.37.143.124.39 (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Half-genuine suggestion - indef ban for any editor who comes here to accuse other good faith editors of being Kremlin/Putin stooges etc. IP should also be blocked. GiantSnowman 16:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I get it, but tensions are understandably very very high right now. Let's not completely bite the heads off people for it at the current time unless there is genuinely a lot of disruption. We can ignore the odd comment and focus on making sure articles aren't disrupted. Canterbury Tail talk 16:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Except articles are being disrupted, with editors such as H2ppyme and Klõps having engaged in long-standing whitewashing (by removing reference to Estonia SSR). GiantSnowman 16:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Why should we ignore the comment? It is hate speech.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, tensions are elevated in a number of quarters, but that doesn't mean that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA have been suspended for the duration. For a Ukrainian IP address, I'd cut some slack ... presuming, of course, that your average Ukrainian had nothing better to think of today than editing Wikipedia. 37.143.124.39, by contrast, is geolocated in Spain. Ravenswing 16:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Today is also the Estonian Independence Day - I wonder if that is what has inspired the recent outburst... GiantSnowman 16:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Am I reading things clearly? Has H2ppyme promised to create sock(s), if banned? GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, he sure did. Ravenswing 16:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Perhaps could be along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. Accusing other editors of "pro-Kremlin bias" is a personal attack and should be discouraged. TFD (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef ban - on the basis that the reported editor has promised to evade any topic ban handed out, via creating socks. I realise, H2ppyme emotions have been charged up, since Putin's latest actions & well, he can & should be upset. But, that doesn't give him the 'green light' to be disruptive across several articles & make personal attacks, let alone promise to continue to do so after he's blocked or possibly banned. He's definitely not here to contribute constructively, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic or infef ban unsupported accusations of pro-Kremlin propaganda must not be accepted. (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment), Support topic ban per GiantSnowman. This is protracted edit warring with inflammatory rhetoric, seemingly without any willingness to find compromise solutions. --Soman (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Klõps appears to have retired to restrictions against them probably not needed; can an uninvolved admin therefore please review consensus against H2ppyme? GiantSnowman 07:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I would advise against closure. What's going on in Ukraine, can still create a potential for attempts at revisionism in the Baltics. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Erm ... and what does that have to do with whether there is consensus on a ban for H2ppyme? (It's plain there's no consensus for action against Klõps.) The way to deal with further nonsense from H2ppyme is to indef him. The way to deal with nonsense from any other editor is to open a separate complaint, when and as necessary. Ravenswing 21:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Out of my hands. We'll follow your advise. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Ravenswing - let's indef H2ppyme and deal with Klõps if/when they return... GiantSnowman 18:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree.--Berig (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yea, definitely indef for H2ppyme after all these outburts. This little group of editors pushing this Estonia centered POV edit using a lot of different IP's though it seems, several of them are geolocated in Spain like this one I found today that I highly suspect is part of this effort 83.59.57.39 (talk · contribs). They really love to call people Russian bots whenever someone opposes their little campaign. TylerBurden (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• So can we get some closure here? H2ppyme's 1 week block expired a few days ago, and he's able to pop right back up. There's solid consensus for an indef, and heaven knows that perps have been indeffed for a good deal less than his atrocious rants here at ANI. Ravenswing 15:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Even if the closure is an indef block, I think a topic ban should also be included – if they successful appeal the block, they should still be topic banned if they start editing again. Cheers, Number 57 20:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I can't imagine a successful block appeal (we are, after all, talking about an edit warrior employing gross incivility and threatening to sock if banned), but no objection. Ravenswing 22:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I agree with topic ban and indef block. GiantSnowman 08:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
        • I already voiced support for the topic ban but will reiterate that on top of the indef block, why this has been open long enough for H2ppyme's temporary block to expire despite all the evidence and outburts, as well as threats to sock, is beyond me. --TylerBurden (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Unarchiving as a close for this (there appears to be clear consensus) is outstanding. Number 57 19:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Gebagebo

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

Gebagebo is a user formerly editing under the name Dabaqabad.

Gebagebo received a one-week AE block for violating the March 4 prohibition in August 2021. From his comment to me in December 2021, Gebagebo seems to think this block was "because edited without indicating the source."

And in October 2021, Gebagebo's editorial policy was criticized by several people at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive295#Dabaqabad, including myself, but no particular conclusion was reached at that time.

There are a number of problems between Gebagebo and me. Most of them involve Gebagebo reverting my edits and pushing his own policy on the grounds of WP:NOCONSENSUS. I try not to force my edits until we reach an agreement, not just in dialogue with Gebagebo. Gebagebo probably knows this, and thinks that if he (she) shows a "no agreement" attitude, he can settle for editing to his liking.

Some of the pages that Gebagebo and I have discussed include the following:

• Talk:Badhan, Sanaag
• Category talk:Disputed territory between Somaliland and Puntland
• Talk:Khatumo State
• Talk:El Afweyn

Although Gebagebo's argument seems plausible at first glance, I think he actually has the intention to write in favor of Somaliland and is searching for rules or sources to do so, rather than having the attitude of writing based on Wikipedia's rules and sources. Otherwise, it would be hard to explain why Gebagebo only writes in favor of Somaliland in his editing of this complex situation in the region.

The latest trouble is occurring in Talk:El Afweyn. I have tried to include information about El Afweyn in this article, but Gebagebo won't let me post it as it is "irrelevant". When I asked why it was irrelevant, Gebagebo would not respond. (Except to explain that it is "irrelevant" and "no agreement.")

I expect Gebagebo to edit neutrally, and to adopt an editorial attitude that aims for consensus rather than mere argument.--Freetrashbox (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I have tried my absolute best to reach a consensus with Freetrashbox, however it is very hard to do so when they are being uncooperative, including threatening to re-add disputed content on two occasions despite that not being allowed by WP:NOCONSENSUS ([10], [11]). His accusation is completely unfounded and uncalled for.

Another interesting thing to note is the timing of this report. This report was filed just days after my report on Heesxiisolehh was concluded ([12]) and almost five hours after I informed the admin in charge of the case of his continuing addition of OR ([13]). Both users are in regular contact ([14], [15], [16], [17]) including just 15 minutes after his report was filed ([18]). On the AfD about Diiriye Guure Freetrashbox first voted delete ([19]) and then after that suddenly changing his vote to keep ([20]) after a poor explanation made by Heesxiisolehh that another editor refuted (Freetrashbox didn't even bother changing his original explanation for his previous delete vote, instead just changing the vote itself) . This indicates to me that this report was not filed in good-faith and kinda feels like tag-teaming.

Then is the fact that this would fit better as an RfC or WP:DRN given that this is a content dispute and a Third Opinion has previously failed to solve it due to no one showing up. Gebagebo (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• If this is linked to the same topic area as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091#Long running original research in Dervish-related content then this needs a wider review at a dedicated venue, such as RFC/DRN. GiantSnowman 15:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

That is my point exactly; this is a content dispute that has so far not been resolved. Therefore it should be discussed in the right venue, like RFC and DRN. Gebagebo (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Everything I wrote in User talk:Heesxiisolehh are requests for improvement in Heesxiisolehh's editing attitude. Heesxiisolehh has not answered my questions many times and I think there is some problems with his attitude. And I have more stringent requirements in User talk:Heesxiisolehh#Your uploaded figure. If I were to defend Heesxiisolehh, I would defend it directly on the discussion page where Heesxiisolehh is being criticized, not in this roundabout way.--Freetrashbox (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is the thing; you have a history of contacting the user on multiple occasions, and the criticism you give him is lackluster. In addition you changed your vote on an AfD concerning an article he added massive amounts of original research to to "keep" due to his rather lackluster and unconvincing explanation that was refuted by another edit, not even bothering to change the reasoning behind your original vote to reflect you changing your stance, in addition to using WP:WHATABOUTX to argue for the deletion of Deria Arale (which is backed up by reliable sources).

That and the timing is too close (I mean really, five hours after I contacted GiantSnowman regarding Heesxiisolehh's continued OR?) to be a coincidence. Either way I proposed a compromise on the El Afweyn talk page, I'd suggest you take a look at it. Gebagebo (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I wrote about Gebagebo on this noticeboard because of two successive insincere answers from Gebagebo on Talk:El Afweyn. [21][22] Gebagebo was dishonest in his dialogue with me at Talk:El Afweyn, even though he could afford to contribute elsewhere on Wikipedia. The time between Gebagebo's second response and my posting on this noticeboard is two hours.

I have only interacted with Heesxiisolehh within Wikipedia, and that relationship is available for anyone to see. I don't know why Gebagebo thought that there was a special relationship between me and Heesxiisolehh. Gebagebo seems to think that they and Heesxiisolehh are opposites, but from my point of view, both attitudes are very similar. It's just that the subject who want to argue for is different.

I thought that by talking to Gebagebo, he would realize the true appeal of Wikipedia, but as it turns out, Gebagebo is only interested in describing the wonders of Somaliland on Wikipedia, and for him Wikipedia's rules and sources are just a means to that end. I think everyone can see that from his short description above.--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gebagebo: I accepted your suggestion in Talk:El Afweyn. Next time, I hope you will be in good faith even if we don't use the Administrators' noticeboard.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting how Heesxiisolehh mentions this ANI and uses it as rationale for removing a user's post warning about his original research from his talk page ([23], keep in mind this was almost 12 hours before he was pinged by Freetrashbox, not to mention the very similar opinion). There is also no evidence of communication between the two on any talk page regarding this.

This seems to make it more clear to me that this is a retaliatory filing, and might suggest some form of meatpuppery going on. Gebagebo (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I have given notice that I will remove the description by Heesxiisolehh. Why is it that Gebagebo interprets that as me deleting Heesxiisolehh's opponents' opinions?--Freetrashbox (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The description I posted in El Afweyn is statements of the role Puntland and Somaliland played in El Afweyn. I tried to be impartial, but the result is a description that shows that Somaliland put a lot of effort into the administration of this town, while Puntland was just a nuisance for sending militia troops. In contrast, Gebagebo says that the expression "Puntland influence" is "implying that Puntland has influence and some sort of control of the town (which it does not claim), which is POV pushing". In other words, Gebagebo considers any representation of Puntland's activities in the region, no matter what the content, to be distasteful. Honestly, I am annoyed that Gebagebo called this statement a violation of POV. Nevertheless, I have continued to discuss whether the description could be changed to something Gebagebo would find acceptable, in order to make the post more fair. I agreed to change the headline of the article from "Puntland influence" to "Security". I also moved the description from El Afweyn to El Afweyn District, accepting Gebagebo's assertion that the Puntland Constitution is about the District and not the Town. However, as the dialogue progressed, I noticed that Gebagebo did not concede his opinion at all until the other party was bored with the discussion. I think this is a enough reason to report it to the Administrators' noticeboard. (To add to that, it is also very disconcerting that Gebagebo suggests I am Heesxiisolehh's meatpuppet without any evidence. I think Gebagebo is familiar with Wikipedia discussions and knows that the community does not like private connections between POV users.)--Freetrashbox (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of deleting anything on Heesxiisolehh's page. I merely pointed out the fact that this ANI was used as a reason in the edit summary of an edit by him where he deletes a user's warning about original research (this despite the fact that there is no evidence of communication between the both of you regarding this ANI on any talk page). That, along with other things I pointed out points to this being a retaliatory filing with no purpose but to derail my attempts at ridding Somali-related Wikipedia articles of original research. Gebagebo (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been active on English Wikipedia for a short time, but I've been editing Japanese Wikipedia, my home wiki, for more than 10 years. Why would I need to defend a beginner who is suspected of having original research tendencies? On the other hand, my editing in El Afweyn was more about the achievements of the Somaliland government. Nonetheless, you say that my description is a POV-violating description that tries to make the Puntland government look great. From your description above, you are not remorseful about this at all. --Freetrashbox (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Did my explanation above clear up your "linked to the same topic area" doubt?--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem with Gebagebo's editing is that he seeks to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to conventionalize the mission statements of Hargeisa-Somaliland, by reorienting Horn African history to become amicable to its constitution, and thereby impulsively opposes disparities or dissimilarities within northern Somalia, and seeks to use Wikipedia's pages to promote a homogenous view in line with Hargeisa-Somaliland. As such, he is on a campaign to use Wikipedia's voice to make any of the state declarations of Hargeisa's government appear historically ubiquitous, such as its claim to being a unitary republic, thereby deleting any cultural or historic currents that interfere with Hargeisa's self-proclaimed status as a centralized all-encompaasing government.

• Geopolitical examples of POV & Original research include stating that Sayid advocates for Somaliland borders in 1910s, whilst sources state Somalis only became aware of Somaliland borders in 1950s (see link). Stating that British Somaliland Protectorate existed in the 1850s, whilst sources state the British protectorate arrived in 1884. stating that the Dervish base was pan-Horn African with uniform "support from across the Horn of Africa" although scholars state otherwise, that its forces were "mostly Dhulbahante". Agains, Dervish scholar Said Samatar (1982) singles out Dhulbahante tribe as central to the Dervishes: make a few observations about the Dulbahante, for it was this clan who formed the core of the Sayyid's following and whose strengths and weaknesses Dervishism as a movement could be said to have reflected. Yet in violation of WP:DUE, in this edit, Gebagebo replaces all Dhulbahante-related in-line text and images with core Somaliland tribes (Isaaq) and individuals, even though scholars state that "Most Isaaq, however, sided with the British against the Dervishes.". In other words, Gebageno is inverting what sources say about Dervish demographics. Stating that Dervish was limited to Somaliland, even though the largest battles like Gumburu and Daratole geolocate to Soomaali Galbeed in Ethiopia, whilst the Dervish intermediary capital Illig, lies in Puntland. In this edit states coastal withdrawal happened in 1913, whilst sources state happened in 1910 "withdrawal be carried out on 15 March 1910"

In this edit states Dervish "operated from local centers such as Aynabo" from 1900 to 1913, although sources state their westermost boundary was Badwein & Tifafleh, both roughly 50 km to the east of Aynabo:

westernmost boundary Badwein & Tifafleh
Borders in 1909: Taariikhdii Daraawiishta, 1976, "if you want peace as I do, remove your party from Bohotle and also remove the horses from Badwein and the Ain Valley, and call back your spies from Jidbali " Borders in 1905: Taariikhdii, 1976, "and from Hudin to Tifafleh" Eastern border in 1915 in Badwein Douglas Jardine sea-coast "through Eil Dur Elan to Badwein at the eastern extremity"

Here Gebagebo removes mentions of Nugal, in another attempt to make Dervishes seem either ubiquitous or homogenized with core Somaliland, although sources consistently mention a Dervish emphasis on Nugal as a territory:

emphasis on Nugaal

Source: WS Clarke - 1992, "Abdullah signed with the Italians ... an agreement of peace and protection which made the "Mad Mullah" the legitimate ruler of the territory of Nogal." Source: Empires at War: 1911-1923, Robert Gerwarth, 2014, p. 47, "Hassan, was given the Nogal valley to rule as he pleased" Note Nugaal called a "country" and Dervishes "rejoiced" for it: LIDWIEN KAPTEIJNS, 1996, p. 1 - 8 [https://org.uib.no/smi/sa/06/6Kapteijns.pdf "Sayyid used this new international recognition to realize some of his state building ambitions ... you say that you will go away from the country, that is, from the Nugaal and Buuhoodleh and their environs. At this we rejoiced greatly" Note Dervish negotiations leading to a Nugaal-based state: Salwe, 1996, p 33, "After heated negotiations an agreement was reached on 5 March 1905 ... The Ilig Treaty recognised Sayid Mahamed as leader of a mini state in the Nugaal Valley" Note how Jaamac Cumar (the foremost native Dervish scholar with 120 peer reviews) singles out emphasising Dervish attachment to Nugaal with strong words of "most desired" and "indispensable" and note usage of "dalka / dalkii" meaning country: Daraawiishi xagga dalka iyo xagga degmadaba Nugaal baa sal u ahayd arladana waa ugu jeclaayeen ... Daraawiishi Nugaal kama maaranto oo waa dhulkay asalka u lahayd waa dalkii loo gartay inay iyagu ka taliyaan For the Dervish, their country and habitation had Nugaal as headquarters, as the land they desired most ... Dervishes viewed Nugaal as indispensable, as their original land, and the country that was known as ruled by them Source: 2005, Jaamc Cumar Ciise, p 259, p. 128, Taariikhdii daraawiishta iyo Sayid Maxamed Cabdulle Xasan Jaamac Cumar states similar in the 1974 book: Weligoodna Daraawiishtu waxay haanka ku hayeen in dhulka loo yaqaan Nugaal iyo dhulka ciidda cas midna inaanay gacantooda ka bixin Since its beginnings, the ultimate objective of Dervish had always been that Nugaal and the reddish soil of 'Iid should forever remain in their firm grip Source: Diiwaanka gabayadii, 1856-1921 - Page 152, Jaamac Cumar Ciise

Gebagebo calls the city of Buuhoodle historically anti-Dervish as "clans of Bohotle being allies of the British", although scholars state "Buuhoodle were among the first and most persistent supporters of the Dervish cause" (source: Borders & Borderlands, Dereje Feyissa, ‎Markus V. Hoehne, 2010), whilst Buuhoodle's constituent tribe (Ali Geri) are likewise described as historiclly the most ardent Dervishes: ("bulk from the Ali Geri").

• Demographic examples of POV / Original research include stating that Deria Gure is of the Habr Je'lo tribe whilst sources state the opposite; that he's of the Dolbahanta tribe. He repeates the misrepresentation of Deria Gure's tribe here without a source. Here he rearranges the infobox to give the appearance Dervishes was an Isaaq-led movement, with 4 Isaaq/core-Somaliland figures displayed, although scholars state "Most Isaaq, however, sided with the British against the Dervishes." Here he proceeds to unilaterally claim Dervish scholar Jama Omar Issa as unreliable, even though he has 120 peer reviews on google scholar, most of which call him an expert on the topic. On this basis Gebagebo/Dabaqbad goes on a mass deletion campaign of Jaamac Cumar Ciise sources as recently as the 4th of March (yesterday). In this edit he violates WP:DUE by dedicating 50 percent of the Dervish paragraph and here 100% of a paragraph to a guy called "sultan Nur", although the most recent major Dervish work, a 248 page book by Roy Irons regards Nur as so insignificant, only 1 sentence mentions him.

In this edit he states that the Dervishes were demographically symmetrical, although scholars state Dervish had demographic majorities:

Actual figures of Dervish demographics

EAR, Omar Mahmood, p. 15, "The Dhulbahante were dominant in both the Dervish movement and under the Barre regime" Source Robert Hess, 1964, p 48, "with the establishment of the Nogal protectorate ... the Dervish followers of Muhammad Abdullah Hassan were for the most part from the Dolbahanta" Roy Irons. 2013, p. 30 "The defiant Sayyid, who from his base among the powerful Dolbahanta clan" Samatar, Said (1982). "Oral Poetry and Somali Nationalism" make a few observations about the Dulbahante, for it was this clan who formed the core of the Sayyid's following and whose strengths and weaknesses Dervishism as a movement could be said to have reflected. This pattern of communizing extends to individuals too, Sudi (a core Somaliland-tribe member) mentioned 4 times whilst Ismail Mire "the most important general of the dervish forces" is removed by Gebagebo from the Dervish page entirely.

Rewrites history with the WP:OR that two core Somaliland tribes (Isaaq Habar-Yunis) "started the Dervish uprising" (link) and (isaaq Habar-Jeclo) "the first to join the Dervish", or "first arose" in an Isaaq city of Burao, although sources are unanimous that the Dervish movement/uprising began with the Ali Gheri clan:

Sources stating Dervishes began with Ali Gheri clan

Genis, Gerhard (1996). Mohammed Abdulle Hassan en sy volgelinge (PDF). Scientia Militaria - South African Journal of Military Studies. p. 81. Die Mullah se eerste volgelinge was die Ali Gheri, sy moedersmense. Laasgenoemde was dee I van die Dolbahanta-stam en die grootste getal van die Derwisj-beweging se volgelinge was uit die stam afkomstig. (english translation) The Mullah's first followers were the Ali Gheri, his mother's kin. The latter is a subtribe of the Dolbahanta tribe and is where largest proportion of the Darwish followers were descended from. Abdi, Abdulqadir (1993). Divine Madness. Zed Books. p. 101. to the Dervish cause, such as the Ali Gheri, the Mullah's maternal kinsmen and his first converts. In fact, Swayne had instructions to fine the Ali Gheri 1000 camels for possible use in the upcoming campaign Bartram, R (1903). The annihilation of Colonel Plunkett's force. The Marion Star. By his marriage he extended his influence from Abyssinia, on the west, to the borders of Italian Somaliland, on the east. The Ali Gheri were his first followers. *Hamilton, Angus (1911). Field Force. Hutchinson & Co. p. 50. it appeared for the nonce as if he were content with the homage paid to his learnings and devotional sincerity by the Ogaden and Dolbahanta tribes. The Ali Gheri were his first followers *Leys, Thomson (1903). The British Sphere. Auckland Star. p. 5. Ali Gheri were his first followers, while these were presently joined by two sections of the Ogaden

So his edits are basically inverting Dervish history, making the historically pro-Dervish tribes seem anti-Dervish, whilst making historically anti-Dervish tribes seem pro-Dervish. I'm guessing he's motivated to do this to dilute any northern Somali dissimilarities in an effort to promote homogenous nativism per Hargeisa-Somaliland's claim to a unitary republic. In conclusion, Dabaqabad/Gebagebo's approach to sourcing are not intended to be "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" as required by WP:DUE, but rather Gebagebo has a predetermined script that wherein he wants sources to state that Hargeisa-Somaliland are the sole powerbrokers in the HoA. Gebagebo does this by rewriting history to suggest the northern HoA has a homogenous historic background where only Hargeisa-Somaliland and its core tribes have ever held influence, and by concocting this unipolar pre-determined script, he seeks to use Wikipedia's pages to promote Hargeisa-Somaliland to the world. As such, his edits depict a Somaliland zealotry for a unitary republic, whilst simultaneously looking for sources that confirm this, whilst obfuscating and detesting references/texts that do not befit this imagery. Another editor has previously pointed out that Dabaqabad/Gebagebo's edits are influenced by "puffing up the Isaaq clan numbers and misrepresenting their proportion in relation to other clans". Heesxiisolehh (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've spent some time looking at the edits above but am finding it very difficult to disentangle behavioural from content issues. Behavioural issues (such as edit-warring and refusal to accept consensus) belong here, but content issues belong on article talk pages. Could anyone raising a behavioural complaint please summarise it in two or three sentences? Otherwise its very difficult for many of us, who, I'm afraid, have little knowledge of this region, to address. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've been somewhat involved in this since the last ANI report, commenting there, at Talk:Dervish movement (Somali)#Removal of original research, and directly with Heesxiisolehh. The only behavioral issues that I've seen are with Heesxiisolehh, who continues to cite outdated sources and primary sources (usually letters) quoted in secondary sources as if they're the opinion of the book/paper author. He just did it above, again, after numerous warnings. (It also appears that he is canvassing to this ANI.) Meanwhile, I've been able to verify every source that Gebagebo has provided—they're the opinion of the scholar, involve no synthesis, etc. Sure, it's entirely possible that Gebagebo is cherry-picking the few scholarly sources that agree with him, or that Heesxiisolehh is correct about the weight of scholarly sources while he cites the worst possible sources available—but I doubt it. I have no opinion on the dispute between Gebagebo and Freetrashbox, except that Freetrashbox has made plenty of assertions about Gebagebo's editing but hasn't included Diffs, which makes it difficult to see if there are actual issues. Woodroar (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Woodroar: Gebagebo reverted some of my edits in the El Afweyn due to POV violations.(my edit, Gebagebo's edit) The context makes it clear that this is not a POV violation intended to make Puntland look favorable. Gebagebo could not explain on Talk:El Afweyn what is the POV violation. Nevertheless, Gebagebo made no compromise and tried to terminate the discussion on the grounds of WP:NOCONSENSUS.([24][25]) Even though it is not a formal decision, Gebagebo=Dabaqabad has been proposed a topic ban by the administrator (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive295#Dabaqabad, [26]), his attitude has not improved in any way.--Freetrashbox (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think those diffs prove what you think they prove. Your edit added a great deal of content that appears to be poorly sourced. Granted, I'm no expert here, but I'm seeing primary sources (a regional government's constitution), unreliable sources (an activist NGO report), and irrelevant claims (someone dug a well). Honestly, I would have reverted as well. What you don't mention above is that Jacob300, a different editor entirely, partially reverted your edit, you restored it, and only then did Gebagebo revert. Gebagebo then started a discussion at the article's Talk page, which is exactly what they were told to do at Arbitration Enforcement. Your comment about his attitude has not improved in any way would make sense if Gebagebo hadn't started a discussion, but that's not the case. As for Gebagebo could not explain on Talk:El Afweyn what is the POV violation, their comments make perfect sense to me. You appear to be pushing a POV at the article, using poor and irrelevant sourcing (in the article) and arguing that sources should be used to support claims that they don't actually make (at the article's talk page).

  If you have better diffs, I'm certainly willing to look again. Until then, I really don't think there's anything actionable between Gebagebo and Freetrashbox beyond a trouting. It would be helpful if everyone involved could provide reliable, secondary sources when making claims—even on talk pages—and strictly confine those claims to what the sources actually say. I feel like this is a situation where the editors posses a great deal of first-hand knowledge and they may be using that knowledge to connect sources in ways that the sources do not. But we can't do that on Wikipedia. If there's a connection, a reliable, secondary source has to make it. If a primary document like a constitution is relevant, a reliable, secondary source has to say that it's relevant. And if a source doesn't say something, we can't use the absence of evidence to prove evidence of absence. Woodroar (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  I am not going to discuss the content of the article here, but it is clear that the Puntland Constitution, although a primary source, is a recently written document, and that refworld.org references, and that it is not a fake document. I don't see a problem with writing "this is what this document says" instead of what is written here as fact.--Freetrashbox (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is that you were using the primary source to set up the claim that the actions of Jama Ali Jama were unjust, per the article's talk page. The source doesn't say anything like this. Wikipedia articles should largely be based on reliable, secondary sources, and we need to let those secondary sources analyze primary sources and draw connections between them. We also need to fairly represent what reliable sources say and balance articles around them. That's the heart of our core content policies, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. So instead of summarizing what reliable sources say about El Afweyn, you were pushing your own POV by stringing together primary and unreliable sources to say something that none of the sources actually said. You need to understand that we can't do that on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  As you can see check my edit in the article ([27], already shown above), I did not write in relation to the Puntland Constitution and the Ali Jama Ali issue. It is simply written in chronological order and not even suggested. However, I explained on the Talk Page that I find it interesting that the president who decided on the constitution acted in relation to it. WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages. --Freetrashbox (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would add that your opinion that "the Puntland Constitution is a primary source" is a new issue that came out on this AN page. Your opinion is clear and if you had said it at Talk:El Afweyn I would have been able to respond. However, Gebagebo was not specific, saying only that I don't see how the non-inclusion of El Afweyn in Puntland's claim is relevant to the article. There is no way to reply when said that a reference clearly labeled "El Afweyn" has "nothing to do with El Afweyn."--Freetrashbox (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Heesxiisolehh: This is not the place to criticize you, but as I noted a bit above, your editing is also problematic. In particular, the alteration of the figure I described on February 22 on your talk page is very problematic. Furthermore, as User:GiantSnowman said, you and Gebagebo have already started discussing Dervishes issue elsewhere, so you should use that.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that is a lot to unload. I thought this discussion was over after me and @Freetrashbox: along with another editor reached a consensus regarding El Afweyn, where after I was convinced by said user I readded the part about the Puntland constitution to the article (making sure to use neutral language and giving it its due weight which isn't a lot). Now normally this discussion would have ended there, with both of us parting our ways (I literally left him to his own devices) but alas it has not. I have carefully followed the restrictions that have been set on me by the arbitration committee, making sure to follow each revert with a message at the article's talk page (even removals of signficant amounts of content added by an editor). What do you mean exactly by "his attitude has not improved in any way" then if I've exercised a lot more patience with you and Heesxiisolehh than should have been exercised to begin with?

My comment regarding Heesxiisolehh

It's starting to get clearer and clearer to me that this report was not filed in good faith, but rather to deliver some sort of "gotcha" moment, where Heesxiisolehh can vent out his frustrations after I put a lot of effort into removing his OR and synth on Dervish related topics, something @Woodroar: has been very helpful with. Another thing that makes it even clearer that this is nothing but an attempt at getting back at me is the fact that, as Woodroar mentioned, Heesxiisolehh attempted to canvass (at this point clearly votestacking) by contacting users I've had content disputes with months ago ([28], [29]). Not to mention Heesxiisolehh mentioning and using this ANI as rationale for removing Woodroar's post warning about his original research from his talk page. ([30]). Like I mentioned before, this report was filed just days after my report on Heesxiisolehh was concluded ([31]) and almost five hours after I informed the admin in charge of the case of his continuing addition of OR ([32]). Heesxiisolehh has been adding OR for several months now and I've exercised patience, giving him the benefit of the doubt and making sure to try discuss with him more than ten times! ([33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] just on top of my head, most likely more cases). Now since @GiantSnowman: is part of this discussion, it would be relevant to point out that Heesxiisolehh once again breached the agreement reached in the last ANI, adding original research that in some cases is completely irrelevant to the article at hand ([43], [44], [45], [46]). Like mentioned before, Heesxiisolehh is continuing to add OR and synth, and is probably using this report as a distraction. An article of his has also been deleted ([47]) due to OR.

Anyways, to get back on-topic, the issue that caused this report (and tbh I don't think this report was warranted due to this being a mere content dispute) has been solved, and thus this report should be closed with further action being taken against Heesxiisolehh for not only continuing to add OR but also canvassing/votestacking twice as shown earlier by both Woodroar and me. Gebagebo (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gebagebo: Your problems with Talk:El Afweyn have already been mentioned above and I have nothing to add. Your problem is well shown in this AN Page. I did not make this notice to help Heesxiisolehh. Heesxiisolehh may be trying to take advantage of this situation, but that is irrelevant to me. (In fact, Heesxiisolehh's message is rather helping you.) Even if you felt that way, it would be sufficient to simply write, "I think this is retaliation against Heesxiisolehh." However, you are trying to steer the discussion so that the relationship between me and Heesxiisolehh is obvious and replace your problem with Heesxiisolehh's problem. Your message "might suggest some form of meatpuppery going on" is also completely unnecessary for a calm discussion.--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Appeal against Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Emir of Wikipedia's disruptive behaviour

I would like to appeal against Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Emir of Wikipedia's disruptive behaviour. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Just to let you know, you now have a nice clean table for you to lay out your appeal  :) SN54129 16:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for hatting. :) --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like to start off by saying that I totally admit my actions/comments/edits were not up to normal standard and that I should have tried to work on this situation before it ended up getting to here. My actions need to be considered in the full context as reactions too. Firstly it seems a bit of a WP:supervote to classify my behaviour as simply disruptive editing when there was disagreement in the the original case, some think it seems to be behavioural towards another editor and some think it is a content dispute with another editor. If it is either of those then I think a way for the editors to work together should be put in place instead of a blanket ban on a single good-willed editor of the two. With regards to the first point (Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd) these are supported by the source. If another editor thinks the wording is misleading, biased, or unencyclopedic then they should politely offer alternatives. With regards to the second point I have challenged the sentence, which shows it is controversial. It is not for another editor to just discount my challenge and say it is not controversial. The third point shows me trying to engage with the editor on the talkpage. With regards to the sixth point this is clearly a difference of opinion between two editors. Another editor not liking them does not mean I am being disruptive. With regards to the first point (Amber Heard), WP:RSPRIMARY says "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." and WP:SELFSOURCE says to be careful with self-published sources when they are self-serving or exceptional.. The editor admits to this bit leading to constructive moments and then improves the article after realising what I had pointed out. Just because something is sourced it does not mean it is due in the lead. With regards to the third point that is what the source says as per the quote. I admit that the actual information may have ended up being outdated with the information we have now. That is what was available at the time it is not me (whether that be a he or she) misrepresenting what the source says, information can change over time. As can be seen on both article talkpages I have tried to work with the other editor on this. Already pointed out in the original discussion but OK Magazine had not been to RS/N at the time this was brought against me. I can not remember using my edit count to "jerk around" another the editor, especially considering their accounts seems to have been created years before mine. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• You say at the beginning you acknowledge that your "actions/comments/edits were not up to normal standard", but then don't mention that again; the rest of the appeal is based, if I understand correctly, primarily on the idea that the original page blocks were incorrect because you were right on the underlying content issue. Even though 4 admins independently saw your behavior as problematic, and 3 admins explicitly endorsed the page blocks? That approach seems unlikely to result in a successful appeal. I can't speak for the other admins who commented originally, but my own concerns were about you repeatedly reverting without explanation or discussion, and playing WP:SOUP games on the article talk page to stonewall the discussion. Particularly irksome was seeing you revert with the rationale "my version is better", when your version was not in comprehensible English. It's possible that if I had had more time during the original discussion I would have suggested a stern warning to knock it off rather than partial blocks, but the blocks were certainly reasonable, and now that they've been made, I'd want to see those behavioral issues addressed before I would support an appeal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not based on the idea that I am correct or incorrect on the "underlying content issue". If there is a content WP:CONTENTDISPUTE there are other avenues to go rather that claiming an editor has allegedly used the edit count to bully an editor who has an account older than them and to say that is "disruptive editing". As shown on the talkpages I have tried to work with editor and I am sorry for not raising this at one of those venues when it seemed to reach a brickwall against each other. xTools shows me as the the editor who has made the most contributions to article 1 and article 2. I am not sure in what world having done around a fifth and a third of the articles respectively and being the biggest contributor after the other editor is disruptive. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment: While Emir does show up on that list as #2, it’s because few editors have shown interest in the article. I have not seen Emir add anything substantial to the article.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to be polite, but respectfully you are not the sole arbiter who determines if I have added anything substantial or not. If other editors have thanked me for my edits it shows that they must have though there was some good in them. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 7 days. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC) --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion re fora

Hat process wonkery per WP:NOTBURO (non-admin closure) SN54129 16:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's a block, partial but still a block. Standard practice is to make an WP:UNBLOCK request on your talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 21:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I was blocked because of discussion here. Do I have to use template on my talkpage? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Per Jayron32, and in answer to the OP's question: No, he doesn't have to use the unblock template. (non-admin closure) SN54129 13:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Yes, blocks - even partial blocks as a result of ANI discussion - would still be a request on the user talk page first. It may be possible that the reviewing admin may bring it here for further consensus or not. Singularity42 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC) To create a unblock request: copy and paste this: {{unblock|reason=your reason here}} ~~~~ Remove the "your reason here" with your own reason to be unblocked. If it is not adaquately explained, it may be declined, even if it is a partial block request. Severestorm28 21:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC) That just says it is the preferred way. Will nobody it accept it if I do it here? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC) If you do it on your talk page through the template it will be added to the Open Unblock Requests lists that many admins will monitor. It will not get lost as it can do here. Canterbury Tail talk 21:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict) In addition to Canterbury Tail, it will probably not, due to the fact that this is a noticeboard, not a page for appealing blocks. Severestorm28 21:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Would there be another page I could appeal my block other than my talkpage? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Is there a particular reason that you're reluctant to use your talk page? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Just that I have not been keeping it tidy and would prefer to sort it before I go adding more to it. It is the like the Wikipedia version of an overflowing email inbox. I did not imagine I would be the first person in the history of this project to have preferred to use somewhere else. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC) (shrugs) User talk pages are where blocks are appealed. I don't think many admins care all that much how "tidy" the page is, or that its tidiness (or lack thereof) has any material effect on your request. In any event, I've certainly seen many talk pages far less tidy than yours. Ravenswing 21:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict) There is no other place to appeal your partial block, there is a block notice, and you can appeal it below the block notice. This is how other blocked or partially blocked users do. Severestorm28 21:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I did not mean for the admins, but for myself. I am not under any false delusion that how tidy my page is will affect my request. Totally understand that not wanting to do it my talk page will be interpreted by some as selfish or self-centred, but at least I have asked first. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Asking once is neither selfish nor self-centered. Repeated "But will no one take my request anywhere elses?" is less than helpful. Ravenswing 22:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I was asking a question. Someone responded with something I was already of, i.e. the standard way. What I was asking was if there was anything else, i.e. another way. I hold my hands and apologise that I did not explain clearly in my initial request. On a somewhat related note can you request a WP:SELFBLOCK anywhere other than your talkpage? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Comment: just would like to point out that even before Emir has applied for the block to be lifted, he has left a message on the Talk page at Amber Heard (the article which he is currently blocked from editing), and another on the article on Johnny Depp, asking people to contribute to Depp v Newsgroup Newspapers (the other article he is blocked from editing).TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I am blocked from the articles (at the moment), not the talkpages. Nice WP:WIKIHOUNDING though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Is there a page besides EoW's talk page where I can decline his unblock request? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Unfortunately, no. Severestorm28 00:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I disagree. If a sanction is a COMMUNITY sanction, no single admin has the authority to oveturn it anywhere. It requires a community discussion. I'm quite lost as to how this discussion is going. Doesn't matter if the community sanction is a block, a ban, whatever, it has be appealed to the same authority (or higher) that imposed it. An admin declining or granting an unblock is against policy, the community outranks them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) It doesn't appear to be a community sanction. To a report, Floquenbeam said it was behavioral, not a content dispute, Mjroots said how about a WP:PBLOCK, and El C said done. Then Jayron32 endorsed. Just a run-of-the-mill admin block, no? Schazjmd (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Not really run of of the mill, which wouldn't solicit other input (most of our blocks are completely solo), but it really isn't community either. Not that I thought it had a snowball's chance, but the way it was presented led to mistakenly believe there was more community input. Struck. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Just to note since this was hinted above, but not directly stated, any appeal even an appeal to the community and no matter where you do it generally needs to give reasons or an explanation. With very few exceptions, failure to do so is likely to lead to failure of the appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC) @Emir of Wikipedia: Adding onto what Nil Einne said above, if you'd like an unblock request to be given serious consideration by an administrator (or the community, assuming broader input is needed), you need to make a point of addressing exactly why you were blocked in the first place, ideally by demonstrating that you understand how your past actions were problematic, and committing yourself to avoiding repetition of the same conduct in the future. Some other things that are generally taken into consideration when an administrator reviews an unblock request include the amount of time that has elapsed since the block was placed, along with your activity in other areas of Wikipedia within that same interval, and your overall editing history. This block was implemented only a few weeks ago, and the main reason for its existence is because your editing of those two articles was tendentious in nature—unencyclopedic wording, misrepresentation of sources (intentional or otherwise), edit warring, and casting aspersions against those with whom you are in a content dispute (e.g. accusations of "censorship" or "trolling"), just to name a few things. Even if this unblock request was made using the proper channels, it is highly unlikely for the block to be lifted by any administrator at this time, as it was in the very recent past and covered a pattern of contributions going back several months. My advice is to continue on as you've been doing, editing other articles for the time being, and then after at least six months or so, you can post an unblock template on your talk page where you make a case for why you should be allowed to resume editing those two articles—or at the very least, why keeping you blocked from editing them is no longer necessary. Kurtis (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The discussion of venue above is entirely incorrect. Everyone commenting is unequivocally wrong that one must use the unblock template to request the removal of a page block/partial block. There are no such requirements, and never have been. Literally, the page WP:PBLOCK states "If editors believe a block has been improperly issued that affects them, they can request a review of that block by following the instructions at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." It does give them the option of using the unblock template, but the first bit of guidance it tells them to go to AN. Since Emir of Wikipedia can request the review here, he's quite allowed to do so. There is not now, nor has there every been, any rule that says that he has to go through the unblock template. They just invented that. That being said, Emir of Wikipedia has not yet given a rationale for removing the partial block, as Nil Einne notes. Emir: Why do you think the block should be removed? --Jayron32 13:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I agree entirely with Jayron32, both on the procedural question and the merits. A cardinal rule for requesting an unblock is that you have give some kind of rationale--the block was improper, I'm sorry and I've learned my lesson, the cabal (TINC) is out to get me. Mackensen (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I'd like to see a rationale as mentioned by by other editors here. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC) To the extent that I was one of the editors who said it should be a talk page template, I agree that was incorrect. I missed the part in WP:UNBLOCK#Routes to unblock that referred to partial blocks. (I would suggest that that be made clearer in the policy page, but that's a different discussion.) Accept full mea culpa on my part. Singularity42 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC) It's all good, we all make mistakes. Honestly, it helps one to avoid making such mistakes if WP:NOTBURO becomes a guiding principle. Following processes and procedures for their own sake, when there's a perfectly good way to do it otherwise, isn't helpful to anyone. --Jayron32 16:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC) By the way, should we start a new sub-section (or give this its own sub-section) so that Emir of Wikipedia can give reasons for the pblock appeal? :) Singularity42 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)  Done SN54129 16:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

DWC LR monarchism civil push-pov

DWC LR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is moving Bertrand of Orléans-Braganza against sources, since the guy is not a prince, as you can see in pt-wp: pt:Bertrand de Orléans e Bragança. Monarchists are allways trying to push the "prince", but our brave Awikimate stops them in pt-wp. The en-wp page was stable since 2020, but was moved by a sockpuppet and was corrected recently. Now DWC LR start moves with nonsense summaries:

1. unexplained & undiscussed move

2. Revert undiscussed POV move

3. This is controversial, if you think this should be moved please initiate a Wikipedia:Requested moves and present supporting evidence. Thanks.

After the discussion starts, the civil-push-pov without RS is presented in plain form: [48]. DWC LC states in his user page that he is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, then we can suppose that he knows the sources about the subject, but he not presents them. Please, stop this disruptive behaviour because trying to engage in discussion with this type of user is very tiresome and not productive. Thanks! Ixocactus (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you mean Monarchism (or possibly Monorchism, though I don't have a source for that...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks AndyTheGrump for correction of my bad english. I changed it. Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

... the Monarchists! --JBL (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

(No one born in 1941 is a Brazilian prince, for obvious reasons.) --JBL (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Explain this page, then: Prince of Brazil (Brazil) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, the lead section correctly identifies "Prince of Brazil" as a title that existed (please note the past tense) during the Empire of Brazil. Then (as is common for our articles about royal titles) ridiculous monarchists have larded the body with an uncited list of people who definitely were not princes or princesses of the Empire of Brazil, since they were born after the Empire of Brazil had ceased to exist. Does that help? --JBL (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Bloody monarchists! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Like, the article about "an imperial title" has a list labeled "post-monarchy" -- that doesn't raise any red flags for you? --JBL (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes—I was calling it out for having misinformation. Hard to convey sarcasm in text. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for missing the point! I've gone ahead and removed the uncited list of "post-monarchy" princes from that page. --JBL (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Articles which misrepresent living individuals as 'royalty' due to descent from a defunct monarchy are quite probably a WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are lots of these on WP since the media does like calling such people princes and princesses. As they are pretty much absent in other type of sources, and we have no policy regarding claimants (most of which are AfD material, IMHO) you get stuck with the royal claims.Anonimu (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should delete the bio's as fancruft... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: can you give us your wisdom to this question. A Hungarian living in Hungary born female then today said they were male. Legally in Hungary you can’t change gender. So Male or Female? Applying the same logic as you have for this “Prince”, female correct? - dwc lr (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes I bet this discussion will totally benefit from dragging in a totally unrelated, much more inflammatory topic :eyeroll:. What I can very confidently assure you is that if the person in question was born in 1920 or later, they are not a prince or princess of the Austro-Hungarian empire. —JBL (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Good politicians answer your obviously good law abiding citizen ;) but your statement is dangerous and could have far reaching unforeseen consequences on Wikipedia if we are guided by National laws only, as I have highlighted with my example. But really I have nothing else to add to this spurious noticeboard posting you’ll no doubt be pleased here. - dwc lr (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

He does have a point though: he is reverting a previous undiscussed page move and suggested an RM to resolve, so why not take that option? I don't see why this needs to be at ANI which shouldn't be used for a run-of-the-mill page name dispute. Spike 'em (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

And the page was not stable without Prince since 2020: it was moved there March 2020 but then moved back in May 2020, having previously had Prince in the title since 2006. Spike 'em (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest page move and created an RM on this. As above and below, the page has had "Prince" in the title for all but 2 months of its history. It was moved as Ixocactus states above in March 2020, but that was reverted 6 weeks later. The current move warring started a week ago with a move away from the previous stable name. Spike 'em (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this serious? @Ixocactus: if you think the page title should be moved open a WP:RM, present your Reliable Sources where a discussion and consensus can be reached rather than start a war, this article isn’t the country of Ukraine and there many reliable sources with an alternative views to yours which I assume are still allowed in Wikipedia. The article title has had “Prince” in it since 2005 when it was created. - dwc lr (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

“this article isn’t the country of Ukraine” Wow, that makes two grossly inappropriate analogies in the length of two short posts —- wtf? —JBL (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I am moving away from the discussion. Civil-push-pov/wikilawering is not my beach and english wiriting is very time consuming. Brazil expelled royalty in 1889 and no one takes monarchists seriously. Thanks to fellow wikipedians for the support. To monarchists, enjoy your "prince" because en-wp is your last bastion. Ixocactus (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You are just as guilty of POV pushing as the person you are accusing. You were also clearly wrong about the stability of the page name. What happens on pt-wp does not override what is decided here. Spike 'em (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"POV-pushing" is not really the problem here: there is (1) the move-war, in which both parties were equally culpable (and that had ended, but that you (Spike 'em) have now extended for no good reason) and (2) the substantive question of what is the right title (and Ixocactus is obviously correct about what the answer is, but now you (Spike 'em) have moved it back to the definitely wrong title). --JBL (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for kind words, Spike 'em. You are invited to rename pt:Bertrand de Orléans e Bragança and fr:Bertrand d'Orléans-Bragance. Ixocactus (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The page title was stable for most of its 16 year history, and the approved way to resolve any disputes over the name is the RM process, not move warring : Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. Ixocactus created this farago by making the second move to the princeless title, in contravention of these instructions. If they really are "obviously correct" then someone should state the reasons, including with how it fits into WP:AT at the RM created. (Though I have no idea what this has to do with gender politics in Hungary or the war in Ukraine, so if this is part of some other dispute then it is going over my head). Spike 'em (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what the guidelines are for article titles on other language wikis so I will not be getting involved in either of those. If you want to change article titles on en.wiki then you need to follow the guidelines here. I've started the process off, so make your representations on the move request. Spike 'em (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll this is not new behavior. DWL CR has been making grossly inappropriate comparisons to transgender recognition for years. He even uses the same offensive "example"... JoelleJay (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: ugh gross; "thanks" I guess :-/. Anyhow hopefully people will mosey on over to the RM that Spike 'em started at Talk:Bertrand of Orléans-Braganza. --JBL (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

While this discussion has been going on, the widespread monarchist POV-pushing has continued: see [49] and [50] for example. --JBL (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

this is harassment now. Completely unrelated to the request move, Luiz of Orleans-Braganza is not up for discussion, his brother is. It may be next but at present it’s not. I added sourced material summarising what *is actually* is the Ottoman article see the list of heirs since 1922 section… - dwc lr (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

DWC LR's repeated edgelord behavior, after warnings

DWL CR is continuing to equate recognizing defunct titles with recognizing transgender identity, and has made some highly uncivil assertions about support !voters at the RfC. Can an admin please address this? JoelleJay (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: I have added a section heading because I think this is a sufficiently separate issue to merit it. (Actually I was about to start a separate discussion but luckily I saw your comment first.) To collect the evidence for administrators in one place: in the discussion above, DWC LR made grossly inappropriate comparisons involving their obsessive hobby-horse and transgender identity and the war in Ukraine. As JoelleJay noted above, this uncivil, intentionally offensive behavior has occurred many times in the past (links repeated for convenience: [51] [52] [53] [54]), and it has also continued in the last few days [55] [56], including after explicit warnings above and here that it was offensive and unwelcome. I request an indefinite block to address this chronic nastiness, since it seems likely that DWC LR will ignore anything less. --JBL (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This comparison offends some peoples sensitives because it either exposes 1) hypocrisy or 2) bigotry of one type or another (class, trans etc) but it has profound and far reaching consequences for Wikipedia. On the one hand someone like JoelleJay says we can’t possibly say a member of a deposed royal family is a Prince or Princess because the *law* of the country says so, they are 100% not a Prince/Princess despite the fact they are called such by the majority of Reliable Sources. So following her logic through because the *law* says you can’t change gender then a female citizen of Hungary for example who said they were now male would still *legally* be female. So by JoelleJay’s logic on Wikipedia if we had an article on this person then they would have to be referred to as female still as that is the *legal* reality. But I completely oppose this bigoted logic of JoelleJay and anyone else who follows this logic. - dwc lr (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

i support the this proposal. If you don't understand how comparing someones rights to a title or how comparing an article to a country at war is uncivil then you shouldn't be here—blindlynx 17:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I have never attacked trans people or disparaged them so frankly I have nothing to answer for, if people dislike a comparison I can’t help it they should perhaps stay off the internet, away from newspapers and indoors if they are so easily offended. Anyway as I say below Wikipedia is not about you or me or our views, if you don’t understand that then I’m sorry but should you be here? Wikipedia is about policy, it’s about what Reliable Sources say, not the personal opinions of Wikipedia Editors on any number of topics. - dwc lr (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Given DWC LR's responses doubling down on the comparison here and at the RfC, I support an indef block for disruption and NOTHERE reasons. Although since he's never received an initial formal warning I suspect that will be the outcome. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s obvious I have not disparaged any groups of people, if you are so easily offended how is that my fault? At the end of the day on the issue at the RM it’s irrelevant what you think, or what I think. Wikipedia is about policy, about what is verifiable WP:Verifiability and presenting different points of view WP:Neutral point of view. So the fact the majority of sources still recognise titles for deposed royals is unbelievably easy to verify so this issue will never go away or be suppressed. Is this the true reason behind this spurious ban attempt, to shut down and suppress view points you disagree with. - dwc lr (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

User:DWC LR blocked for two weeks, for the totally inappropriate gender comparisons and the pretty blatant violations of WP:AGF in their most recent comments here. The princely behavior is likewise troubling but, for now, beyond the scope of this ANI post--or beyond my scope at this time. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this more of a strained attempt at a metaphor than an insult? I really don't think someone should be blocked for that. I'm not commenting about the AGF stuff, though. But I don't think someone should be punished just for the gender identity comments. Viewing them as equivalent is weird, but not inherently offensive. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 03:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

And now there is this rant, with further accusations of collusion, besides misrepresentation. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

If gender identity isn't comparable to other self-identifications then MOS:IDENTITY shouldn't have "gender identity" as a subheading. If our guidelines say gender identity is a sub-issue of self-identification rather than being in a class of its own then is that not a tangential issue that should be addressed by administrative action? Given that we've established making the comparison is an blockable offence perhaps the heading should be upgraded so we don't have a guideline saying something that goes against the party line. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

In keeping with this I've gone ahead and made the change myself. [57] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

“Against the party line” reassuring when trolling comes so well labeled! —JBL (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Logo size changes

• BouwMaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Markuss86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Andrzej95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Backlund74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 37.212.10.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The disruption has been going on for some time. All three editors have been changing logo sizes in many pages and in some instances they were undoing each other's edits. The number of same pages edited by all three editors is astonishing per Editor Interaction Analyser. I thought about opening an SPI, but I cannot start connecting the dots if it is the same person. Therefore, I decided to report them here and hope someone will take some action. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh they have to be the same person. Exact same interest and edit patterns in US basketball, British football, men's handball, volleyball, North American soccer AND Indian cricket teams? Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Six distinct highly specific shared interests is highly unlikely and a competent sockpuppet detective should get to work. Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Basically, in my opinion, it might be better to specify a fixed size for each logo so that such problems do not occur. Anyway, your attention to such issues is profitable in order to improve the quality of the article(s). Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You could probably added Backlund74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to that list as well. Yosemiter (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, there's definitely something going on here. It's quite likely by the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: He appears to be ignoring everyone. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

He's continuing his activities (37.212.10.63) signed out, now. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

And so it continues. Doesn't seem as though any administrator's interested in stopping it :( GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Stalking

I’m a longtime Wikipedian, a retired handyman in New Jersey. I’ve written hundreds of articles for 12+ years. I’ve never taken money for my contributions. I've uploaded 3000+ images and declared almost all of them to be public domain. I edit using my real name. I admit I made a few mistakes by editing articles for family members, but I’ve since learned, and have stopped editing those. But editor Melcous has been using my past mistakes as an excuse to stalk everything I do here, claiming that I have a conflict of interest on such subjects as RepresentUs (an anti-corruption organization) or Michele McNally (a deceased NY Times photo editor) or undoing my work on Raynard Kington (an educator) or Molly Secours (a filmmaker) or Boryana Straubel (a deceased tech executive) or Xyla Foxlin (a YouTuber) or restoring notability tags on the nonprofit The Oasis Center for Women and Girls. I have no connection with any of these subjects. Melcous didn’t edit these articles until after I edited them. It’s a consistent pattern of stalking behavior. Please cause Melcous to stop this harassment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm also a fairly long term wikipedian, and I'm happy for someone to look into my editing and let me know if I have crossed any lines. When I notice certain types of formatting/WP:MOS edits that an editor makes I have tended to check other articles recently contributed to see if they have the same issues that can be easily fixed, which I do not consider "stalking" but am open to being told otherwise. I would also note that my greater concern, and encouragement to Tomwsulcer, has been to properly respond to COI concerns raised and disclose them. There have been two threads at WP:COIN (here and here) where concerns have been raised about his edits. As noted by other editors including Wizzito and SVTCobra, both times he has chosen to disappear from editing from a period of time, and reappear after the threads have gone stale and been archived, so the issues have not been resolved. Thank you Melcous (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You've been stalking me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's stalking imho. I think that you should respond to these issues instead of crying 'stalking', 'it's all sourced' (articles can be sourced but still have tone/grammar issues, etc.), and stuff like that. wizzito | say hello! 05:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's nice that you think you need to be "humble" - but in actual fact you were right when you said "I think that you should respond to these issues instead of crying 'stalking'".

Mr. Ulcer needs a block more than help for some imaginary offence. I'm astonished he stuck his head up in this way, but I have confidence in the correct result of this self-destructive posting. Begoon 13:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a very straight forward case of WP:HOUND. @Tomwsulcer: We generally shy away from using the term "stalking" now in reference to editors following each other around onwiki. @Melcous: Don't do what you are doing. If you want to start a new COIN thread, by all means. However, it is very inappropriate to just unilaterally tag all of an editors contributions with COI. WP:HOUNDING is not okay in any situation, and you should instead try to open a dialogue with the respective editors. If that doesn't work, you can escalate to a noticeboard, but don't follow the editor around the project. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to follow this advice and will bow out from here if possible, but it would be good to at least be honest in what we are talking about. I have not "unilaterally tagged all of an editor's contributions with COI". There were exactly two articles here that I tagged for COI, one out of a discussion at WP:COIN after the editor had inserted promotional wording about the subject into multiple unrelated articles, and the other because it was the first article created after he returned to editing after failing to deal with the WP:COIN thread and I noted this on the talk page. I'm reluctant to start a new COIN thread when it seems that all an editor needs to do is "wait it out" and the issue gets ignored. Melcous (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Melcous: If you started another COIN thread, and Tom just waited it out, then that would be WP:GAMING which you could report here.
Semantics of what you tagged vs. copy-edited aside, these three diffs were all made within minutes of each other. If I was Tom, I'd be rightfully upset about that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

A straightforward case of WP:HOUND? Forgive me if I laugh. How much research did you do? Begoon 12:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, more than you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No one in this thread has said what happened wasn't a case of WP:FOLLOWING. The only disagreement was how justified Melcous was in doing so. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, MJL, WP:HOUNDING/WP:FOLLOWING (same thing) describes hounding as being "...with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor." So no, you are wrong - if Melcous is justified in their actions, then by definition it is not WP:HOUNDING. Boing! on Tour (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and I'll just add that "Nobody denied the accusation I made" is never a valid justification for an accusation. Boing! on Tour (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Boing! on Tour: Okay, in reverse order: (1) Melcous literally admitted to following Tom around: When I notice certain types of formatting/WP:MOS edits that an editor makes I have tended to check other articles recently contributed to see if they have the same issues that can be easily fixed, which I do not consider "stalking" but am open to being told otherwise. That's a straightforward definition of a pattern of behavoir which can be seen as hounding depending on the circumstance. However, instead of being like "Melcous literally admitted to following." (which would've required I get a diff or provide the exact quote for) I said "No one here has contested following has happened." because it would be absolutely ludicrous for anyone to say otherwise when Melcous literally admitted to following.
(2) It is amazing to me that I can say how the only disagreement here is whether Melcous was justified in following Tom around, and for you to tell me I'm wrong because if Melcous is justified in their actions, then by definition it is not WP:HOUNDING. Like, yeah.. I know. While I understand that you feel otherwise, I don't think Melcous was justified in this months-long quest to get Tom to answer for things he did eleven years ago - which is what the original COIN thread was about and the thing Melcous thought was important enough to bring up again in the second COIN thread (ignore my choice of diff; COIN was oversighted). Yeah, sorry, but no. We're almost five months out from the original COIN thread which was based off things which happened 8-11 years ago, and we're a month out since the second COIN thread. That Melcous used those events as the excuse to follow Tom around as recently as two days ago, is not only buck wild, it's borderline obsessive.
(3) Are you really just going to say hounding and following are the same thing? One is negative, and the other is neutral. The policy goes into detail about both. Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Make sense? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm obviously not saying that hounding and following (as used in English) are the same thing, I am saying that in Wikispeak WP:HOUNDING and WP:FOLLOWING are links to the same paragraph, which is Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. In this reply you are still using "following" (English) as justification for your accusation of WP:HOUNDING (Wikispeak). And yes, the policy does go into detail as to what is acceptable following and what is not, but that is an explanation of what is and what is not considered hounding. Did you also notice that Melcous got no help in those WP:COIN threads? Melcous did the right thing, but nobody cared, and Tomwsulcer was just allowed to sit it out and carry on his COI editing without hindrance. Is it any wonder Melcous felt alone and saw WP:COIN as a waste of time? That's my big gripe here, that Melcous followed the proper procedures, got absolutely nowhere with them, and then when she tried to address the problems she saw directly (because she was getting no help), she was accused of stalking (and then of WP:HOUNDING and WP:GRUDGE here at ANI where people are supposed to examine issues in a fair and balanced manner). The initial response here was from people piling in without properly examining the whole situtation, the background, and the wider picture. Sadly, that's what ANI is like these days - there are too many here who are ready to jump on any accusation they see without putting in the effort to investigate it properly. And that makes me angry. Thankfully, someone did care enough to investigate properly, and found that the concerns that led Melcous to follow and review Tomwsulcer's edits are well founded. And yes, Melcous was still following and correcting Tomwsulcer's COI violations days ago. That's because they were still happening days ago. It has been going on for years. Frankly, I'm disappointed by your responses and your lack of self-reflection here, MJL, instead just doubling down on your flawed accusations. But I've said enough, and I know I would get nowhere trying to challenge the poisonous atmosphere at ANI. Thank you, at least, for listening. Boing! on Tour (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Definitely a case of WP:GRUDGE. Melcous needs to agree to stop following Tomwsulcer around. ––FormalDude talk 05:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Definitely? In that case I'm sure you can back up that assertion with diffs? Begoon 12:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Begoon: Tomwsulcer provided seven in their initial comment. ––FormalDude talk 13:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Seven what? There's some external links in that post but I have no idea how that's supposed to be an answer to my question. Can you elaborate? Begoon 13:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Seven diffs. Diffs of Melcous making what appear to be rather superfluous revisions of Tomwsulcer's contributions. One alone might not mean much, but seven separate occasions is a pattern of harassment. ––FormalDude talk 15:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  But did you bother to check them to see if they really were superfluous, look beyond those specific diffs to the wider recent editing of those articles, or check to see if Tomwsulcer does actually have any undeclared connections with any of the subjects before jumping on the accusing bandwagon? No, you didn't, did you? Without making any actual effort to properly check, your "Definitely a case of WP:GRUDGE" comment is just a lazy throwaway accusation. Boing! on Tour (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I did check, thank you very much.

  Represent Us - Tagging a COI despite zero proof/evidence from a COIN thread.

  Xyla Foxlin Removing details from references for no reason.

  Amongst the rest, it is at the very least borderline hounding. ––FormalDude talk 16:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  So in your checking, you didn't find the clear COI violation at Molly Secours which Tomwsulcer has since admitted, and the indirect connection with The Oasis Center for Women and Girls? You didn't notice the excessive quoting and the puffery that Melcous was removing? No, your checking was not remotely sufficient for a "Definitely a case of WP:GRUDGE" conclusion. Boing! on Tour (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, and the removal at Xyla Foxlin was not for no reason - Melcous clearly gave a reason in the edit summary. You might not agree with it, but that's a content disagreement and not evidence of WP:GRUDGE. Boing! on Tour (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm striking my comment in light of the misconduct by Tomwsulcer below. ––FormalDude talk 09:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Tomwsulcer: Do you have any undeclared personal connection to Molly Secours? (I note you said, above, "I have no connection with any of these subjects", but I want to ask you specifically about this one just in case you had forgotten anything). Boing! on Tour (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I hired her to narrate my audiobook. I paid her. She didn't pay me for a Wikipedia article; I did it on my own on a volunteer basis. So there's no financial connection; there's no conflict of interest. But pretty much everything I write about, and every person I put into Wikipedia, I have some kind of connection with, if you'd like to get philosophical about it. I'm a New Jerseyan; so I'm predisposed to write about New Jersey subjects. I'm an American; I tend to write about Americans and American-type issues. I think everybody here is like me in that way -- we write about what we know. I've never accepted money for anything I do in Wikipedia. My policy is to try to get everybody who qualifies for a wiki-article into Wikipedia. If I met you Boing! on Tour, at a coffee shop, and within a few minutes, if we got to talking, I'd be wondering how I could get you into Wikipedia; if you'd qualify, you'd be there. It's just how I am.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not about being philosophical (which is the line you took last time, if I remember correctly), it's about direct personal connections with the subjects you write about. And COI is not just about financial connections, or about being paid. It's about any connection that might lean an author to writing favourably or unfavourably about a subject, rather than from a neutral point of view. You *do* have a direct personal connection with Molly Secours, and when you said "I have no connection with any of these subjects" that was not the truth. I see also that Molly Secours worked at The Oasis Center for Women and Girls, so can you see how there might appear to be an undisclosed connection there too? How your direct personal connection with Molly Secours might lean you towards writing favourably about that organisation? You want to try to get everybody you know who you think might warrant it an entry into Wikipedia, and that's just the way you are? That is *not* the way Wikipedia is - or, at least, doing it without declaring your connections is not the way Wikipedia is. When you have connections with people you write about (like the very blatant connection with Molly Secours), you *must* declare it. Boing! on Tour (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Well I have connections with pretty much everybody. And so do you, and so does everybody. We're all connected. For example, take Boryana Straubel. I read about her death in the NY Times. I felt sorry that she died in a bicycle accident. So I put her in Wikipedia. Are you saying that I should *declare* my 'connection' with this subject? It's a good article. Do you think I need to *declare* my 'relationship' with her, that I felt sorry that she died? If we make that a requirement, then I think everybody here in Wikipedia will spend half of their time declaring their associations, and they won't have any time left to build this great encyclopedia. Straubel belongs in Wikipedia. Or take Molly Secours; everything I wrote is referenced; she belongs here too. Is the article fair? Take a look. I simply said what the sources were saying. I agree about close family members; even though I write using my real name, I should have been more forthcoming that Frederick D. Sulcer was my late father. So I question the assumption that *any* connection that any of us has to anything here in Wikipedia invariably brings about bias or unfair coverage, and that simply is not the case. Why? Because of the requirements for notability and sourcing and the biography guidelines. We can't just say *anything* about anybody we want to. There are rules. I follow the rules. That's why very few, if any, of my hundreds and hundreds of articles I've written here ever been deleted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh come on Tom, don't be so disingenuous. No, if you had no personal connection with Boryana Straubel then of course you don't have to declare any interest. But you *do* have a direct personal connection with Molly Secours, and you dishonestly told us here in this very discussion that you did not. And it has got *nothing to do* with the quality of what you write or whether it is sourced - WP:COI does not have an "unless you write good stuff that's well referenced" clause. The Molly Secours article as you left it was packed with excessive quotes, laced with puffery, and read to me as though it was written to show her in as favourable a light as possible. Melcous improved it considerably with some warranted pruning, and ended up being accused of stalking as a result. You can disagree with WP:COI policy as it is written, but unless you can get it changed then you *must* follow it. Boing! on Tour (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to add... WP:COI is not about "Man, I'm at one with the universe, and I have a connection with everything..." waffle. No, it is quite specific, and you should read it. Its very first sentence says "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". Tom, you have a clear employer/client financial relationship with Molly Secours, and you dishonestly denied it. I can envisage someone suggesting sanctions against you (maybe some sort of BLP restriction) unless you can show you understand and accept that, and that you will adhere carefully to WP:COI policy in the future. Boing! on Tour (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell us now, without fear of contradiction, that you have never used your editing privileges to enhance your family members on wikipedia, or to post stuff that would make your friends look better? Begoon 13:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see my previous comment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Which previous comment?

Is there a reason you can't just answer my question? I didn't think it was hard.

I'm confused now. Begoon 14:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try to adhere to the WP:COI policy in the future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This almost doesn't need to be said since you already pledged to better adhere to WP:COI for the future, but having any financial relationship with someone (past or present) generally means you have a COI with them. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think my main issue with Molly Secours is why the opening sentence of "...is a Nashville-based filmmaker, author, and activist" requires six citations after it. Anyway, I haven't investigated the problems with Tomwsulcer, but I just want to mention to Melcous that edits like this that put {{cn}} tags into an article but are disguised by the edit summary "copyedit" are unhelpful. In this instance, I would recommend doing the tagging in a separate edit with a summary like "cannot find a source for this" or "the given source does not state the claim specifically, need another one" or something like that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That looks like genuinely good copy editing to me - and did you see the peacock drivel it removed? It might indeed be better to do the {{cn}} changes separately with a separate edit summary, but I think suggesting it was "disguised" is a poor choice of words as it implies deliberate obfuscation. Boing! on Tour (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and I did - it was just a suggestion. As for Tomwsulcer, I would suggest they have ownership issues and need to stop giving slippery and evasive answers to questions, or hoping difficult questions will just disappear as it will probably end up with a block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to comment here because I've already had one unpleasant encounter with Tomwsulcer but I think my experience may help illustrate the issues. On Raynard S. Kington, I removed a statement that was not supported by the source given. Tomwsulcer re-added it with additional sources but none that supported the specific claim. I started a discussion on the talk page but Tomwsulcer did not participate. Instead, he posted on the talk page of gay men, asking "Do gay men endure discrimination in Wikipedia?" which suggested that I, a gay woman, was removing his edits because I am homophobic. I asked an experienced user for advice and they posted a message to Tomwsulcer's talk page. It was removed unanswered. I assume that Tomwsulcer is trying, in his own way, to improve Wikipedia, but it is frustrating to work with someone who will not communicate and/or is passive aggressively attacking you. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That's quite troubling. Tomwsulcer, what was your intention with that edit on an unrelated talk page? Were you canvassing for help or genuinely accusing Polycarpa of being homophobic for removing an unsupported statement? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure @Tomwsulcer will be along to shed light on that shortly, but in case they missed it I've taken the liberty of adding a courtesy 'ping'. I do hope it's received - but I have faith because we're all connected to everyone, after all... Begoon 10:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

He has stated that he is no longer editing, so I doubt he will be here. This is not the first time he has cast aspersions on an editor for trying to uphold WP's notability guidelines. This didn't seem to get picked up before. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not the first time he's tried to duck repercussions by disappearing either, only to reappear when he thinks the heat might have died down. Just my opinion, but I really think it would be a very good idea, by now, to make that tactic less easy. Begoon 11:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of proposing a topic ban (probably on BLPs) for Tomwsulcer, but didn't know enough about the situation to suggest which sanction, if any, was appropriate. Do you think we should proceed with suggesting such a thing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd propose a site ban, personally, because I don't think the bad editing, refusal to respond to criticism, puerile dismissal of concerns and outright "I do what I want" attitude is likely to be solved by a limited "Tban". But I'll leave it to others because I'm loathe to commit the sort of time that would obviously be necessary, given the bizarre, shallow, knee-jerk 'defences' above, and also I'm no longer a "regular" so tend to consider such a proposal a bit outside my current remit. Wikipedia is very bad at removing bad actors like this. That's one of the reasons I don't participate much any more. Begoon 12:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Begoon speaks for me on this matter. SN54129 12:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Accusations of stalking or hounding cannot be a defense against misconduct if Wikipedia is to function, and dealing with another editors' mistakes and issues cannot be considered stalking. There's abundant evidence above and in his contributions Tomwsulcer "doesn't get" COI policies, willfully or deliberately, and if this thread is to be closed it should be with restrictions against him, not Melcous. Simply because this thread is just a repetition of existing patterns and Tom's editing has been problematic for years (his image contributions are promotional at best, copyright violations at worst), I would recommend a site ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal : Site ban

Okay, let's formally propose that Tomwsulcer is banned from Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban after six months, and if unsuccessful, every subsequent year thereafter. Comments, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Question I'm a bit confused here. I've had my run ins with Tomwsculcer and I'm sure we are both certain the other editor was a civil POV pusher. But Tom has a clean block log and while they were violating COI I can probably see how one might think, absent reading the policy, that they didn't have a COI etc. Is a site block really the least intrusive way we can protect Wikipedia in this case? Would it be better to issue a clear warning with a stated escalation plan? Springee (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was envisioning a restriction on BLP edits, perhaps with new articles submitted via AFC and a clear commitment to adhere to WP:COI policy (rather than just "I'll try"). But no, Tom is editing in good faith despite his chronic policy failures (and, yes, his original dishonesty in this discussion), and I think a site ban would be excessive at this point. Boing! on Tour (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Ban is not warranted in my opinion. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 06:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, not only for the issues pointed out above (including the "original dishonesty") and the disappearing to avoid sanctions tactic, but also because of the worrying discussion with Begoon above: Begoon asks then "Can you tell us now, without fear of contradiction, that you have never used your editing privileges to enhance your family members on wikipedia, or to post stuff that would make your friends look better?", to which they only can answer "Please see my previous comment" (which, as Begoon points out, doesn't seem to be an answer), and then "Fair enough. I'll try to adhere to the WP:COI policy in the future." which again doesn't answer the question, leaving me with the impression that they have used their editing to make friends and family look better here, but that they are not willing to admit it or to indicate where they did this. No thanks, we don't need people here who use these tactics and don't even want to make amends when it is (again and again) pointed out that such editing is not acceptable, but instead attack the ones trying to uphold our policies. Fram (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I am puzzled about this because I feel like the opening statement does address the question: I admit I made a few mistakes by editing articles for family members, but I’ve since learned, and have stopped editing those. --JBL (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  This was last month. This, admittedly is a little older, but, quite honestly, wtf? Begoon 13:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I get it, I'm just saying "didn't address the question" doesn't seem to be the problem. --JBL (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support, obviously, given my comments above. I don't believe that "Tom is editing in good faith", Boing, I'm sorry but I just don't. Good faith would be demonstrated by owning the issues, some sadly absent honesty, and showing some real understanding of why they were wrong, with a meaningful, credible commitment to avoid such issues going forwards. None of that is in evidence. An indefinite block, rather than site ban, might serve to enforce that, but limited "Tbans" really don't seem sufficient here. I'd also ask anyone closing this thread to note a couple of the comments above this "formal proposal" which seem to support it (and, of course, those which don't). Begoon 11:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, fair points there. I was thinking good faith in that I think he genuinely wants to write nice stuff about people, whether has has a COI or not. But as for good faith regarding Wikipedia standards, no, he has clearly been deliberately trying to circumvent them. I recall a similar problem with his approach to copyright at Commons, where he essentially argued that we should ignore copyright law because everybody else was doing so. Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Quite. I'm sure Tom's a lovely chap, the type who, if I lent him my lawnmower, would scrupulously clean and oil it before handing it back. We're not discussing that here though - we're considering whether he's a good fit for, or a continual detriment to wikipedia, and whether his bad editing, refusal to respond to criticism, puerile dismissal of concerns and outright "I do what I want" attitude is likely to be solved by a limited "Tban". I don't think it is, but if he turned up and said something that genuinely addressed those concerns in a credible and convincing way I'd rescind my support for a ban in a heartbeat. Begoon 14:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Tom has edited about family members and friends and this has been mentioned in a previous COIN report. These were around ten years ago and I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt that he misunderstood COI policy wrt the more recent articles where he had a COI. I believe a block can be avoided if he takes time to read and understand the relevant policies. I do have additional concerns about his conduct in defending these articles. I am recusing myself from an actual support or oppose !vote as it occurred to me that I myself had written an article on a family member some time ago... I have reported myself to COIN. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I also "believe a block can be avoided if he takes time to read and understand the relevant policies" - and commits properly to adhere to them in future. I just don't see any evidence of that time being taken, genuine understanding or any commitment. Begoon 11:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment/reply: As the initial subject of this report, I will also recuse myself from supporting or opposing. But I would note Catfish Jim and the soapdish that the editing of articles about his family members is not just "about ten years ago", but has continued on as recently as the last few months. See 1 and 2 for some fairly blatant examples. Thanks Melcous (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm, yes, looking at those examples (along with the others I've seen), I think the main problem is that Tomwsulcer's writing has been relentlessly hagiographic in style. It might not be a particularly bad human fault to want to pour gushing praise on others, but obviously completely inappropriate here. Boing! on Tour (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is true... it does significantly erode the case for giving him the benefit of doubt. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - This seems to be more a case of a user whose writing style isn't a good fit for Wikipedia, not someone who was intentionally violating COIN to promote a third party. Per their talk page, the user has already quit, and I don't see any benefit to a ban here. We've managed to drive them off from the Wiki already, no need to twist the knife. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- mind if I weigh in on this? I'm committed to exiting Wikipedia but my heart has gone out to all of you fine people, that I feel horrible that I've been wasting everybody's time on me and my stupid problems, so I'd like to briefly explain myself. My mistake has been, clearly, that I have not heeded the COI guidelines as rigorously as I should have. I admit it. My flawed thinking has gone along like this: that what's really important in Wikipedia are the three pillars: notability, reliable sources, verifiability. This is what I grew up on, and I really thought, honestly, that if contributions meet these three tests, they're okay. I should have been more forthcoming in my contributions. See, I was writing under my real name, I just didn't think about it after a while, and when I got called on it in the COI noticeboard, I didn't treat it seriously because I thought it was just users wanting to fingerwag me, and I wanted to keep contributing. But it's one of my many problems: I have ADHD (TWO shrinks in my town diagnosed me) so my mind is all over the place, I'm interested in everything, and one way I've learned to moderate my ADHD is by writing (I can cover it up that way -- I've edited my own writing here with several passes, how it's done...). So I'm actually a semi-competent writer with a few self-published books to my name. PLUS maybe I picked this up from my father, an advertising man, but I have this marketing sensibility of wanting to promote everything and everyone I see. I agree -- that's not the best writing sensibility for Wikipedia. I'm also tremendously interested in all sorts of ideas so I've contributed heavily to articles like History of citizenship because I listen to these Teaching Company courses (free from the local library) and want to write about this stuff! I also want to get everybody into Wikipedia if I can (again, not the best mindset, I agree) cause if you're talking to me at a coffee shop, or I read about you in a newspaper, within 5 minutes I can tell if you're wiki-bio ready, and I can write a wikibio in an hour. I can really whip them out. Most stuff, frankly, about people is positive, and I just write what the references say, and it usually comes out sounding positive or sometimes maybe like puffery. Again, one more of my problems. I was frustrated when I was being hounded after the COI revelations so I did write the John Mack Carter article -- again, no pay involved, I used to live near his family in Bronxville years back. So, long story short, my means are flawed, but my goals (I think) were good. I do love this project, I love information, I think Wikipedia is a great project and I urge you all to keep making it great! And the best way for me, at this point, is to bow out. So, again, apologies, please ban me for life (yes my wife would like that!) cause the Internet is a wide new world and there are plenty of other places for me to write. Peace.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the response, Tom. It's good that you seem to (belatedly) accept that wikipedia is not your blog. There are, indeed, better venues for that. It's a bit of a shame though, in my opinion, that you still seem to regard having that pointed out to you as "hounding". I hope that, if you ever do consider a return here, your understanding has evolved beyond that perplexing and inaccurate mindset. I also, sincerely, hope that you continue to get satisfaction and happiness from your writing on other platforms. Begoon 16:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Tomwsulcer: Much respect for that, Tom. I was always convinced you had the best motives here, and that it was your procedural approach that was problematic. In the light of what you say, I am further convinced that we do not need to apply any sanctions here. If you should wish to resume editing in the future, I would be open to offering what guidance I can. (I might not be active here when you do, as I continue to wind down my Wikipedia activity, but I intend to always keep my Wikipedia email contact active and I would invite you to use it). Boing! on Tour (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I said above that I'd rescind my support for a ban if I saw a response that convinces me Tom truly understands and will not continue to be a problem. I still, honestly, haven't quite seen that yet, but he says he will not continue to edit, and I'm honour-bound to accept that at face value, so I guess sanctions are no longer urgent right now. I'd probably prefer a definitive result from the thread, because "I retire for a while, so you don't need to sanction me" is getting pretty damn old, tired and sadly predictable as a response, but meh... Begoon 16:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Agree here that good faith has been exhausted in this scenario. Tom's entire editing history is littered with COI editing and utter refusal to understand copyright. Given the issues with the line between outing and determining COI topic bans simply aren't sufficient. We can't figure out every person Tom has a connection to, but we certainly can see from his track record it's not going to be encyclopedic. Frankly, Tom's post above makes me even more strident in my belief that we need a ban here. As long as people are willing to say "oh well they're quitting, there's no need for sanctions", there is no limit to how often editors will claim "ANI flu" to avoid discussions of their bad behavior, or trot out a medical diagnosis as explanation for why we shouldn't deal with their behavior. And frankly good faith should be exhausted as soon as those canards come out. We have plenty of editors with ADHD or autism who can edit constructively without problems. If they're really quitting, then them having a block shouldn't matter to them one bit, should it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't really disagree with any of that, either.

  I was trying to be "nice" above, but at some point we do need to consider whether that "niceness" is just being exploited or manipulated.

  And yes - "If they're really quitting, then them having a block shouldn't matter to them one bit, should it?" Begoon 17:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Please don't give the user a free pass merely because they say they're quitting! It's not that I doubt their sincerity, but surely we all know that editing Wikipedia is addictive (duh), and that most people who sincerely say they quit are likely to come back when the withdrawal bites. Bishonen | tålk 08:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC). PS: And it's depressing to see the unfounded attacks above against Melcous (not just from Tomwsulcer!), who has done nothing wrong and indeed done nothing but attempt to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. ANI at its worst. 😟 Bishonen | tålk 09:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC).

  "And it's depressing to see the unfounded attacks above against Melcous (not just from Tomwsulcer!), who has done nothing wrong and indeed done nothing but attempt to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. ANI at its worst. 😟"

  Amen. Boing put it best, above. Begoon 12:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support per my previous remarks. I found TWS's statement above moving and self-analytical, but unfortunately still ignoring the consequences of their actions rather than the causes of them. SN54129 13:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Atsme

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

---

Over the last month and a half there has been a dispute between Atsme (talk · contribs) and I centred around the articles Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Bull and terrier. It been discussed at length at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Merger proposal: Bull and terrier (which was first proposed in June 20221), Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Article’s neutrality, WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 85#Staffordshire Bull Terrier, WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Sources for the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Talk:Bull and terrier#Continuing from where we were on the fringe theories noticeboard. and WP:Good article reassessment/Staffordshire Bull Terrier/1.

Until very recently Atsme is someone I considered a friend on Wikipedia, we have exchanged pleasantries both on and off wiki, she nominated me for my ETOW award [58] and as recently as December she thanked me for my contributions here [59]. I have collaborated with her and, like many others, appreciate much of the work she has done and particularly the photographs she has brought to the project.

But as many who know Atsme's history can attest, she has an extraordinary ability to launch crusades, and in so doing she tries to discredit reliable sources, adopts outlandish positions, filibusters discussions and misinterprets policy. Previous discussions of this include:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#Vandal-like disruption, aspersions and PAs at WP:AVDUCK
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 103#Amendment request: American politics 2 (June 2018)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 112#Amendment request: American politics 2 (December 2019)

Similar examples in this dispute can be found at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Article's neutrality where she dismisses clearly stated statements in seventeen sources as anecdotal accounts whilst inappropriately linking policy WP:SHORTcuts [60][61], or WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 85#Staffordshire Bull Terrier where she dismisses many of the same sources as original research [62].

The thing I have found most disturbing throughout this ordeal has been her nastiness after I disagreed with her. She has attempted to hound me, first trying to disrupt an article I recently elevated to a GA [63] and later tagging another I rewrote with page issues [64] (this was very clearly retaliatory, in the month after this dispute commenced Atsme made only three edits to dog related articles or TPs outside of those connected to this dispute). She attempted to derail an SPI that would harm her cause [65] and now she has opened a sockpuppet investigation into me because I am an Australian [66] (I welcome a CU check [67]).

In my opinion her most egregious action was her false claim that she had verified the contents of a source she had cited. In the two pages of the dispute she cited a source:

• [68] added it was a hybrid cross between the now extinct [[Old English Bulldog]] and [[Old English Terrier]].<ref name="Fleig, D. 1996">Fleig, D. (1996). ''Fighting Dog Breeds''. T.F.H. Publications. {{ISBN|0-7938-0499-X}}</ref><ref>Shaw, Vero (1879–1881). ''The Classic Encyclopedia of the Dog''. {{ISBN|0-517-43282-X}}</ref>
• [69] added It is believed that bull and terriers were crossbred primarily from the [[Bulldog]] and one or more varieties of [[Old English Terrier]]s.<ref name="Fleig-1996">Fleig, D. (1996:86). ''Fighting Dog Breeds''. T.F.H. Publications. {{ISBN|0-7938-0499-X}}</ref>

I repeatedly requested she verify the contents of the source [70][71]. She eventually added the number 86 to the year [72][73] and explained it was the page number whilst giving an outlandish story about her access to the source [74] (whilst still failing to verify the source's contents). Having found a photo of the book's contents page on the internet here I further questioned her about it [75], but she subsequently maintained her story [76]. My local library has obtained scans of the relevant chapters of the source and I can verify that the cited page makes no mention of the cited content whatsoever (I am happy to email this to any impartial admin for verification) and further that the source does not support the cited claims at all. When I put this to Atsme she instead said that in fact she had copied the contents and source from page 18 of this thesis [77], but even it does not attribute the content she cited to it. It should also be noted that the Vero Shaw source does not support the cited content either.

Finally, I find Atsme's inferences that this dispute is somehow gender based to be utterly offensive [78], this dispute is entirely about content and, as outlined above, conduct.

I appreciate that throughout this dispute I have allowed my frustration at this situation to manifest on a number of occasions. But it is completely unacceptable to dismiss all of the sources listed here as anecdotal and branding attempts to cite them as original research whilst simultaneously not offering sources that articulate a meaningful counter-narrative with any weight. Cavalryman (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC).

I filed a SPI against him before I take my case to T&S, so I imagine this is retaliation, as is the fact that he hasn't gotten his way after tag-bombing a GA, reverting and wikihounding me. This dates back to 2019 when he didn't get his way then, and now after a year of trying, he still failed to get consensus. My final comment about his attempts to merge important articles and add a flat-earth theory to a GA is here - it includes his apology for doing the same thing to me back in 2019 that he's doing now. I will not respond again to his unwarranted allegations. Thank you and good night. Atsme 💬 📧 06:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I find Atsme's inferences that this dispute is somehow gender based to be utterly offensive – did you link to the wrong diff there? I see no such implication in the diff you linked to. --bonadea contributions talk 08:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I assume I'm tired of having to deal with grown men who throw temper tantrums and bully editors when they don't get their way is what they were referring to, but to go from that to "this dispute [is] gender based" is a very large leap. I highly doubt that's what Atsme meant. Endwise (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be best if we could all leave gender out of this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Bonadea, Endwise - you've both made excellent points. His sentence comprehension issues are part of the reason he filed this case, along with DIDNTHEARTHAT. It's the reason he's been wasting editors' valuable time with OCD-like persistent behavior. Perhaps now that I've received email verification from The Kennel Club that supports my position, and draws further attention to his sentence comprehension issues, I'm hoping it will be the end of this ridiculous fiasco. His wall of text above is nothing but a play by play history of his own relentlessness, bullying and demands. He failed to gain consensus for his proposed merge, rewrite of the article, and NPOV tag - he has forum-shopped, and created mountains of disruption while abusing me with PAs and misinformation as with the Fleig citation, and has gotten away with edit warring. Horse Eye's Back is spot-on with his suggestion of a boomerang. And btw, his PA about the Fleig citation is pure nonsense as evidenced here, and more of the same bullying/interrogation because he didn't get his way. I grew weary of his aspersions a while back, and simply removed the citation, but even that didn't satisfy him - he kept on and on and on and on - and as you can see above, he won't let it go. I work hard to get articles up to GA/FA standards as evidenced by 8 FAs & 19 GAs that I've either promoted or reviewed, and a rerun main page FA that first ran in 2014 and has withstood the test of time. It's no fun being bullied, interrogated and pounded on over and over and over again as what Cavalryman has done. Anyway, thank you for noticing the sentence issue and drawing attention to what's really going on. Atsme 💬 📧 13:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And please keep OCD out of this. I know several people with OCD and they behave no worse than people without. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, Phil Bridger - it was a bad choice of words on my part. I also have a friend with OCD, and it's involuntary. I struck the term. Atsme 💬 📧 16:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm also tired of dealing with Cavalryman's broken record behavior at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier, where I have tried, tried again, and again, and again, to mediate this dispute. I generally have an aversion to taking things to drama-filled noticeboards, but, here we are yet again. The broken record I hear Cavalryman playing is a tune that goes something like this. The bull and terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier are the SAME dog (Cavalryman proposed merging those two articles). The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the ORIGINAL bull-and-terrier which was genetically engineered to maximize its aggressiveness – and its performance in dog fights when pitted against other dogs. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the original pit bull – it's still the same dog that fought in the Staffordshire dog-fighting pits. Now, perhaps that's as far as Cavalryman goes with this. But the conclusion I'm led to by this POV is that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a dangerous dog. A dog that can't be safely left alone in a room with an unfamiliar dog – or human. A dog that may require legislation to regulate its existence at best, or outright banning of the breed at worst. Other breeds such as the Bull Terrier are OK because they are not original bull-and-terriers. These derivative breeds have been crossbred with less aggressive dogs to make them safe around humans. I expect a minimal response to this at best, before I'm steered back to being asked again, "what sources exist that state the Bull and Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier are different?" – wbm1058 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You cant mediate between someone who uses sources to back up an argument and someone who blatantly falsifies sourcing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

wbm1058, I am going to push back pretty hard against these accusations, when have I ever even suggested anything approaching the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a dangerous dog that can't be safely left alone in a room with an unfamiliar dog – or human? Cavalryman (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC).

Cavalryman, no as I said you haven't said that. What I'm saying is that others may be hearing "dog whistles". Perhaps you're not intentionally blowing such whistles, and can't hear them yourself, but you're wearing ear plugs when I try to explain the issue to you – you're rejecting all attempts to tone down the certainty of the specific wording that's blowing dog whistles. I won't go so far as Atsme as to call some of your sources "fringe", but I think these sources are targeting a non-expert audience and, in an attempt at brevity, over-simplify things. This topic area may not have the high standards of medicine, which rejects such writing for the general public in favor of writing for medical journals (WP:MEDRS), but a willingness to compromise on that could help break out of this jam. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

So you heavily implied an editor is editing from a POV without any evidence whatsoever, nor has been brought up in any previous discussion on the topic, while completely ignoring the accusations of falsification of sourcing (with relevant diffs). Thanks for your useful contribution that in no one addresses the issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

wbm1058, respectfully I am going to push back again. When have I rejected all attempts to tone down the certainty of the specific wording that's blowing dog whistles? To my knowledge no one has raised the issue of people hearing "dog whistles" until now. Are there any sources that corporate this? Re brevity, several of the over two dozen sources I have provided devote whole chapters (dozens of pages) to the breed's history. Have any MEDRS quality sources have been provided that present a contradictory position to the sources I have provided?

Throughout this you have asked me to justify my position on numerous occasions and put several propositions to me. I believe I have answered all of your questions and addressed every proposition you have put to me, with multiple sources corroborating my position. Cavalryman (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC).

A section has been opened at RSN, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#German hard cover to ePub. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• From the 45 minutes I just spent down that rabbit hole and will never get back I think a boomerang is in order for Cavalryman. The only question for me at this point is whether a topic or full ban would be more appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'll start by saying that I'm wiki-friends with Atsme, and that I've had some limited interactions with Cavalryman that were entirely pleasant. This thing started as a content dispute, and has escalated to where it is a real mess. In the RSN RfC, I went and looked at most of the disputed sources, and it looked to me like a case of some sources say one thing, and other sources say the other thing. I want to refer to the comment I made in that RfC, that "I'd agree with some of the other editors here that the best resolution of the ongoing dispute is to acknowledge both sides, with attribution, and not to come down strongly one way or the other in Wikipedia's voice." But clearly both editors believe so strongly in their respective readings of the source material, and feel so strongly about it, that it's become personal and splitting the difference is never going to happen voluntarily. There's not enough here to justify admin action against Atsme, and there's not enough here to justify a boomerang against Cavalryman. And any kind of mutual TBAN or IBAN would be far too blunt a tool. I note that Atsme says that she has taken this to T&S, and it may be best to defer admin action here until T&S does whatever T&S will or will not do. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Struck part of my earlier comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I just re-read Atsme's comment, and I realize that she is planning to contact T&S, not that she has already done so. Woops. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm sure after I take T&S' new upcoming mandatory administrator training, I'll know exactly how to resolve this one with ease. LOL wbm1058 (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
      • You mean their mandatory re-education? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Now, now. Have faith in the Affections Committee. They do stuff and advance things, I'm sure! El_C 20:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

While a lot of this revolves around a content dispute, there are serious behavioral concerns raised in Cavalryman's post, and they deserve a less flippant admin response than they've received here to date.

• WP:HOUNDing: following their dispute about bull terriers, Atsme went to golden retriever—an article which Cavalryman had recently gotten promoted to GA, and which Atsme had never edited before—to incorrectly accuse Cavalryman of a copyvio (thread).
• Vexatious litigation: in this SPI report filed by Atsme against Cavalryman, the evidence is literally just... that two editors live in the same country of 25 million people and agree about something. This is an utterly frivolous and unsubstantiated report which weaponizes site process to tax Cavalryman's time.
• Most seriously, Cavalryman alleges, with supporting diffs, that Atsme either falsified sourcing or (in the most charitable interpretation) evinced a completely cavalier disregard for the verifiability and accuracy of cited material.

I'll leave it to someone with less prior negative experience with Atsme to determine the seriousness of those issues, but Cavalryman is a long-term productive editor in good standing with a clean block log and a strong contribution record, so he deserves the courtesy of having his concerns discussed seriously. Separately, the invocation of T&S is another example of weaponizing process to bully and intimidate an opponent in a content dispute; nothing described by Atsme here rises to a level that would warrant their involvement, and these threats therefore seem intended to have a chilling effect. MastCell ^Talk 01:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

In which MastCell and the ill-disposed other editors have an argument

Maybe just leave her alone. You seem to pop up any time she is talked about anywhere. PackMecEng (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Holy shit! Seconded. El_C 03:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC) There are few things that will bring MastCell out of his low activity, but a chance to attack Atsme is one of them. This is a very poor look for you. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC) She's one of his worst sorts of people. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Yes, I think we all agree that I suck. My point is that you all seem determined to do anything but examine the merits of Cavalryman's complaint, a point which you're underlining here. He deserves better. MastCell Talk 18:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC) To be fair, I'm ignoring hundreds of possibly fine complaints here, I was just sucked up into a nasty confluence of you people again. You all deserve nicer colleagues. Stop harassing yourselves! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC) I know this is piling on, but I feel a need to do so. As I hope MastCell knows, I've long been friendly with him and have a lot of respect for him. But he and Atsme just push one another's buttons. Having personally commented at the SPI, I'm a bit offended by MastCell's dismissive treatment of it. WP:BEANS, but let's just let the process play out. As I said earlier in this thread, there isn't enough here to justify admin action against either Atsme or Cavalryman, nor for that matter, against MastCell (not that that was ever on the table). I agree with the Hulk that we all should be nicer. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi folks, I've collapsed the above. It was singularly unhelpful all-around, and it's too easy for ANI to get derailed by these third-party discussions. Feel free to revert me if you disagree. Anyway, main idea is a content dispute that went wrong. Any views on that, preferably from people who don't have a history with either party? Mackensen (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There was a clear, well organized view on that. You collapsed it along with the rest of it. —-Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Refactor as you feel appropriate. Mackensen (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And have the usual suspects launch into me with personal insults that I'm out to get Atsme? No, you're the uninvolved admin. If you think that it is appropriate to hide someone's directly on-topic comments because other people attacked the person making the comments, then we've all learned a valuable ANI debating tactic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Who was attacking whom is very much in the eye of the beholder here. Kudos to those with a semblance of institutional memory wrt this matter. El_C 15:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This is something of a bravura performance, even for ANI. I hat a thread because it was completely derailed by discussion of a third party. Not helpful to anyone. You turn up and immediately make it about yourself. My idea was that someone who doesn't have a history with either of the two parties should try to comment. Surely there are such users out there, perhaps ones who won't engage in self-pitying snark, though that's probably hoping for too much. Someone else can hat this thread, also off-topic and completely unhelpful, at the appropriate time. Mackensen (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Your hatting was sensible, I felt, Mackensen (though the collapsed summary, not so much). Your comment directly above even more so. I echo your exasperation. El_C 15:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

MastCell's initial comment should stand, as it was not off-topic, only the responses were. Now it looks as though no-one has supported Cavalryman's position at all.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave it to someone with less prior negative experience with Atsme — key word, Pawnkingthree: pattern. El_C 15:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

MastCell was upfront about his bias, yes. People comment all the time at ANI about editors with whom they have previously been in dispute. I don't see why we can't weigh the value of the comment ourselves.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess we'll go through the (same?) motions next time Atsme is criticized on a conduct board and MastCell unsurprisingly shows up to opine, unsurprisingly against her. See you then. El_C 16:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll take Mackensen up on their suggestion. I've uncollapsed the part that should not have been collapsed. I've no objection if this part stays uncollapsed, or is collapsed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floquenbeam (talk • contribs) --15:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

So uncollapse the comment from person whom you support in this matter, collapse those whom you oppose. Okay! El_C 16:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, so let me get this straight. I and other editors who commented in the section that was collapsed are "ill-disposed", and then there is a post-collapse argument about the collapse, that is longer than the collapsed part. Maybe someone should simply close this entire mess, because it has clearly stopped being about the original complaint. Excuse me now, because I'm feeling ill-disposed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't read through the above, and all the diffs, in detail, but one particular comment stands out to me: She attempted to derail an SPI that would harm her cause. I handled the SPI case in question. Atsme made one comment there, to the effect that she wasn't persuaded that Platonk was a sock of Normal Op. She made no complaint when I came to the opposite conclusion. I do not believe that making a single comment, then immediately accepting the outcome, can reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to derail anything. I also don't believe for a moment that, if Atsme had actually believed that it was a Normal Op sock, she would have spoken up to enable their continued socking (given the history). I'm quite certain that this was simply Atsme not being persuaded by the behavioural evidence, and I think that the OP should withdraw that part of their complaint here. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• OK, I'd invite an uninvolved party to evaluate just one of Cavalryman's complaints. Just one, so the quantity of information isn't overwhelming. Start with the easiest and most obvious. Cavalryman and Atsme are in a content dispute at one page. Atsme goes to Talk:Golden Retriever, an article and talk page she has never been to before, recently promoted to GA, and runs an Earwig tool copyvio check on it, and asks Cavalryman about his apparent copyright violation. The only possible explanation in the universe for doing this is looking for dirt on someone she's having a dispute with. This is textbook hounding. When others explain to her that it isn't a copyright violation, and instead the other website copied Wikipedia, she does not apologize. Instead, she says Cavalryman is obligated by WP policy to complain to the other website that they reused his content without permission. This also somehow proves he should be looking at his own contributions instead of disagreeing with Atsme. This shows a complete lack of understanding of copyright and of WP policy. Atsme is an OTRS volunteer (before you think this is unrelated, Atsme is the one who brought it up), and thinks this is how copyright and WP policy work. Before we move on to the SPI, can anyone uninvolved provide a believable non-hounding explanation for running Earwig's tool on one of Cavalryman's GA's? Can anyone uninvolved provide a believable non-CIR explanation for her confusion about editors' obligation to complain about a 3rd party's unattributed reuse of WP text? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  The only possible explanation in the universe for doing this is looking for dirt on someone she's having a dispute with If you are starting your comment in bad faith, you can only expect others will treat it as such. But let me try to assume good faith and offer an explanation, and you can see if there is small section of the universe where it may be accepted. Atsme is a content editor interested in dogs, that should be obviously clear. She has also contributed to many GA's and FA's (indeed there is a thread on Atsme's talk page about an upcoming TFA which she contributed to), and likely interested in the quality of content for topics she's interested in. She had a concern about potential copyvio's, it was answered that the other source likely copied it from Wikipedia, and then she linked to a letter which is "meant to be sent to web sites (and their service providers) in order to explain the requirements of the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and to urge compliance." An editor responded that there is no requirement for editors to act on possible off-wiki copyvios, another editor linked to a helpful essay, and Atsme seemingly accepted the explanation and dropped the topic. Why would she need to apologize for asking why the Earwig tool returned a high possibility of copy vio? It did return a high possibility, and then her concerns were addressed. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  This type of reply is frustrating (by design). A fantasy rationale where it just happened by coincidence to be Cavalryman's GA she checked is a bad faith insult to the reader's intelligence. If we're required to just swallow this as an actual possibility then all hope is lost. In that case, you really can obfuscate almost anything reported to ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I feel your frustration, but disagree that this is textbook hounding. The lesson to be learned here is to always check the Internet Archive to make sure the other site's content is older than Wikipedia's, before going public with your copyvio investigation. This, AFAIK, is a one-off, from which hopefully a lesson was learned. It only becomes hounding if the lesson isn't learned and the behavior repeats, i.e. we see multiple talk-reports of possible copyvios that aren't (bots might be excused because coding to automatically check the Internet Archive is work for the bot's coder). wbm1058 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Wbm1058: That would be the lesson to be learned if I was just pointing out the fact that she was initially wrong. That is not my concern; people are allowed to accidentally misuse Earwig (even someone who makes a point of emphasizing in discussions that they are an OTRS volunteer who deals with copyright all the time and a NPP expert). My concern is the fact that she intentionally went digging for dirt on someone she was in a content dispute with, and has come up with a completely unbelievable explanation when asked why. Approximately the same level of unbelievability as Mr. Ernie's theory above. And further, once it was pointed out on the article talk page what had actually happened, she still claimed that this was a policy issue that Cavalryman didn't understand, and he should police his own edits instead of disagreeing with her. You say she's hopefully learned her lesson; could you re-read her latest post and explain how you get that? And while you're here, I notice above that you're saying Cavalryman has been arguing with everyone on the talk page, not just Atsme. Could you help me square that with Atsme's repeated claim that she's being targeted by Cavalryman? To the point where she has made two chilling threats of going to T&S to report him? Would you agree, based on your previous assessment of Cavalryman's behavior, that he is, in fact, not targeting Atsme, but is instead perhaps bludgeoning the discussion (I'm not 100% convinced on that, but I can see how others might be, so I'll say for the sake of the argument that he is)? If so, would you agree that it is a serious issue that she's repeatedly making this targeting accusation, and weaponizing T&S to win a content dispute? Does that not seem more a more serious behavioral issue than bludgeoning a discussion? If you don't end up at the same point that I am about this particular set of questions, I'm curious where we diverge. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  You marinated your comment in sarcasm and baked it in bad faith. You said “let’s have someone uninvolved look into this issue which has only one answer in the universe and it should be obvious since it’s the way I see it,” which I assume was also by design. I’m willing to accept there may be other explanations. The universe is big. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I believe both editors to be good productive editors, but I do have a worry about Atsme suddenly arriving at a GA that Cavalryman had recently had promoted, and, well this thread is the result. Mr Ernie's defence above doesn't appear to address the elephant in the room. Certain other editors, supporting both "sides", don't appear to have come well out of this discussion either. So what do we do? Two-way IBAN? Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • (Certain other editors??) Maybe a 2-way IBAN really would be the best path to getting back to productive editing. But there is the potential for locking both of them out of dog articles, so I think there would have to be some additional guidance over "who got there first". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Black Kite, I owe you an explanation, but above all, I don't want you to have a bad feeling about me based on the aspersions by the few detractors that repeatedly show-up wherever I'm involved. As Cavalryman mentioned above, I nominated him for EoW back in May 2020 after suggesting it to a former teammate William Harris. In retrospect, he was a different editor back then - especially in light of his apology to me for his disruption during the 2019 GA promotion of Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and him gracefully admitting that there were indeed two theories about the dog's ancestral origins. Why that changed 2 years later, I don't know. The editor we're dealing with now is not as willing to admit he's wrong or to apologize for the nasty things he has said about me that simply are not true. I take my volunteer work on WP seriously as a team member of Project Dogs, and I also take GA-FA promotions very seriously as an editor who has been involved in reviewing/promoting 8 FAs, 19 GAs, and 8 FPs (3 of which were PoY finalists). I was naturally interested in the recent GA promotion by an editor I once nominated for EoW and considered a team member. It's natural for me to want to see his work as an editor as it is a reflection on WP, the project team, and my credibility as a former nominator. I saw that the GA failed, and naturally ran Earwig first thing to get that out of the way - it's spontaneous for me. The result was like 70%, and I was pressed for time, so I simply asked instead of doing the research myself. My bad. I then scanned over the failed review, and according to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Failing, you're suppose to close a failed review, and re-open a new one as GA2. In this case, Cavalryman immediately requested another opinion the same day it failed - typical behavior demonstrating his refusal to accept that the earth may actually be round. Quite frankly, I'm not sure I would not have failed it, but his actions overall should definitely be considered. When you read the second review, there was alot of updating and fixing, and JLAN even got involved. There is also a proper process that was not followed once a GA is failed. Bottomline: I did not accuse Calvaryman of a copyvio - I simply made sure there were none. If that is what is considered retaliation or disruptive behavior, then I don't need to be editing WP. What we're seeing now with this ANI filing is Cavalryman's retaliation over my filing the SPI. And what message does that send, BK? That whenever an editor files a SPI, they get taken to ANI with a poopcart full of innocuous diffs, and t-banned, blocked, or site-banned? I will be happy to answer any questions you may have because I am not the editor my detractors are attempting to portray, and I don't deserve to be treated in this manner for doing my job. Atsme 💬 📧 19:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• I had popped into the talk page discussion originating this dispute earlier on. I was struck at the time by the fact that Cavalryman was responding to every contrary opinion that was raised there (not just those expressed by Atsme). In my experience, this is often a bad sign (and before anyone goes searching for it, yes, there has been a discussion or two where I have tended towards this, and when I go back and look at those discussions later, I often find that my position was overly stringent). BD2412 T 20:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • BD2412, what you say here is consistent with what Wbm1058 said earlier here. I'm inclined to take that as the strongest argument given against Cavalryman in this discussion. And I'm inclined to take what Floquenbeam said here as the strongest argument given here against Atsme. It seems to me that the back-and-forth has been going on in this ANI section for some time now, and it would be best to see where it is heading. One option would be to have some sort of 2-way IBAN, and another would be to just close it. (At least, those are the two options I personally would be most comfortable with.) Perhaps editors can discuss how to proceed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
    • @Tryptofish: That would be correct. This is a case of two generally productive editors getting rather deeply into a content dispute, through in the original discussion I think Cavalryman was generally the more aggressive in asserting their position against all editors (not just Atsme). BD2412 T 20:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

BD2412, you have pinged me so I am responding. With the exception of comments from editors that were identified immediately as TBAN-evading sockpuppets (and even then), can you provide any examples of me being aggressive in asserting my position? I believe the vast majority of my replies were attempts to verify what sources were being used to justify certain statements. I appreciate a quick review of the merger proposal makes it look busy, but upon scrutinising the date stamps you will see the discussion plodded along for over six months before the current dispute started, whole months passed between comments. Cavalryman (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC).

• This seems more like an attempt to find justification for the false claims made against me because every. single. claim. he made about me is misinformation. I can assure you, I had a valid reason for my actions, while his TE, reverts, demands, misinformation, IPs showing up in support of his unsupported fringe theory, SPI concerns and everything else I've stated above is the result of his refusal to let it go. He did not gain consensus, behaved badly in 2019 and is now repeating that behavior today, but worse. As for Flo's concern about the copyvio issue, he could've just asked me, but I'm already guilty because of his preconceived notions. I'm not going there with more diffs, done. You want to know why I did a copyvio check - it's right here. The GAC failed and was renominated. I did not dig into it because of time constraints, so I simply did a quick copyvio check to see if maybe that was the initial problem. I simply asked about it - and just look at this mountain that was created out of a frog wart. As for Girth's explaination about the socking - I would think he cut it short out of respect for me, and I appreciate that, but here I am now under attack so I might as well reveal that I provided more evidence privately because of my concerns over retaliation by that sock. Back in 2020, after the article was promoted to GA, SMcCandlish and I were both outed off-wiki. We were lied about and were under attack by a BSL advocate. And let's not forget, Cavalryman's apology in 2019 for the same thing he's doing now after he finally admitted to the two theories - completely opposite what he's doing now; i.e. attempting to destroy a GA with a ridiculous claim that defies logic. Multiple RS, and I didn't bother to list them all to prove common knowledge that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not the renamed bull and terrier. The Kennel Club - the breed registry that accepted the breed as a purebred and accepted the name for that pedigreed dog confirms what I'm saying, and it is publicly published online on their website. The email verification that was sent to me yesterday can be seen by those with access to VRT Ticket#2022030910008018 - read it for yourselves. And what makes it worse, is that I did include those theories per DUE in the article but refused to do it in Wikivoice which is what Cavalryman has made all this fuss over. Just look at what has happened as a result of not getting his way. It's a sad state of affairs. Atsme 💬 📧 21:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Atsme, I just want to be fair here, so I have a question about the copyvio check. I'm not seeing why a prompt renomination for GA would imply that there had been copyvio issues, or why you would feel the need to check whether it had been the reason when you could easily see the first GA review. Can you either clarify that, or reconsider? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Tryp, if you were being fair, you would be asking Calvaryman why his 1st GAC failed, and was renominated the same day as if the fail never happened. As for the copyvio check, it's habit for me as a longtime NPP reviewer. I picked up that habit before we got the curation tool - it's second nature. I never imagined it would be a reason to bring an editor to ANI, especially considering the bullying, disruptive behavior and repetitive demands that I've had to endure by my accuser. Atsme 💬 📧 21:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I think he explains the renomination here: [79], and I don't have a problem with that explanation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• All this fighting over types of dog that were first bred for fighting. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • You forgot to mention the accusations of hounding. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And WP:BITE! Anyway, I'm probably one of those "certain other editors". I can't comment on the dispute, as I stepped right into it when I nominated Staffordshire Bull Terrier for GA review (in the gravely mistaken belief that that would concentrate attention on the article rather than the argument). I've had pleasant interactions with both parties, and am hoping that a solution will be found here that will both put an end to this, and allow both to continue editing in their areas of expertise. It needs to end now.

The history of the Golden Retriever GA nomination, fail and re-nomination is all plainly documented at Talk:Golden Retriever (yes, I had a – fairly minimal – finger in that pie too). There was no suggestion that it was failed for copyvio reasons. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you that, at this point, it just needs to end now. I'm beginning to think that we should page-ban both editors from Staffordshire Bull Terrier. I think that an IBAN would lead to too much difficulty over who got to a given dog page first. And I now think we are past the point where closing with no action would be a sufficient outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

For the record, what you're telling me is that Cavalryman's IDONTLIKEIT, TE behavior, aspersions against me, forum-shopping, and tag bombing a GA promoted article is acceptable behavior. But me doing a simple copyvio check on a failed GA that was quickly renominated is ok? I've demonstrated that he doesn't like it when he doesn't get his way - to the point that he bullies editors. He didn't like that his GA failed, so he turned right around and got someone else to pass it for him the same day - and that's acceptable? And so we bury our heads in the sand and say, well...there's nothing wrong with what he did - Atsme was wrong for doing a simple copyvio check on a failed GA. And that he did nothing wrong when he started bullying me, making demands, HOUNDING, reverting after I refused to give him his way by not allowing him to state false information in Wikivoice. That makes me the bad guy? I'm the one you want to punish because he didn't like that he failed to gain consensus for the merge and that I refused to violate NPOV and OR? That's the message you're sending? Have a good rest of your day. Atsme 💬 📧 22:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• This started as a content dispute, and it should have stayed there. Both editors are valued content contributors, both have done some things that are suboptimal, and the individual incidents on either side do not, in isolation, rise to anything ANI-actionable. The real problem is that both editors have, cumulatively, raised the dispute to where it won't self-resolve. Neither is willing to just drop the WP:STICK. I think they should both be page-blocked from the Staffordshire Bull Terrier page and banned from discussing that breed in any namespace, and warned not to dispute with each other at other pages. That would shut down the locus of the dispute without impeding either editor from working on other dog pages. It's really saddening that nobody was willing to just reach a compromise, but here we are. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Be careful what you propose if you still want to be Atsme's wiki-friend. Rather than a page block, maybe it would be better to ban them from

• Filing sock puppet investigations
• Placing {{POV}} tags on articles
• Filing copyright-vio reports
• Proposing article merges
• Putting Good Articles up for review
• Posting any RfC at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard

and maybe a couple other things too that don't immediately come to mind. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Wbm, despite what some other editors have said about me at various places, I try to balance my wiki-friendships with what I hope might be the right thing. And I can be friends with someone without needing to agree with them. Maybe I over-reacted yesterday to the implication that I wasn't being fair. At first, I thought you were serious about that list, but now I'm guessing that you are saying it tongue-in-cheek. In any case, ANI really is a cesspit, and I'm starting to regret that I ever participated in this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• I did compromise, and he refused to accept it. What he wants to do will destroy a long-standing stable GA, not improve it. He wants to add noncompliant OR and NPOV material in a GA - that's Planet Mars. His proposed merge of The Bull and terrier article (which failed to get consensus) would destroy an important historic reference that at least 6 modern dog breed articles rely on. He also wants to state in Wikivoice that the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the renamed bull and terrier from the 1800s. It defies logic – there are 5 other purebred dogs with the same ancestry. What happens to them? Bull and terrier is not a breed, it's a heterogenous group of dogs. How can a modern purebred be the common ancestor of modern purebreds? It's absurd. In addition to numerous sources, I even received email verification from The Kennel Club that supports my position - it is available as a VRTS ticket. Calvaryman is disputing the indisputable. I sought advice from Tryp here, and it ended with the following conclusion: ...so to say in Wikivoice that this is the fact of the matter would be OR or POV. I think that the page could say something like "some sources say that the SBT is the same as the BaT (cite sources inline), while other sources say it is not (cite sources inline)". That information is included in the article, and was subsequently tagged by Cavalryman during one of his tag bombing episodes - ironic isn't it: There are unsupported theories or opinions that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the original bull and terrier[original research?] rather than one of several descendants that have been standardized as modern purebreds without taking into consideration important evolutionary factors considered to be "very often misquoted and misunderstood."[27][28][improper synthesis?] This whole case against me is a travesty. Atsme 💬 📧 07:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Atsme, it's true that I gave you that advice, and it's true that you worked to make it that way on the page, and it's true that Cavalryman got in the way of that. You asked my advice then, and you didn't ask my advice now, but I'm going to give you some advice anyway. Cavalryman has made his disagreements with you much more personal than he needed to or should have done. But you also made it too personal. Being "right" about a content issue isn't a license to go personal at the person who disagrees with you. Nothing you've done really justifies Cavalryman taking you to ANI. But nothing he has done really would be a matter for T&S. (I tried to give you room to do that, at the start of this ANI thread, but, come on.) When you implied that I (of all people!) was being unfair to you, you also posted a lengthy complaint here that you have been absolutely blameless and that everything, everything, here is, as you say just above, "a travesty". No one likes to see a refusal to be introspective, a refusal to meet others half-way. Throughout this content dispute, there have been plenty of times when you could have said something like I disagree with you and here's why but I see where you are coming from, but I ask you to see what I'm saying. Not saying it's "Planet Mars". Even if you are sure it is. Editors here at ANI shouldn't have to drag it out of you to say that although you didn't mean any harm with the copyvio check and it was just something you do routinely, you can see how someone else would have seen it differently and you want to assure them that it was not your intent. You did say "my bad" in your reply above to Black Kite, but one has to go searching and searching for it before getting to that in this thread. If you (and, equally, Cavalryman) had taken that stance from the start, we would never have gotten here to ANI. This should have been a content dispute, in which both editors should have tried to be gracious instead of adamant. So here we are, with no resolution of this WP:Cesspit in sight. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• I have to concur with Tryptofish that "This started as a content dispute, and it should have stayed there. Both editors are valued content contributors, both have done some things that are suboptimal, and the individual incidents on either side do not, in isolation, rise to anything ANI-actionable." If both parties would step away from the subject for a month or so, other editors should be able to resolve the underlying issue (of interpretation of sources, which sometimes seem to contradict each other), given that we've had several very in-depth discussions already. There's more than enough to go on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Promotion of User:Vicentiu D. Radulescu

Dear sysops, sorry for interruption. Recently Vicentiu D. Radulescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps promoting himself by writing autobiography on his userpage, sandbox and draft page or some stuff like that. Although several users try to tell him to come to tea house for help, he seemed to ignore them all the way and still writing autobiography without communicating with others.

I have reported him twice on WP:VIP, but he is still not blocked till now. Anyway, could any sysop have a look on this case? Much thanks. Pavlov2 (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Just going to point out, they likely meet WP:NACADEMIC and you are currently asking for a ban because of work in a sandbox. With that said, a soft block for username pending verification may be appropriate.Slywriter (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Then, if permitted, what should i do the next step? Pavlov2 (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I have left a message on their talk page asking them to email VTR. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Should a soft ban administered on this user for now? Pavlov2 (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User: Neha.thakur75

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

---

• Neha.thakur75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Raghuvamshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What had started with a simple edit-warring issue has gone completely off the rails. User has a concern about the spelling of Raghuvamshi, and the edit-warred to attempt to change the article. Requests for English sources with their preferred spelling were stonewalled; the best response we got was to Google it, which one of the other users involved had.

User has repeatedly shown bad faith, calling other editors vandals. I woke this morning to a message that included a mention of "report[ing] this Indian cultural vandalisation to Indian organisation".[80] I left as neutral and good-faith a non-templated message I could, expressing my concerns that this could be viewed as a threat of off-wiki action.(my message) Their response accused me of supporting "vandalisation" [sic].[81] I find myself feeling that this user no longer represents a net positive to the Wikipedia community, but the personal attacks directed at me leave me too involved to take further action. —C.Fred (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• What started as a simple edit of misspelled changes has become very complicated because of C.Fred. Tired to make this user understand that this is such a common word in India and Indian culture that even simple google results will give you the evidence. But C.Fred instead of the understanding the problem and recommending a proper way to solve it went on blocking me to edit the content on the page. I have explained this user to understand that I have merely join wikipedia user to correct the spelling because I cannot let people miscommunicate my surname and my lineage. How would C.Fred feel if I change his name spelling? Neha.thakur75 (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "I have explained this user to understand that I have merely join wikipedia user to correct the spelling because I cannot let people miscommunicate my surname and my lineage." I'd read up on WP:COIEDIT. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Neha.thakur75 originally started a separate section with their complaint about C. Fred. This was merged into a single section. Neha.thakur75 tried to undo that, which was reverted. Singularity42 (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• To be honest, I think that we can do without a single-purpose account that behaves like this. C.Fred has of course chosen the prior status quo in an edit war as The Wrong Version, and (as usual) become the target for the disputer. I'm not seeing anything wrong with C.Fred's actions, as, as xe said, xe has stayed out of the content dispute

  As to the content dispute, the vague handwaves at Google search results are ridiculous, as is the citing of the spelling in a 1832 book that was written in Latin. It's well known that Google searches are a stupid idea for deciding how something is correctly spelled. As I said, we can do without this.

  I leave you with a professor of history in a 2011 IUP book, an a 1933 letter from the maharajah of Alwar, both spelling it "Raghuvanshi".

  Uncle G (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  @MrOllie Neha.thakur75 (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Rawat, Ramnarayan S. (2011). Reconsidering Untouchability: Chamars and Dalit History in North India. Contemporary Indian studies. Indiana University Press. p. 123. ISBN 9780253222626. The author was a lawyer in Aligarh […] and by choosing the surname of Raghuvanshi, he sought to underscore his learned status.
  • Copland, Ian (2002). The Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917–1947. Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society. Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press. p. 23. ISBN 9780521894364. Alwar […] believed that 'My family is descended from the Suriya […] Dynasty […], coming down to Raghu, after whom the dynasty is called Raghuvanshi […]'

• I'd just like to note that it is incredibly common for south Asian names to have multiple variant spellings when rendered in Latin characters and our job is to name the corresponding article about the most common one and to also note others common spellings, making redirects when appropriate. It is not our job to arbitrate the "correctness" of these spellings or to pander to anybody who believes that their spelling trumps a more common one. Nobody is trying to denigrate any particular person's surname or perceived lineage because that is simply not something we even care about. As far as I can tell, the (rather confusing and uninformative) article is about legendary figures rather than historical ones anyway making this dispute even more inexplicable. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Two points:
  • Conduct/admin issue: Neha.thakur75's edit-warring and aggressive talkpage conduct has been subpar, to put it mildly, and C.Fred actions (including the page block) have been completely appropriate. I'll drop Neha a note on their talkpage but unless their conduct improves they are looking at a block; fwiw I don't consider C.Fred too INVOLVED or conflicted to take such action.
  • Content issue: the transliteration issue is debatable (rather than being plain right/wrong) and ideally should have been debated before Getsnoopy moved Raghuvanshi and {{Suryavansha}} to their preferred transliterations on Feb 19. This can be discussed further on the article talk page and perhaps the status quo ante restored while the discussion takes place (I am fine either way).

Abecedare (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• I see Abecedare has posted most of what I'd say while I was researching this, so I'll be brief. Transliteration is complicated; determining the best transliteration to use on en.wikipedia should be done through careful consultation of sources. Neha.thakur75 has also been belligerent and rude, and hasn't listened to advice. This could be resolved by them simply committing to being civil and to resolving this via talk page discussion. Absent such a commitment, I would recommend an indefininite block, which I would be willing to place myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Abecedare Thanks a lot, This is all I wanted to revert the change to its original form. I joined wikipedia to correct those changes, I am not familiar with ways of working of wiki. I have only heard about people vandalising content over wikipedia. C.Fred Gave a very bad impression and his actions of blocking my edits made me think he is one of those vandalising entity. I appreciate your action. Thanks !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Update. User returned from his partial block and immediately reverted the article, inserting a broken move template in the process. On the fourth revert, I partial blocked the user again, this time for two weeks. —C.Fred (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it time for an indefinite block?

In this message, Neka.thakur75 said, "I dont know what is edit warred. I also dont care what other user are editing or updating. I just care about the wrong changes done on suryavanshi and raghuvanshi pages by getsnoopy. My only scope is to get theser changes corrected. I am not a wikipedia editor nor I intend to be. After I get this miscorrection fixed I am not going to login to wikipedia."

This certainly explains some things, like the user's inconsistent signing of posts. I am also wondering if they're just here to right great wrongs or for some similar reason which is not being here to build an encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Well is getting the wrong thing fixed is not a right thing to do ? Do you think it is not a contribution ?

It might be a very small contribution, but nobody devote there time and energy so much to get the things fixed. It is definitely important to me. Neha.thakur75 (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I can only update about things where I have knowledge like every other volunteer. Some users get paid for their contribution or propaganda on wikipedia. Other contribute when they have time or when they have knowledge. I am contributing because someone vandalised something that relates to me.

And here is C.Fred continuous blocking my attempts to fix it. Neha.thakur75 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but your "fix" is neither supported by the community nor by reliable sources. You've already been informed by this thread to drop it; you refused, and thus you have been partially blocked twice. You really need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass already. You are absolutely not going to force it by edit warring, especially immediately after your block has ended.

Also, I don't know how C.Fred would think, but I would recommend that you do not use signatures to ping editors, unless they have said that it is fine. Use the {{ping}} template instead, which is the standard way of notifying editors of a reply. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The edit warring, lack of consensus building, general attitude, and lack of English proficiency make them a poor fit for the project. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef. If all they're interested in is to bludgeon their own version of a transliteration that is not supported by sources nor the community, and calling everything against their belief "vandalism", then I don't see how they could possibly be here to build an encyclopedia. Couple that with very poor talk page posts with a somewhat battleground mentality, pitting them and their "correct" version versus everyone else's "wrong" version that we simply enforce because we take a personal dislike against it, rather than consensus and sources being against, and we've got one perfect storm for non-constructiveness. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Per WP:NOTHERE. ––FormalDude talk 04:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. User has stated they will continue to ignore consensus. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 11:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Indef block applied. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Mickie-Mickie‎ and intractable personal attacks

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

---

• User:Mickie-Mickie is treating the article 1987 Lieyu massacre‎ as their personal property. Their conduct is becoming increasing disruptive and has now escalated to edit warring paired with a blanket refusal to engage on the talk page. There is an odd obsession here with "sabotage" and suspected political enemies. Attacks primarily occur in edit summaries but also user and article talk pages. Issue is most egregious at 1987 Lieyu massacre but is also present on other pages such as Capture of the Tuapse. I first tried addressing the ownership issue in 2020[82], didn't get through apparently.
• October 2020 edit summary "1) Recover last sabotage removal of non-deprecated ref; 2) Add late footage on 3rd/last crime scene of Wall in 2019; 3) Add localized notes & references"[83]
• October 2020 edit summary "Revert the repeated abusive offense of (talk) as Gen. Zhao's resume reference is well-known originated from the official archive of Nanhwa Couty, Yunan, PRC, not fit in the deprecation category" [84]
• October 2020 edit summary "Revert the sabotage without even explanation for a reason on which part is the untruth. Please exam the referred content before making judgement." [85]
• October 2020 talk page comment "Dear HorseEye's Back, Wikipedia is an open resource, hence nobody claims the ownership on any article here. Please don't put your words on other people's mouths as in your talk page, or in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard discussion before. The entire process of research and edits are to seek the truth whereas the public has the right to know, particularly when the evidences were systematically destroyed and the witnesses were silenced as dead people can't talk with 30 years of denial, ignorance and lies to forge a fake hero prestige covering fascism and protecting privileges till the military literature award still cheating the public last autumn... Every clue of intelligence and forensics is open to exam, and you are surely welcome to join in filling the missing link in history at any time of your preference. However dictating a simplified "gold rule" to eliminate reference unprofessionally against the freedom of media with a hidden agenda in another 30 years will not be possible. We were nobody but little servicemen simply let people know what happened to prevent the history repeating by any excuse again. Thanks for your attention, and hope you have a good day!"[86]
• March 2021 edit summary "Malicious Sabotage of mass deletion"[87]
• March 2021 edit summary "Malicious Sabotage of mass deletion - these legal references are for those still refusing to recognize the international laws and continuously defending the cause as legitimate." [88]
• March 2021 edit summary "See Also section here displayed for the related legal references for the concerned readers due to serious argument till today. Wikipedia is not the place for espionage warfare. Respect yourself."[89]
• March 2021 user talk page comment " 1. The legal references were listed for the concerned officials and population who still refuse to recognize the responsibility and international laws, then continuously defend the causes of operations as legitimate as per the serious arguments till today. 2. Edit war is disruptive with the mass deletion manipulated for the further operation. Wikipedia is not the place for espionage warfare, especially started with an anonymous account to launch a cover-up operation. 3. It appears that more alt accounts will be set up to proceed further cover-up operation. It's really low to cheat the public by cutting off the legal references and evidences even with the belief as justifiable as per your ideology."[90]
• March 2021 edit summary "Malicious sabotage of mass deletion"[91]
• March 2022 edit summary "Reverted the groundless accusation - lease read clearly the sources before hasty conclusion, and put questions in the Discussion page"[92]
• March 2022 edit summary "Reverted the sabotage before the 35 memorial anniversary"[93]
• March 2022 edit summary "Reverted the sabotage and the cover-up operation"[94]
• March 2022 edit summary "Removed the malicious judgment by a disputed Chinese nationalist on media"
• March 2022 talk page heading "Stop sabotaging the historical page of 1987 Lieyu massacre"[95]
• March 2022 edit summary "Undid revision 1075777201 by Horse Eye's Back (talk) whose radical ideology of advocating Chinese nationalism on Taiwan in Wikipedia forums leaving no room to comment anymore."[96]
• March 2022 edit summary "self-named "deep green" wouldn't quarrel ROC and Taiwan as the same in Wiki forums, and revokes over 80 international laws on this Taiwanese subject for political warfare sabotage purposes."[97]
• March 2022 edit summary "Removed the malicious personal attack"[98]
• March 2022 edit summary "Removed a direct attack and manipulated description"[99]
• March 2022 edit summary "Removed a political-motivated sabotage action"[100]
• March 2022 talk page comment "Wow, bravo! you surely got the great talent to mis-use "We don't seek the truth" gold rule to cover up then justify the evil doings. Dr. Tunchi Chang is the truth investigation committee member of the DDP government being assigned to the re-investigate this case, and the interviews with the witnesses at scene are revealed. Second-lieutenant Wenhsiao Liu is a secondary witness himself, who has followed this case for 35 years but still got unanswered but only being insulted. Their open statements are far more creditable than your mind attempt, and now you are putting your own words in other people's mouths again. Nobody ever owns the page, but stop sabotaging the collection of historical statements either."[101]

• PS this user is highly reminiscent of an LTA I remember from 2019 or so (particularly insisting that among other things Taiwan has tested a nuclear weapon) but I can't find the LTA case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week: User_talk:Mickie-Mickie#Block. El_C 20:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Do this user's contributions need to be checked for neutrality? He recently wrote Capture of the Tuapse, which does not present the Taiwanese side of this incident at all, and many of the most controversial claims are sourced to (mainland) Chinese and Russian sources, making me concerned about accuracy. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 10:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a matter for editors, not admin. Admin do not decide content. We sometimes determine suitability, but making the articles neutral doesn't require the admin bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 7

Special:Contributions/1.36.236.0/24,this LTA use this IP range after 1 August in 2020 (only 1.36.236.68 is not),please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Also,please protect Bomberman Kart, start at 2 August in last year,spam and DE.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

MCC214, you didn't ping me this time! I'm trying to get a streak here. El_C 23:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, this LTA abuse two IP range,

1. Special:Contributions/42.3.188.0/24, only it edit in this IP range after 17 October in 2016,zh.wiki blocked .
2. Special:Contributions/112.118.32.0/23, only it edit in this IP range after 29 May in last year,zh.wiki blocked.

Please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

False claims of "weasel wording"

There have been a number of editors recently (including at least one admin) who are making claims of "weasel wording" in the use of the word "claims", e.g. "Bill Gates claims". They insist on using the wording which instead states what the person BELIEVES, even though this can rarely be proven. The false assumption these editors are making is that if a person says they believe something then this is proof that they believe that thing. This is not a safe assumption, given that these exists such a thing as "lying". Please can this issue (possibly a systemic issue) be addressed?

Recent reverts in the name of undoing weasel wording have been occurring at the article Uğur Şahin - diffs to appear shortly. --Rebroad (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Who or what is this about? Page links and diffs would be helpful. Mackensen (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are you forum shopping and running to ANI instead of attempting a discussion with editors? This seems pre-mature at best. Discussion also at BLPN.Slywriter (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what "forum shopping" or "BLPN" is, and I have attempted discussion with the other editors. Rebroad (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Uğur Şahin is the same issue. And rather than allow that conversation to occur, you have run to ANI with a vague accusation.Slywriter (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

As one of the editors who reverted Rebroad, I claim that I have not been notified of this discussion. – ².O.^Boxing 14:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

1) You need to inform the people when you open an ANI claim against them, I have not received any such notification. 2) Here is an example the main diff of concern where the OP insists on putting "claims" in from of what someone stated in an interview to believe in. The OP "claims" seem to be based on the possibility that what someone says they believe in may not be the truth and is therefore unverifiable and needs to be "claimed". Perhaps weasel words is not the right term, but there is a definite attempt to elicit doubt where no evidence or reliable sources of such doubt exists. They've been warned to stop it, and they keep doubling down. Additionally the OP was the subject of an ANI thread recently on this exact behaviour. Casting doubt and removing sourced definites to be slightly more ambiguous seems to be a pattern with this user from a cursory look through their edit list. Such as altering "conspiracy theorist" to "conspiracy analyst". What are we going to do, clarify that every time someone says something they are simply "claiming" it, because we have no way of knowing if they are lying or not? Canterbury Tail talk 14:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• I am the admin concerned, and have also not been informed of this ANI filing. Rebroad also decided to template me for reverting him, despite the fact that what he's inserting is clearly weasel wording - we don't say that someone "claims" something unless there is a doubt or contentiousness about what they are saying. In this case there is not - the subject clearly said what he said, and it is uncontentious anyway. Rebroad has inserted the "claim" three times in the last 24 hours, five times in total, and has been reverted by four different editors. If I had not been involved here I would be considering a partial block on this article for persistent edit-warring. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Isn't MOS:CLAIM supposed to deal with this? M.Bitton (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes that's the one. Whatever word you wish to use for it, casting doubt on someone's statements with no reason to do so is disruptive. To insist on doing it repeatedly is over a line. To make the claim that we can't trust what anyone says, is WP:NOTHERE. Canterbury Tail talk 15:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is basic common sense. On a side note, the March 2021 source doesn't appear to support the disputed statement: Şahin is against compulsory vaccination and emphasizes the voluntary nature of the vaccination. "Vaccination will be voluntary, no vaccination is planned" is all he said back then. M.Bitton (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The source isn't great on this, completely agreed. If it's removed then so be it, I don't have a horse in that game and only saw this due to the last ANI report on them. The issue here is the behaviour of the OP, not necessarily the content. Canterbury Tail talk 15:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI - I've replaced the source with one where he definitely states his opposition. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 16:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you - I didn't have time to look as I was at work. So the only thing we're left with now is the behaviour of the OP. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Really not sure this is an improvement. The edit appears to still be around trying to instill doubt in the readers mind with awkward wording. And they're continuing to template regulars with not providing reliable sources for removing their "claims" wording. Canterbury Tail talk 20:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

After reading the original reference I had my doubts, which is why I found a different one. In that interview he is asked outright if he is against compulsory vaccination and replies that he is. At this point User:Rebroad behaviour appears to be a WP:IDHT issue. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Rebroad from editing Uğur Şahin for one week. They can still try to make their case on the talk page and WP:BLPN. If the disruption continues further sanctions may be needed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

No one was notified of this ANI because this ANI is not about users edits. It's about the chronic misapplication of Wikipedia policy. The false claim of "weasel wording" was how it started, but now it also seems to be the false application of the "edit warring" policy - i.e. failing to recognise the exemption for removing unsourced (or original research) for articles on living persons. And, a failure to recognise "original research" (which a primary source is). Rebroad (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

You still must notify any editors whom you are discussing when you open a discussion here. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

If that's the case then this is an inappropriate post for this board and should be closed. You are not reporting "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems," so this is in the wrong place. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

POV-push edit by Kangkungkap

User Kangkungkap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making disruptive editing (esp. POV-push edit and removal of sourced content) since his early days in WP. And by now, almost all of his edit is reverted. Some editor tried to warn him on his talk page, but it seems he is not willing to listen. Articles that mostly affected by his edit are Silat, Baju kurung, tekpi. Based on his edit history, it seems that it was clear that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Ckfasdf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

samples of his edit.

• tekpi1
• tekpi2
• nasi goreng
• tempoyak1
• silat
• his statement on other user talk page
• songket
• tempoyak2

Do you have any actual diffs to present to us to support your case? Ravenswing 19:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt mentioned that on my previous post.. I will list some of his recent edit, his previous edits also have similar tones. Please find it above. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Revdel

This, please and thanks. – ².O.^Boxing 18:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Done, and blocked. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hamkar 99

User Hamkar 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed the text with sources from the article List of Hazara tribes and continues the edit war. I have added information (on the identity of the Behsud and Besud tribes) verified by reliable sources, including secondary sources. Calls for consensus on talk page were unsuccessful. The talk page is currently being ignored by him. During the discussion, he described the sources I added as follows: "So the information is poor and needs to be edited and deleted". To a request for a more reasonable argument, I received the following answer: "This is my own conclusion." I suggested that he stop deleting sources and, in order to comply with the WP:NPV I invited him to add his sources. In response, he added a source in Persian (which I can't verify yet) and removed the sources and information I added earlier. Now he reverted (diff) my edit with the following description: incorrect and pan-Mongolism edits. I think such accusations are WP:DE and a violation of the rules prescribed in WP:CONS, WP:NPV. Also the accusation of pan-Mongolism is a direct violation of Godwin's Law (I think such accusations are unacceptable on Wikipedia). I ask you to take action and warn the user about the need to comply with the rules of Wikipedia. Thanks.--KoizumiBS (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Let me add here that previously both users asked me to do something with their opponent, and I really think what is happening in the article is not ok. It can certainly benefit from an administrator looking at it.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User TolWol56 left a note on my user page accusing me of "unconstructive edits"?

I have no idea who TolWol56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is or what they are talking about. They appear to have participated in "flame wars" in the past, according to notices left on their profile. Please advise? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meteoritekid (talk • contribs) 22:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Meteoritekid, why haven't you asked TolWol56 why they put that template on your talk page? You could ping them to your talk page, where they left the template, to discuss it, or you could have gone to their talk page to ask about it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems they reverted my edits on Russian National Unity and then left the note on my profile instead of adding something to the relevant talk page. I believe their edits are propagandistic and their flagging my profile goes against normal Wikipedia policy. Not sure what do do from here. I would probably start a discussion on the talk page there and then flag their profile for the same conduct they accused me of? Meteoritekid (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

You should start a discussion at Talk:Russian National Unity about the content that is in dispute and ping TolWol56 to join the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I have done this. What should I do about my user page? Meteoritekid (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. You're free to remove any message. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Meteoritekid: And I suggest rewording what you wrote at Talk:Russian National Unity. Article talk pages are not for discussion of user behavior; that's what this page is for. :-) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Please help? There are strange things afoot over here. I think the person is using alternate accounts to avoid the 3 reversion / edit war rule. Meteoritekid (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a very serious accusation. You need to provide evidence, or withdraw this accusation at once. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I have done this. I would also note that TolWol56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has several similar issues noted on their user talk page. Meteoritekid (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Meteoritekid started out with clear-cut misrepresentation of source to whitewash this unregistered Neo-Nazi fringe group,[102] then made unexplained revert,[103] continued whitewashing,[104][105] and is now misrepresenting primary sources (vk.com) by creating his own conclusions in violation of WP:OR.[106] His editing reeks of WP:NONAZI. Block the incompetent user and save time from being wasted. TolWol56 (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  The claims you've made regarding the RNU are demonstrably false -- the 2013 Canadian governmental report on the organization goes against the edits you made to the page, to the talk page, and here. I went through the trouble of making a stable web archived link to the vk.com profile with images of RNU militia members on armored vehicles and in front of a destroyed building in Donetsk, dated June 2021, and posted by the leader of the organization. There's no "misinterpretation" there. You are pushing misinformation. I would appreciate if an admin could step in and have a look at the page and talk page before this would be classified as a flame war or something similar. Meteoritekid (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

They don't contradict me at all. No one is disagreeing that the fringe neo-nazi group you are whitewashing has gone underground after getting banned, but that is not uncommon. You prove my point when you are upholding what is "posted by the leader of the organization" instead of finding reliable source. You have been already told that every group likes to hype their achievements but you are supposed to find reliable source for the information before you promote them.

The only thing admins can do is they can ban you from whitewashing this fringe Neo-Nazi group because you are continuing the whitewashing and making unexplained reverts to restore your whitewashing.[107] TolWol56 (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The leader of the organization is a public figure, Alexander Barkashov. I believe social media posts by a public figure are acceptable references. If not, the other sources and edits made to the History section of the page by other users still confirm that the RNU was active in the Donbas War as recently as 2014. Your edits are still misleading. You can keep calling them a "fringe" group. I have not claimed otherwise. They still exist. You are attempting to claim that they do not exist, which is not true. If anyone is whitewashing here, I would say it is you. Meteoritekid (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. You are the one whitewashing this group by showing it as some largely unbanned registered and dominant organization when the reality is completely opposite. With your problematic belief that I believe social media posts by a public figure are acceptable references, I can only recommend you to should better focus on editing non-political subjects and learn and familiarize yourself WP:OR, WP:RS before you edit these pages. TolWol56 (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

>Don't put words in my mouth. You are the one whitewashing this group by showing it as some largely unbanned registered and dominant organization

It has been banned in 4 cities -- in a country with over 20,000 municipalities. You're the one claiming it is 'banned across Russia.' That is misleading. I have not claimed that it is "dominant," only that it exists and has participated in recent conflicts (irrefutable fact).

I agree that as long as neither of us can prove that it is "registered" or "unregistered" across the majority of Russia, any mention of that should not be included in the article. At this point, you are claiming that it is not a legal organization and cannot be registered in Russia, which does not appear to be true, and which you have not substantiated.

>With your problematic belief that I believe social media posts by a public figure are acceptable references

If I am wrong about that one reference, I concede that. I would still point out that you appear to be intentionally mischaracterizing the contents of the Canadian government report and that your edits suggest that the RNU has not existed since 2003, which is still patently false, as corroborated by the rest of the article and many other articles on Wikipedia, such as Russian separatist forces in Donbas and others.

I believe you are editing the article in order to give it a pro-Russia slant, in order to make it appear as though Russia does not contain any active fascist groups, and that those groups are not participating in the current conflict. I would appreciate if an admin would step in at some point.. Meteoritekid (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hold the phone. My edits to the page have been reverted three times, now -- and by three users that all have significant edit histories on Indian / Hindu pages. I've never seen anything like that before and I believe that TolWol56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using multiple accounts. Am I crazy? Meteoritekid (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

banned in 4 cities -- in a country with over 20,000 municipalities But it was never registered in the first place that's why your wild dream of it being registered across Russia looks nothing more than online whitewashing of this Neo-nazi group or trolling.

We write what sources say per WP:RS. But you are not understanding what is WP:OR or WP:RS even after so many of my attempts to teach you about it.

I am not baffled at your incompetence and personal attacks and I stand by my initial suggestion that you should be blocked for your whitewashing and misrepresentation of sources. TolWol56 (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The 2013 Canadian government report states that the RNU was a registered organization in at least some of the 4 municipalities in which it was banned, prior to being banned. If you are going to claim that the group is not currently formally registered anywhere in Russia, and you wish to add that to the article, you would presumably need to cite evidence that supports that claim. Since the group has not been banned in 90%+ of Russia, assuming that it is not a registered organization in any municipality...is a bad assumption. Now, I don't speak Russian and am not certain how to look up registrations of political organizations in various Russian municipalities. So --

The article should not claim that the RNU is registered or unregistered across Russia without solid evidence either way. The edits I proposed on the talk page removed direct mentions of the group being currently registered or unregistered, which solved that problem.

You disagreed and have now edited the page to suggest that the RNU is not registered anywhere in Russia, and has not been since 2003. You have not justified those claims in any way. No justification isn't WP:OR or WP:RS. It's nothing. Maybe there's a formal Wikipedia term for it I am not familiar with. I do not know.

Wikipedia defines whitewashing as "the act of glossing over or covering up vices, crimes or scandals or exonerating by means of a perfunctory investigation or biased presentation of data." By using misleading language to suggest that the RNU ceased to exist in Russia in 2003, you are whitewashing.

Again, I will refrain from editing the page until some admins can review...all of this. Including what I believe to be your use of alternate accounts to get around the 3 revert rule Meteoritekid (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Meteoritekid: if you have some evidence of sockpuppetry I suggest you open a WP:SPI rather than make allegations here since it appears you're accusing several semi established editors of a violation. I'd note you will likely need better evidence than 3 editors editing a single page. There doesn't seem anything that surprising about the editing patterns to me. You opened an ANI thread where you named an editor, and notified them on their talk page as you were required to do. This in itself is likely to attract the attention of other editors familiar with the editor you are naming like those who regularly edit similar pages. These editors may not comment here, but they may get involved in the underlying content dispute if they feel they can be helpful. Further timing-wise, this issue seems to have blown up at a time when most Europeans are asleep and many Americans are heading that way. And I'd note one of the editors involved first edited the article before you anyway. And please stop talking about a content dispute here, it's not something we can resolve, nor is it something admins will review. As it stands, the article is fully protected so all of you are forced to discuss any changes on the article talk page. Please do so and try and come to some WP:consensus using WP:dispute resolution as needed. If you start the WP:edit warring again when the article is unprotected, don't be surprised if blocks are next. Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually I see you didn't notify the editor despite the big boxes telling you to. However one of the editors who commented here did so the end result is mostly the same. In future, please ensure you do notify editors if you're going to bring them here, as your required to per the big boxes. Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I will open a WP:SPI. While I have contributed to some pages, I am not intimately familiar with Wikipedia's policies and rules. I appreciate your patience.

I posted here initially because I received an email & scary-looking notification from TolWol56 on my talk page suggesting that my initial edits to Russian National Unity were vandalism. That user did not edit the talk page for the article; they simply accused me of vandalism and reverted the edits I had made. I wasn't sure what I should do about it, and there was a link to this page in the notification; I came here and asked what I should do.

As I said on the talk page, I am not going to edit the article again before others are able to comment.

I'm not sure what a formal "big box" notification would be as you describe it, but I did leave a notice on TolWol56's talk page, which was subsequently blanked. Meteoritekid (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Meteoritekid: The notice when you edit this page as well as the header of this page clearly says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" but left no such notice as can be seen in the edit history. The compulsory notification was given by Suffusion of Yellow [108]. After said editor had given the compulsory notification you left two pointless templated warnings [109] (+ [110]) and [111].

The harassment one in some circumstances perhaps it can be useful for an experienced editor however it's pointless when you had already opened this ANI. This ANI was warning enough that you weren't happy with their comments. And a template like that is clearly no way to seek clarification from TolWol56 as was suggested at the beginning of this thread.

The edit warring one, personally I'm in the camp of such warnings always being pointless for experienced editors. But even if we put that aside, it came ~40 minutes after TolWol56 had given you an edit warring warning [112]. An editor who has just warned you can be assume to be well aware of our edit warring policy, there is absolutely no reason to warn them. If you need to take them to WP:ANEW and feel you need to show a warning, just show them warning you. (Tit for tat warnings are generally pretty dumb. Even discretionary sanctions strongly discourages tit for tat notifications.)

Normally I wouldn't comment on such things but you claim you gave notice when you didn't. Instead you only gave those pointless warnings but failed to give the notification which actually mattered when you opened this thread. As for the rest, if you don't already know about SPI, it's IMO a really bad idea to actually open an SPI, but whatever it's your funeral.

Also as another editor already said, really you should have just asked TolWol56 for clarification on the notice or if that didn't work, asked at WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse rather than coming here. But this isn't a big deal for a one time thing. More important is that whatever the merits of starting this thread, you proceeded to discuss content issues here when it's not the place. Again keep that discussion on the article talk page, which is where you need to resolve the content dispute without further edit warring.

Just to repeat, you cannot edit the article right now, it is impossible because you are not an admin. The protection is going to last 7 days assuming it isn't unprotected earlier, which really seems more than enough time to resolve this dispute provided you actually make an effort. To be clear, you are the one who needs to make an effort by discussing on the article talk page etc. There's a good chance no one else is going to do it for you so if you want to get something changed then you can't just sit back and expect it to be magically resolved.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Multiple conflicts of interest?

Bringbag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) received a notice about their edits seeming to be promoting the Cleveland Review of Books in December 2021. I am now finding that their edits have also included articles from various websites authored by Brianna Di Monda.[113][114][115][116][117][118] Bringbag said on their talk page that they do not have a COI with what I wrote about on Kristen Stewart's page, but the WP:COI seems pretty clear to me. Would love this noticeboard's watchers' thoughts. KyleJoan^talk 04:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow. That's very striking, KyleJoan. I have warned the user on their page that they need to self-declare or be blocked for undisclosed COI, alternatively undeclared violations of WP:PAID. If they comply, I hope they will also have a good explanation for denying a COI in the case of their edit to Kristen Stewart when you asked about it. Btw, there's a problem with the link the user added in Kristen Stewart; I only get "We couldn't find your page" when I click on it. Were you able to access it? Not that that is so important, since the form of the reference itself names Brianna Di Monda, just as with all your other diffs. Bishonen | tålk 11:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC).

I had no issue accessing that link. If you'd like to verify the ref's author for yourself, its archive link can be found here. Thanks, Bishonen! KyleJoan^talk 13:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Strange about the link — I had no problem with any of the other links. Maybe a geographical issue, as I'm in Europe. Well, never mind, the whole internet thing is a riddle wrapped in a mystery AFAIC. And thank you for noticing and reporting this sneaky promotion, KyleJoan. Bishonen | tålk 14:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC).

There's off-wiki evidence that there's a COI regarding Bringbag and Brianna Di Monda. With respect to WP:OUTING, I'll leave it at that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please do, there's no need to out anybody, especially as I've found something else. Bringbag was warned about promoting the Cleveland Review of Books in December.[119] Guess what? It turns out Brianna Di Monda is a "contributing editor" to the Cleveland Review of Books.[120] Promotion of this individual appears to be Bringbag's main, not to say, only, purpose on Wikipedia. I don't see any reason to wait very long before I block, frankly. Bishonen | tålk 14:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC).

Blocked. OK, I've blocked indefinitely without waiting any longer, because I don't see how this abuse of a volunteer project can be credibly explained. Considering the user's actions so far, I also doubt they would have many scruples as far as creating socks to evade the block. Could therefore the name in question, Brianna Di Monda, be added to the spam blacklist? It's unfamiliar territory to me, so would some cleverer user like to do it? Bishonen | tålk 21:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC).

There are 47 link to clereviewofbooks.com. Are you talking about blocking the addition of any further such links? If that is what's wanted, I'm not sure if there is enough activity for WP:SPB. We would first need to evaluate the existing 47 links and decide if they are useful and a reliable source. Perhaps you mean a request to add an edit filter to block addition of the specific name Brianna Di Monda? Some of the links given above show examples where that name is not mentioned in the wikitext—there is no mechanism to block the addition of links to a website that mentions a specific name. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I have looked at some of the articles and removed some of the references and from what I have seen the references split into sentences that were bolted on and seem forced and those that it is a standard citation. For example this diff mentions the Cleveland Review of Books to indicate the worth of the author and the following sentence mentions that the author was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1993. On the other hand you have citations like the link on the page Elena Ferrante is a standard citation (if slightly weak) and is reasonable to keep.

I think that the first type of references will slowly (or perhaps quickly) be edited out and replaced by equivalent quotes from places like the New York Times which is a more notable reference and the second type don't really need to be removed. In other words I don't think that WP:SPB is needed. Gusfriend (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Right, Johnuniq. Yes, I probably did mean an edit filter, and I meant blocking direct references to Brianna Di Monda - not so much to the Cleveland Review of Books. I realise we can't block a website for mentioning a specific name, and I see Gusfriend thinks that's a lesser problem anyway. But does the name have to be mentioned in our text? The diffs provided in the original post here mention the name in the link they add, though not in the text. Where do you see links that don't mention the name? Anyway, those kinds of links are what I want to stop. And I don't know how to keep a lookout for them (though maybe you do?). I do believe this blocked user won't stop unless we put something in place to stop them. They've been doing this secretively for several months. Bishonen | tålk 14:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: The second diff in the OP is [121]. The new wikitext does not mention the author's name but is otherwise the same as the other examples of adding a factoid with a ref that links to an article by Brianna Di Monda. Using Special:Search with something like insource:"Brianna Di" gives [122] which currently shows one article. Johnuniq (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq, does that mean that neither an edit filter nor an addition to the spam blacklist would help? If an edit filter would, would you like to request one? Bishonen | tålk 22:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: A filter or blocklist need to be justified in terms of the amount of trouble they would prevent. This looks like one person, now indeffed, who may or may not return with socks, and the number of links appears to be small and controllable by manual monitoring. That's how it would look to anyone thinking of implementing a filter/block. Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Qhalidal15 consistently uploading unattributed images and not engaging

Qhalidal15 (talk · contribs) has been uploading a lot of unattributed images such as most recently noted at [123]. Their talk page lists about 20 of these image notifications, all subsequently deleted. Another issue, is their failure to engage. Qhalidal15 always marks all edits as minor and never uses an edit summary. I've given several warnings with no response [124], [125], [126] yet they continue in the same path of editing. Not providing edit summaries is not the biggest offence but failing to engage/respond to others isn't in the spirit of WP. The consistent uploading of non attributed images is also a concern.LibStar (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Dicklyon

• Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Discussion at WT:TENNIS re capitalization

Reporting User:Dicklyon for continued disruptive editing on hundreds and hundreds of articles. It took me hours yesterday to undo only some of his 100s of edits, of which he was warned. A discussion was opened about this right here because another editor disagreed with his changing 100s to 1000s of articles. While discussing, of which I see no consensus and where he pinged another editor with the same pet peeve he has, he starts doing it again tonight. After 2+ days of discussion! He has done this multiple times at Tennis Project articles where some of us have to revert all his edits. He never does just one. While a couple of us vehemently disagree with his view, we had discussed changing the header to something different that could work for all. Instead, he goes and claim consensus and 100s more have been changed.

This has to stop. I'm not sure Tennis Project has ever been busier in fixing these trivial items than we are the past month. We don't have time now for vandalism and sockpuppets and sourcing as we are too busy with reverts. If this was the first time he has done this it might be handled differently but this is blatant in our faces disruptive editing and he should absolutely be required to revert all his edits until the Tennis project figures out how best to handle its chart columns and rows. This is urgent because he is changing so many articles even now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The tennis articles are indeed very busy in fixing trivial over-capitalization issues, since there are so many of them and since they're pretty easy to fix with JWB. But you've chosen to pick on one particular fix for reasons that are hard to understand and have been roundly rejected at the discussion you linked at WikiProject Tennis; more days won't change that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Where do you get 2+ days of roundly rejected by the same crew that always follows you around. One of which you invited KNOWING how they feel. It is not consensus, you were warned as such, it's under discussion, and yet still you change 1000 articles. The Project will very likely change this to something else like W–L if a heavy consensus ever forms to that odd pairing you want. You are blatantly misusing JWB for the umpteenth time and it must stop. I would be inclined to take that gadget away from you it's gotten so bad. That is why we are here; your disregard for the situation, and the discussion. And this has happened before very recently. You should know better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I did ping the editor who had done similar changes there before; his edits were not objected to. As for blatantly misusing JWB, I don't know what you're referring to; are there accusations some place? I generally use it only for uncontroversial simple pattern fixes, such as downcasing per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

They have been controversial and you know they have been controversial. This is an item that will affect every single tennis bio in existence. Countless thousands or 10s of thousands. If there is something you don't like about a chart, the TennisProject may change things to make it more palatable. A handful of your buddies should not be able to change every tennis bio.... that requires a massive consensus. And 2+ days of talk and changing a thousand articles after being told not to is DISRUPTIVE EDITING. You should know that in your 16 years of editing as it's been told to you recently. It was also told to you in discussion that it's not clear with W–L|(16–7) and Win–Loss|(16–7) that MOSCAPS applies. You said yourself that W–L is functional, not W–l. But this is not the place to discuss it. This is the place to discuss your blatant disruptive editing in the midst of 2+ day discussion that has no consensus, where you went and changed 1000 articles to your way of thinking that now MUST be changed back. That is wrong and will always be wrong and you need to be reprimanded for doing it yet again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"Countless thousands or tens of thousands"? No. There are 1397 tennis biographies with the table row header "Win–loss". This is the only recent place where you and Sportsfan have objected to using sentence case and prefer to use title case; but the consensus (5–2) at the discussion was that we should just go with what MOS:CAPS says. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I was about to raise the issue of Dicklyon's recent edits with JWB here at ANI as well. I am the editor that Fyunck(click) refers to above who "disagreed with [Dicklyon] changing 100s to 1000s of articles". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The main issue with their editing is that they are already making hundreds of edits to implement what they voted for in a discussion that is still active. It may very well be the case that their personal preference wins the discussion, but whether or not it does is not the issue here. The issue is that they are basically WP:SNOW-closing their own discussion after three days. Before they made their recent batch of edits, I suggested an alternate option that only Dicklyon is against, but most others haven't commented on yet because it wasn't part of the original post that started the discussion. To me, it's pretty well-accepted at Wikipedia that if there's an active discussion going on (and especially if you have already been reverted), you don't make changes to implement your option until after the discussion is over. That goes against WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Another thing to note is that Dicklyon has been blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPET-ing before on issues related to MOS:CAPS (see here). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

So my last 6 years or so of good work since being welcomed back is to be ignored in favor of this long memory of a bad time? Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not being blocked in the last 6 years doesn't mean you've been doing good work all that time. It could just mean you've gotten better at avoiding a block. Plus, you were blocked in 2019 as well, so not completely better at it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

A third thing to note is that Dicklyon did the exact same thing last month in which they rushed through a change affecting dozens of articles after leaving that discussion open for not even two days (see here). I warned them against doing that earlier in this new discussion here, yet they still ignored it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

How is that the exact same thing? Did anyone object? How does your "warning" of March 6 relate to my edits of Feb. 21? Did anyone react negatively to any of those changes? Not that I've seen. What are going on about? Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The TennisProject had the same thing happen several months ago with a different user Ruling party for prematurely changing the names of dozens of Davis Cup articles while a discussion was still going on and they were blocked for it (see here). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Those things from Ruling party are nothing to do with me, and completely unknown to me. I'm sorry if you're having a bad time due to the actions of others, but don't put that on me. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

And that's the big thing. This is becoming habitual with Dicklyon. He has admitted having a "Pet Peeve" about capitalization with no room for any other views or flexibility. I can guarantee this will not be the last time he does this unless something is done, and I'm really getting tired of doing 100s of reverts ALL because of him. Editor Wolbo is now doing a bunch of reverts of Dicklyon that he shouldn't have to do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I asked Dicklyon to make those edits based on what I thought was consensus (all the newest tennis season article use a certain format, so I thought it reasonable to apply the same format to older season articles). User:Wolbo has expressed his preference for the older format and reverted the changes. As those edits by Dicklyon were based on my apparent misapprehension of the consensus, they should not factor into anybody here's conclusions about Dicklyon. Letcord (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wolbo: No, the changes I did at Letcord's request at User talk:Dicklyon#Suggested task are not the ones at issue here (not clear why Sportsfan is throwing in this distractor, or why Fy is using it as somehow supporting his issue that he came here about; there was no contention or disruption, but a little reverting since I took your request as representing something the project wanted, which wasn't right). I took those to discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Another downcasing task, and undid some of them, but we didn't undo the case fixes; nobody objected to lowercase "draw". Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia will not suffer if some letters are Not To Everyone's Taste. However, Wikipedia will suffer if remarkably persistent users continue to irritate those who maintain articles. Unless there is a discussion showing a consensus for the recent changes, I support an indefinite topic ban for Dicklyon to prevent changing the case of letters and to prevent the discussion of changing the case of letters. A harmonious community is the most important asset we have. If necessary, I'll later dig up a few of the previous battles about this issue. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Fy already linked the discussion showing consensus for "Win–loss", and MOS:CAPS has broad consensus. Of my last 20,000 or so case-fixing edits of the last month or so, there's this one little item that he and Sportsfan are the only ones objectig to. They're still sore they lost their beloved over-capitalization of Men's Singles and such, but the consensus from the RM discussion Talk:1912 World Hard Court Championships – Mixed_doubles#Requested move 8 January 2022 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Are_"Men's_Singles"_and_"Women's_Doubles",_etc.,_proper_names? waw clear: tennis is not so special as to have their own capitalization style. Nobody has objected to the same changes in other sports. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is a blatant lie. Consensus was not reached in 2+ days. I'm not sure how you figure these things. To change every single tennis bio takes a lot more than a couple of friends agreeing with you. They are always the same couple plus you called one over in canvassing. With discussions like these an alternative may find a place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is not a matter of taste. It's a matter of Wikipedia having a long consensus about how to capitalize. Article titles, section headings and table headings are in sentence case. A local consensus does not outweigh a Wikipedia wide guideline. Yes, while this is being discussed, such edits should stop, but there's no reason for reverting good guideline-following edits and continuing to argue against long-standing consensus. SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This also happened at New York City Subway, Dicklyon attempted to ram through a page move to "New York City subway", subtly changed section headers of user's responses to the page move, accused the relister of "canvassing" and then immediately opened a move review (also failed) when the outcome wasn't in his favor. As such I also support an Indef topic ban. Cards84664 16:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

As for subtly changing the section heading, I was reverting to the original heading that I created in this edit, which someone else had subtly changed without my consent. Dicklyon (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I used the proper RM and MR processes there. How is this "ramming through"? Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The closing notes of the review specify that there should be "no rush to renew the discussion". Cards84664 16:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. It was a 10-year interval before the previous re-opening, and I don't expect to bring it up again in this decade. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the interval between this re-opening and the review. Cards84664 17:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The move review followed shortly after the RM discussion close. That's standard. Dicklyon (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I would advise Dicklyon against determining consensus so soon into a discussion, but the strength of consensus after a few days makes his edits reasonable to me. I oppose any warnings/sanctions against Dicklyon based on the evidence so far, which shows a bigger problem of a small group of editors trying to invalidate project-wide consensus at a WikiProject talk page. Bigger, but still not that big, as this issue is barely noticeable by readers. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  If you think a strong consensus has been reached in that discussion, then close it and leave an explanation of the outcome. Why is it still open then? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Advice received. I do get impatient when people like Fyunck and Sportsfan throw delays into routine work. It took November through February to fix the overcapitalization in "Men's Singles" and such over their objections, but we got it done, including bot approval for thousands of moves. Sometimes a lot of process is needed, but not in the current case. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  And we get angry when you skirt the system and implement a thousand changes without consensus that we have to fix. And since this happens over and over your "advice received" rings hollow. You need to change your tactics from now on or this will happen again and again. Have you changed back all your edits... I sure don't see it yet! Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  There's no need to get angry. WP:BRD serves us well. I do a lot of bold changes, and about 99% of them never provoke a comment. For the ones that do, we discuss. Did I jump too soon when I thought the consensus of MOS:CAPS was clearly re-affirmed for "Win–Loss"? Perhaps so. Otherwise, my "tactics" are mostly effective and uncontroversial. I've changed the case of about 200,000 letters in recent months, and you're picking on a tiny slice of that, while others are thanking (including 6 in the last few days) and supporting me in moving WP toward better consistency with our WP:MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  As for changing back all my edits, of course not. If you mean particularly the downcasing of "Loss" for row header "Win–loss", I've prepared a JWB settings, preparsed, and counted the 1397 tennis bios that that would apply to. I don't want to undo them without consensus, as I'll probably end up re-fixing them again if I do. It's about an hour in each direction. Let's settle it back at the project discussion if there's more to decide, not here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Therin lies your problem and one reason we are here today. You are putting the cart before the horse. It's do it my way, then hold it hostage until we agree. No thanks. Change them all back because for sure it won't stay that way. As another tennis editor has stated, we will change them all to W–L before we go to Win–loss in the row header. Change your disruptive edits back so the project can decide. It could likely be that no consensus will be reached and nothing will change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  This "tennis is so special" argument gets tiresome. No other area would cap them as "Win–Loss". See for example titles: Win–loss, Win–loss record, Win–loss record (pitching), Win–loss analytics, List of all-time NFL win–loss records, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  It not a question of tennis being special. What gets tiresome is you using this silly response over and over and over and over. W–l and Win–loss in the table header would be ridiculous no matter where it is located. But again, that's not why we are here. We are here because of your constant over-and-over again disruptive editing. That must STOP. You change hundreds and thousands of articles with no consensus at your own whim and then refuse, as above, to change them back when challenged. That is not the Wikipedia way. That is not working and playing well with others. Your fixation on the most minute supposed rules is a danger to the cohesiveness of working on Wikipedia articles. Again it has to stop. Revert yourself so the Tennis project can look at things. There are at least three editors right now trying to revert all your damages. You may do it in the blink of an eye but it takes us hours and hours. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that "W–l" would be a ridiculous header, but nobody has suggested such a thing. I didn't touch any of the headers "W–L". But sentence case headers are normal, not ridiculous. We are not here for any "constant over-and-over again disruptive editing"; we're here because you won't accept the consensus and MOS:CAPS advice to make this header sentence case. If there's something else that brought you here to complain about that, you haven't clarified what. I've done over 20,000 edits in tennis articles fixing case errors, and while you delayed me a few months with discussions on a few of them such as "Men's Singles", the consensus there was clear, and I got no pushback while or after doing all those. In a later round of case cleanups, you decided to react to this one table header. Why? Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Once again, that is not why we are here. We are here because of your disruptive conduct, and fabricating consensus over 10,000 articles that are managed as best as possible by WikiProject Tennis and others. Win–Loss in a row is not clear and is a minor blip, yet it was being discussed and 2+ days later you puffed up your feathers and changed 100s or articles... which are still not reverted by your disruptive editing by the way. Before making all those changes you should have waited a week or so until an easily seen consensus (or not) appeared. Had we seen some huge Win–loss, tennis project would likely have said to change them all to W–L instead, as we do at the top of the table. That would be the time to do those changes and not before. You work with people and you don't ram things down their throats with 1000 disruptive edits. Your style seems to be with a baseball bat and a shredder as opposed to discussion and compromise. That has grown tiresome and you have been called to the mat on it here.
  

  At the very least we see that others have the same issue with your disruptive editing style and if it happens again you could be topic banned or blocked. I'd rather you change your ways than have that happen. I'd rather you not sit there with a stopwatch to tick off the days of a discussion. I'd rather you say at the end of a discussion "do we all feel like this has run its course?"; "Do we have any alternate suggestions that could work to get even more editors onboard?"; "Do we allow some more time for those who could be on vacation or could be involved in humanitarian aid?". Those are things that play well with editors. That means you are trying to find the best solution for everyone involved instead of bulldozing the conversation. But right now, your continued actions have me not trusting any of your motives or any of your edits. I feel I have to scrutinize all your tennis edits for fear they have overstepped. I don't want to feel that way, but I do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I do hope you and others will scrutinize my edits and let me know if I get something wrong. But this thing about "Win–loss" being disruptive is nuts. If there's disruption, it's because you decided to complain at ANI instead of accepting the clear consensus at the (admittedly brief) discussion. Editors do not want tennis article to be style outliers. Nowhere else in WP capitalizes "Win–Loss". Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is a lie. I said I would bring it up a level if you continued without consensus, of which there was none! That is why we are here. Your stated "Per Peeve" on all capitalization issues at Wikipedia, where they become the pinnacle of all issues, where everything else gets pushed aside to the point where you become judge, jury, and prosecution in 2.5 days is a problem. There are so many ways this could have gone where we could have told you to change things to W–L as a compromise. But that was sidestepped by the fervor of that "Pet Peeve." You need to learn to work with people much better than you have been. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the comment by Johnuniq above. I completely understand why people would prefer uniform enforcement of capitalization preferences, and all other things being equal so would I, but there comes a point where the significance of upper- or lower-casing a single letter in a group of thousands of articles is minimal, and fighting an enforcement campaign in that context is not worth the demoralization of other editors that results. (See also my vote comment here.) Deapitalization campaigns, pursued to extremes, have demoralized editors in other topic-areas in the past (the birds project is one example that comes quickly to mind). I see absolutely no value to doing that, and I would urge that editors desist from that sort of behavior. As for Dicklyon specifically, I first recall encountering him in this absurd AfD about 15 years ago. I was unimpressed by his hyper-rules-oriented approach then, and I see little evidence that it has changed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow, way to carry a grudge, NYB! Dicklyon (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

For goodness sake, over-lowercasing indeed. Can you imagine what the abbreviation would soon look like? "W-l", rather the "W-L". What's next to come? Infobox titles or maybe Article titles? GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Initialism type abbreviations use caps. There has been no controversy about "W–L", which is used many times in all the articles in question. Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And article titles already use Win–loss. Note that I have not touched that disambig page; it's longstanding consensus to follow our MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I've often thought (and said) that Dicklyon is a bad advocate for his own case, but absent in all this is any principled justification for not changing the tennis articles to be internally consistent and like the other articles. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS isn't something we generally encourage, and for all that it doesn't seem to be the case that there is a local consensus within the tennis project in favor of the status quo. I'm also not sure what to make of the "W-l" strawman, given that no one appears to have suggested such a thing (and it would be ridiculous). These discussions are difficult enough without wasting people's time attacking things that no one has proposed doing. Mackensen (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Per Johnuniq, I support a topic ban for Dicklyon (from MOS:CAPS and WP:TENNIS). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's at least a few of the times above where Dicklyon has claimed consensus where there isn't:

• but the consensus (5–2) at the discussion was that we should just go with what MOS:CAPS says. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC) (still being discussed. two recent !votes against Dicklyon)
• the consensus from the RM discussion Talk:1912 World Hard Court Championships – Mixed_doubles#Requested move 8 January 2022 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Are_"Men's_Singles"_and_"Women's_Doubles",_etc.,_proper_names? waw clear: tennis is not so special as to have their own capitalization style. Nobody has objected to the same changes in other sports. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC) (not true. what Dicklyon wanted was not selected in the RfC. what I wanted was selected.)
• If there's disruption, it's because you decided to complain at ANI instead of accepting the clear consensus at the (admittedly brief) discussion. Editors do not want tennis article to be style outliers. Nowhere else in WP capitalizes "Win–Loss". Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC) (same as above. still being discussed. two recent !votes against Dicklyon)

My guess is this is only going to continue. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, with Dicklyon's statement that:They're still sore they lost their beloved over-capitalization of Men's Singles and such, but the consensus from the RM discussion Talk:1912 World Hard Court Championships – Mixed_doubles#Requested move 8 January 2022 Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC), this isn't true. I got what I wanted (e.g. "Men's singles"). Dicklyon did not ("men's singles"). That's why I think Dicklyon is WP:HOUNDING the Tennis Project, and that's why I think a topic ban is warranted. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That RM discussion closed in support of exactly the moves I proposed. You did not participate; at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#More_discussion_about_dashes_in_sporting_event_titles you said the capitalized Men's Singles needed to be kept as a proper name: The sub-titles could always be justified as proper nouns, so MOS:SENTENCECAPS wouldn't apply. Why are you trying to rewrite history about that? Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I voted here (I voted for B or E. The winning option was Option B). Dicklyon's vote is clearly for A or D. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Since the Tennis Project makes no edits, it cannot be hounded. Your bad-faith assumptions and wild accusations are pretty tiresome. Primergrey (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean no edits? A project can absolutely be hounded. Dicklyon never edited tennis articles before. They got into a dispute with Fyunck and myself about tennis. Now they are editing tennis articles nonstop. If that's not hounding, then what is? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

A good faith-assuming version of that history is that he stumbled upon a capitalization issue in one set of tennis articles, fixed it, and then progressively found many more in other types of tennis articles (bios, draws, seasons) over time. I do agree though that he jumped the gun a bit in interpreting the consensus in the "Win–loss" discussion, and should revert himself if consensus ends up being for "Win–Loss". Letcord (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I have said that I am prepared to put them back to "Win–Loss" quickly if there's a consensus to do so; but that won't happen, since it's against MOS:CAPS, which says we avoid unnecessary capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a non-zero chance that it will happen. I also think from the limited I've seen of your editing that you've not displayed "chronic, intractable behavioral problems" as is required to post about someone here, so this public pillorying of you is undeserved. Letcord (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

"They got into a dispute with Fyunck and myself about tennis. Now they are editing tennis articles nonstop.". "Nonstop" must mean something different than I think it does, then. Because his recent editing history is virtually all to NFL team articles and some MLB players. Does that mean he is hounding WP:SPORTS? You continue to be disingenuous in your lathered-up attempt to circumvent WP processes. Primergrey (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• If one reads the discussion here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Over-capitalization still, one thing is immediately apparent to me - the language being used. It is very strongly WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUNDy. The "apparent" trigger for this "incident" would appear to be DL concluding and acting upon a consensus from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. If it is simply their volume of edits, there is no incident. As SchreiberBike observes: ... there's no reason for reverting good guideline-following edits and continuing to argue against long-standing consensus. Firefangledfeathers observes: ... the strength of consensus after a few days makes his edits reasonable to me. While Firefangledfeathers observe (and DL acknowledges), more time might have been given, one should consider the pattern of engagement at WikiProject Tennis. A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Are "Men's Singles" and "Women's Doubles", etc., proper names? petered out in the same timeframe as the current discussion (ie just under 3 days) and, by my count, received 4 comments from card-carrying members of the tennis project. DL has regularly engaged with the project and in notified discussions elsewhere. If one reads the discussion fully, arguments about "W/l" are a red herring and the most recent comments at WikiProject Tennis are (IMHO) at best, novel but are clearly contrary to guidance and clutching at straws. Not even the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines were consistent in capitalising "win-loss" in tables (see this).

I would remark on these particular comments at WikiProject Tennis: even if you could get consensus that "Win–Loss" is not allowed, we would probably switch it to "W–L" to leave the capitalization and We would change it to W–L if it came to that. These statements (to me) signal petulance, WP:GAMING (WP:POINTy) and unacceptable intractability. This "threat" has been acted upon with this edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. If Fyunck(click) would ague that: Editor Wolbo is now doing a bunch of reverts of Dicklyon that he shouldn't have to do, who is now going to act to address this? If this "incident" is primarily that DL hasn't gained a consensus for their edits or hasn't waited sufficiently for the discussion to evolve, I am at a loss as to how this action (amending the guideline) isn't a case of WP:POT. This is an ill-considered change that doesn't serve our readers since it provides for no guidance (legend) that would now explain this abbreviation where previously it might have been deduced. If we weren't sailing close to WP:BOOMERANG before, I think it should now be considered. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see how this is a legitimate issue. The discussion linked was not an RfC and did not need to be formally closed to find consensus for a change. I'd advise Dicklyon to be less hasty but leaving this ANI thread open is not likely to improve things; nor has Dicklyon done anything worthy of any sanction. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• I concur with Elli. I'll add that what is going on here is that a handful of people (mostly along WP:SSF lines) don't like MOS:CAPS but know they are not likely to get any traction on changing its central message – that WP doesn't capitalize things that are not overwhelmingly capitalized in modern source material, and not just specialized source material but general-audience source material like news, dictionaries, and other encyclopedias. Instead they attempt to resist implementation of MOS:CAPS (and the derived WP:NCCAPS) at "their" articles (WP:OWN), and to use WP:POVRAILROAD techniques to hassle editors like Dicklyon who just are applying the guidelines correctly. What's especially irritating is that the most frequent "noise" of this sort is coming out of sports and games wikiprojects, after a clear RfC implemented MOS:GAMECAPS specifically to curtail overcapitalization in those topic areas. What we have here is a WP:CONLEVEL failure wherein a handful of wikiprojects refuse to recognize that a site-wide guideline overrules their topic-specific personal preferences. This ANI should close without action other than perhaps WP:BOOMERANG sanctions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• There was concern that Win–Loss works differently than MOSCAPS states. There are articles that have quite recently been judged to be fine with capitalization after the "–" so that is of concern as well. Dicklyon has continued to to run roughshod over consensus (or no consensus) and was told as much before this ANI was brought to bear. But I'll tell you one thing... that boomerang statement tells me all I need to know and is probably a good reason why you failed in your attempt to gain administration level. That is ridiculous bias. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that it is accurate to say that: There was concern that Win–Loss works differently than MOSCAPS states. I am not seeing any such comment at the tennis project discussion. The objections being made appear to be based on personal preference without any reference to how MOS:CAPS may or may not apply to this case. Also, MOS:CAPS is quite explicit by virtue of a directly comparable analogy at MOS:ENBETWEEN. Also, I don't think that it is quite accurate to say: There are articles that have quite recently been judged to be fine with capitalization after the "–" .... If you are referring to this RM, then the close states: No consensus exists for the secondary proposal that all letters after the dash should be lowercase. It was "no consensus". Also, while both cases use a dash, the grammatical contexts are quite different, as is how the dash is used (spaced or unspaced). When stated: Dicklyon has continued to to run roughshod over consensus (or no consensus) .... This clearly fails to acknowledge that P&G are a representation of broad community consensus. Making a statement: That is a lie. is an allegation. There is no significant difference between saying that and saying "you are lying" or "you are a lier". If one is going to make such assertions, one really needs to ensure that their own statements are scrupulously accurate or risk WP:POT. To the last of the post, we are getting into WP:NPA territory. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• • The attitude that the capitalization conventions in the MOS are a top-level priority, which must be aggressively enforced despite the strong preferences of the editors who actually create and maintain the articles in their fields of expertise, has over the years caused a great deal of damage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • SMcCandlish, the Tennis Project is not against MOS:CAPS. The Tennis Project is against making wide-scale changes without discussion. In most of these situations, even if Dicklyon is correct that it is a MOS:CAPS violation, there are usually multiple options about what to change it to. Dicklyon does not just get to decide which one to go with. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• • If I've done something where the Tennis Project comes to a consensus that there's a better solution, let me know and I'll be glad to help get it done (assuming it doesn't go against guidelines). Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

How absurd can this get?

Now Sportsfan7777 is saying that I'm at it again by fixing the over-capitalization of "Strike Rate". See this revert. What crazy theory is behind such picking on routine case fixing? See WT:WikiProject Tennis#Tooltips, too for discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Strike rate refers to two different statistics in the sport of cricket. What does that have to do with tennis? wbm1058 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know it means in cricket or even in tennis, but I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be capped. See n-grams. Or book search. Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Really, Dicklyon? You've exhausted all higher-priority tasks for fixing incorrect visible text, and now you're going after tool-tips that are only visible when you hover over them? How do you set your priorities? There's a ton of stuff worse than this lingering around the project that somehow you've missed. wbm1058 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing is my hobby; I don't aim to be as productive or efficient as possible, just work on fixing things I find wrong. Thank you for your concern. But if there are things wrong that you'd like me to help with, let me know; I usually aim to please (which got me into a bit of pickle with Letcord's suggestion as you can see above). Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think if editors were generally called upon to explain what they worked on and why the project would disintegrate. Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Can I interest Dicklyon in working on clearing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations? This is something only I have ever worked on for any extended length of time, AFAIK. My time is too oversubscribed to keep it under control. There are over 400 links to Buzzfeed, that should link to BuzzFeed. Hundreds of links to Bachelor of arts that should link to Bachelor of Arts. Same for Bachelor of science and Bachelor of Science. A lot more where those came from, with more added most every day by drive-by biography writers. I don't follow how fixing some tool-tip in a table is higher priority than those. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It's fine if you don't follow. No one needs to explain their priorities to you, let alone operate according to your priorities. Primergrey (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I tried to remove the need for fixing Bachelor of science but Chris the speller refused to take it out of the queue. So I think it's reasonable to ask for help. He's not the only editor who keeps piling work on me. wbm1058 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I'd be happy to work on more tasks that others think are more important (in addition to what I do organically). Tell me more on my talk page about the nature of the problem and how you go about fixing it. Do you use JWB to generate list of articles linking to wrongly-capitalized redirects to start, and then just do the appropriate replaces? Dicklyon (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chris the speller: so if you two disagree on whether "Bachelor of Science" needs caps or not, did either of you open a discussion on that? Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you both had a word in there, I see now. But nobody cited a relevant section of MOS:CAPS, nor linked it at WT:MOSCAPS#Current, so nothing is resolved except that the two of you have different priorities, which is not novel. If we agree it needs fixing, I can whip it out in a few minutes with JWB. So agree first. Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

wbm1058, it is categorically impossible for me to pile work on you. Please see WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:VOLUNTEER. You are painting me as stubborn for marking a redirect as a miscapitalization 10 months ago. Dictionaries show "Bachelor of Science" as capitalized, as it is a specific, formal distinction. A "bachelor of science" is an unmarried man who plays with test tubes. Your fight is not with me, but with a bunch of lexicographers. Chris the speller ^yack 02:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This is complete BS. I didn't say the tooltip should be capitalized. I said either the tooltip should be (1) all lowercase --- there is no reason to capitalize it, or (2) removed entirely --- tooltip use is discouraged because tooltips are not very accessible on mobile devices. We moved the explanation of SR to the performance key to explain it there. Many of our articles don't have the tooltips anymore, but as far as I know there was never a discussion about whether to remove them from all articles. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

True, your edit summary did say either the tooltip should be (1) all lowercase --- there is no reason to capitalize it, or (2) removed entirely as you restored title-case Strike Rate. Sorry if I didn't characterize your revert exactly correctly. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

So, with clear reason to remove the tooltip template, and make the dispute redundant, Sportsfan77777 chose to revert the edit - an action that keeps the dispute alive. This strikes me as being rather WP:POINTy, since the actions required are rather trivial. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The point is not about MOS:CAPS at all. If you want to make a wide-scale change, you need to start a discussion first. This applies to everyone, but Dicklyon wants some kind of special privilege. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Some background

The great majority of my edits in the tennis space (about 20,000 edits) can be understood from the discussion at WT:WikiProject Tennis#Bot for renaming/moving tennis articles. The only comments I got there were about things that I failed to fix, so I kept at collecting over-capitalization patterns and fixing them. All was fine until Sportsfan reverted a change of "Win–Loss" to "Win–loss" in a table header. So we discussed that at WT:WikiProject Tennis#Over-capitalization still, and appeared to have strong support (only Sportsfan and Fyunck objecting) for following MOS:CAPS instead of Sportsfan's variant style, so I went back to it. This is not at all the picture that he and Fyunck paint above which somehow has me harassing him or the project. Dicklyon (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Some other changes that ended up being partly reverted can be understood from User talk:Dicklyon#Suggested task and WT:WikiProject Tennis#Another downcasing task. Please read and you'll see I'm trying my best to be cooperative with the project. Dicklyon (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't see how implementing a mass-change against consensus is in anyway being "cooperative with the project." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you point out when/where you think I did that? Maybe a diff or two, so I can see what you're accusing me of? Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

User:TheFinalMigration incivility and WP:GREATWRONGS issues but more important is the underlying issue of concern

As seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse&diff=1076085630&oldid=1075974325 this user is making grotesque accusations against me and project contributors in general due to not acquiescing to their unilateral demands to remove all images of the sexual abuse of prisoners at this institution by US military personnel. This is WP:GREATWRONGS and I obviously can’t do this because it’s above my metaphorical pay grade. They outright admitted they were violating conduct codes and would probably be blocked, though I’d like to clarify I don’t honestly care and normally would’ve just redacted the more gratuitous bits with a “(Personal attack removed)” tag.

But more importantly I’d like to raise the concern over whether the underlying issue of the legality and ethics of the images is valid. These are serious accusations that go beyond the usual Virgin Killer-type nonsense. Thank you, Dronebogus (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Dmford13

• Dmford13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can I get some help at Washington, D.C. with User:Dmford13. They are new and not aware that tthe mass addition of unsource text as per WP:Burden . mass addition of images as per WP:SANDWICH and WP:GALLERY...mass linking of catagories is not what we are looking for . Put it simply an FA level article is not the place to learn the WIki ways. Think threy are trying their best....but seem not willing to read over the MOS etc. Dont want a block trheem yet ... just need them to understand the additions our causeing verifiability problems and mass addition of images causing accessibility problems.--Moxy- 16:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I have spent many hours over the past few weeks deeply improving the article on Washington, DC. I have already told Moxy that I will get rid of the duplications (which were not that many and were a minority of what I was actually adding to the page). I will also decrease the amount of images, if that is preferred. But I see other articles of large cities that have a very high level of images, and I think this should be the case for Washington DC. But, again, I can get rid of several of those if it's best. Dmford13 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say but what you've done on the article has not improved it, the whole article in honesty looks a complete mess. Images everywhere, stuff squashed, far too many photos most of which are better served on specific topic articles. It's a complete cacophony of noise. Although in absolute fairness to yourself, this has been done over a month and other editors didn't mention anything earlier. However you have to stop reverting. Canterbury Tail talk 17:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

pls review WP:BRD ..Moxy- 16:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Moxy has now opened a report at WP:AN3. Since this dispute seems to be a plain old edit warring case, I suggest that any discussion continue over there. It is not necessary to have two reports of the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Was hoping they would not just keep reverting...but no luck Still just editing away during ongoing tlak page talks.Moxy- 17:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Dmford13 I strongly, strongly, urge you to go and discuss this on the talk page of the article instead of continuing to edit on the article. You may be wasting your time and it seems that a complete reversion of your edits may actually be the most likely and beneficial course of action. Canterbury Tail talk 17:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Honestly, I almost just reverted back to the last good before I saw this thread and I'm still tempted to. It's nearly unreadable at this point. Why do we even need a picture of Wolf Blitzer reporting with a DC backdrop? These images add nothing of value to the article and most of the text even less so. CUPIDICAE💕 17:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well, nothing exemplifies Washington D.C. like Wolf Blitzer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Or a clusterfuck of nonsense jammed into one small area. :) CUPIDICAE💕 18:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Anyone have a clue why they removed thisa? We need some intervention here.Moxy- 18:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• After another attempt to read through the article and fix it up, I've come to the conclusion that it was better before and if Dmford13 thinks anything should be added back, they should probably discuss it first. I of course have no authority or power to enforce this but I WP:BRD'd because of its utter unreadability and undersourcing/lack of sourcing. Obviously if anyone disagrees, feel free to revert me. CUPIDICAE💕 18:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Welp. they've gone back in and partially restored their preferred edits to a featured article. CUPIDICAE💕 18:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Given their combative behavior on their talk page, I'd suggest a pblock from the article until they understand what we expect from editors and how to collaborate. CUPIDICAE💕 18:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Dmford13 31 hours for first violating the WP:3RR rule at Washington, D.C. and then continuing the war while this report was open. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

So can we get an actual resolution here?

In the long discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092#H2ppyme_and_Estonian_POV, there was a clear consensus both to indef block AND topic ban User:H2ppyme for disruptive editing, edit warring, and his outrageous conduct at ANI. His temporary block expired several days ago, this discussion is two weeks old, and there've been several calls to close the discussion and impose the sanctions upon which the community agreed. Unfortunately, the discussion was archived automatically without this being done. Might there be a kindly admin who'll go through with it? Many thanks in advance. Ravenswing 16:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I've unarchived it, above. Number 57 20:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Johann Hari

• 167.98.45.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MedianJoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Johann Hari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There seems to be a concerted effort on the Johann Hari article to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by editing the WP article to manipulate Google rankings, as stated here by SPA (as of 2022) 167.98.45.36, and here by SPA MedianJoe. As WP editors, we are not here to right the great wrongs of Google algorithms and Google search results, and I find it troubling that both editors are openly using WP to manipulate search results for a hot-issue subject. As as an aside, I've been editing almost 9 years and hadn't even read the Johann Hari article until last week (to my knowledge), yet was accused of engaging in "reputation management" by MedianJoe (same post as linked above). As stated on the talk page, having 13 top-level categories on a page is unwieldy and doesn't flow well; to add subsections helps the article flow better, which was my original intent.

For full transparency, not sure if this is the best forum for this concern, but I believe it does need to be addressed, as openly trying to manipulate Google results does not seem like editors are editing in good faith. I am more than happy to hear other perspectives. --Kbabej (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

If they're using external links to manipulate Google results, they're wasting their time. Wikipedia uses nofollow, which tells search engines that respect robots.txt - such as Google - to disregard outgoing links. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not links; they want the plagiarism issues in the first paragraph so they show up in search result snippets and knowledge graphs. Schazjmd (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, that makes more sense. I've put in a request at RPP for the page proper, but the named user should likely be dealt with as WP:NOTHERE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the RPP request, which has been granted and the page protected. I agree the named user is WP:NOTHERE, and would add that is my opinion for the IP named above as well. Kbabej (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I've ECP'd to stop disruption, but I'll leave the sorting to others. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The baseless accusations against other editors by MedianJoe has continued with calling long-established editors a "reputation management campaign" and calling the subject of the article a "notorious liar and plagiarist". MedianJoe is clearly not here to help a collaborative project. --Kbabej (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, he needs 86'd yesterday. Discounting the content dispute, an us-vs-them mentality is only going to make this a lot worse until someone blocks him. (And since he's an SPA, a pblock is pretty much tantamount to a full block.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

User:331dot rejecting an unblock request and ignoring the basis stated

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

---

I have been blocked for edit warring, even though my edits come under an exemption from this policy (removing unsourced edits for living persons). My unblock request was denied without the exemption being addressed, and then even after giving the admin an additional opportunity on their talk page, they again failed to address the basis of my unblock request. I would like a review of this admin behaviour, as the admin seems to be neglecting their duties as an admin, and instead choosing to focus on taking my feedback personally rather than performing their admin role. Rebroad (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This is certainly the wrong action. Good luck. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

In my note confirming my partial block in the section above, I specifically noted that further sanctions will likely be required if the disruption continues. Given Rebroad's continued WP:IDHT behaviour, I think we've hit that point.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Rebroad, I'm not involved in the dispute in question at all, but have been following your requests here and at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. I would highly recommend withdrawing this request and taking a break from the Şahin dispute. I think it's more likely that continuing this discussion here will lead to additional sanctions against you than a revocation of the one-week page block. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 19:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• (snuck in after close, as potentially useful to the OP) I kind of agree with the idea of additional sanctions, but on the off chance that a clear direct response to their question will get them to back away from the cliff edge: the reason that the BLP exception is not valid is because your interpretation of BLP is really, really wrong. So wrong, that it is not really reasonable to accept it as a good faith exception. It should have been clear to a good faith contributor, based on everyone else's comments, that your interpretation was wrong prior to your last revert. You'll find that this was the unanimous opinion at the ANI thread that led to your one-week block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

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

user:Comrade-yutyo edit warring, WP:POV,, WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:OR, incivility

As can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Totalitarianism#Deletion_of_Pinochet, this clearly biased user is engaging in all of the above despite the clear consensus being their changes are inappropriate and not backed up by reliable sources. It’s annoying and a clear case of Wikipedia:REFUSINGTOGETIT.

Just to clarify I am not a Pinochet fan. At all. I think he was a horrible dictator. But that doesn’t mean he’s a totalitarian. Dronebogus (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

[clerking] El_C 21:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC) — talk:Totalitarianism shows that the particular user is under influence of certainly biased philosophers such as Hayek on specifying totalitarianism, telling that Pinochet regime is not totalitarian despite throwing people out of planes and torturing them cuz Chile under him had a free market. Deliberate whitewashing of including right-wing capitalist dictators is visible in the reverts of the particular user. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Dronebogus, if you're gonna clerk, clerk right. But best not clerk / remove at all any items that involve yourself. Also, in your edit summary, you've written harassment. How so? El_C 21:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Hounding me with accusations of bad faith. And generally going out of their way to make a wp:point and be annoying. Dronebogus (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Dronebogus, please leave determination of "hounding" (what, here, by the reported user?) or "annoying" (what?) to uninvolved admins, here, on the admins board, okay? El_C 22:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

    "[...] be annoying." is not a reason. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 22:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Dronebogus, if this editor has violated WP:EW then please report that at WP:AN/EW. Your reports here are becoming so frequent that you risk being treated like The Boy Who Cried Wolf, even if you are right. Comrade-yutyo, it would help people to take you more seriously if you wrote "because" in standard English, rather than "cuz" in your own idiolect. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • They were not just edit warring. Would you three (Callmemirela, Phil Bridger, El_C) stop nitpicking me over process and actually look at the behavior of the disruptive user? WP:BOOMERANG based on assumptions shouldn’t be the default, even though it seems to be. Dronebogus (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Dronebogus, I am an uninvolved admin here, you are the OP. Do not collapse my comment (diff) or I will block you for disruption. Also, it's ironic you speak about nitpicking over process when you removed the reported user's comment by labeling it a new complaint, when it's obvious it was posted in reply to this thread. You need to do better. El_C 22:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Please just… look at the link. I don’t want to have to have two arguments at once. Dronebogus (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• No, this isn't about that. You can take your time here so long as you do not continue to disrupt this thread. El_C 22:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• El_C, isn't creating a separate ANI thread five minutes after being reported to ANI in order to retaliate against the OP generally seen as WP:POINTY and disruptive? Mackensen certainly seemed to think so. I'm surprised that most of your ire has been directed at Dronebogus's bad "clerking," when you merged Comrade-yutyo's duplicative thread yourself. Notably, Comrade-yutyo's post did not include a single diff to substantiate its characterization of Dronebogus as a "particular user [who] is under influence of certainly biased philosophers such as Hayek ... Deliberate whitewashing ... is visible in the reverts of the particular user", which seems like an inappropriate personal attack.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Neither the OP nor the reported user have provided diffs, and both have skirted the line of civility. As I noted, I understood the new header as a reply rather than a retaliatory report — i.e. due to inexperience in how this noticeboard works. An inexperience which cannot be said of Dronebogus, to be fair (if one is concerned with such things, at least). Yes, I clerked accordingly, and noted having done so, which Mackensen seemed fine with (diff) El_C 00:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

El_C, please take a look at these edits by Comrade-yutyo at Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–1990) ([127], [128], [129]). It is quite clear that Comrade-yutyo's sources fail verification, as explained in detail without any response from Comrade-yutyo, yet he continues to restore the erroneous content regardless, while baselessly accusing other editors (and ultimately all reliable sources under capitalism, as "there is (sic) no reliable sources for such because the status quo of the world today is capitalism") of "whitewashing". This is an egregious violation of Wikipedia's content policies by an editor who refuses to listen and seems to lack basic competence, and it needs to be addressed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought it was helicopters, not planes. Anyway, I think maybe there's an attempt on Comrade-yutyo's part to present something akin to the notions expounded on in "Hannah Arendt and Marxist Theories of Totalitarianism." Which of course doesn't excuse CIR/disruption from either Comrade-yutyo or Dronebogus. BTW, Dronebogus, please do not submit further reports to this noticeboard without attaching pertinent WP:DIFFs. Even just linking to the relevant section on the talk page was something you added to this report after quite a bit of disruption (diff). El_C 23:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Emboldened, Comrade-yutyo is adding more unsupported information to Augusto Pinochet and Pinochetism (an article that I previously had no idea existed), now without even the pretense that his citation contains any mention of "totalitarianism" whatsoever ([130], [131]). It's just pure, apparently deliberate, source falsification.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean emboldened? Those edits were made prior to the filing of this report. Still, Comrade-yutyo you are expected to explain where that source mentions "totalitarianism" in relation to Pinochet (expressly) before you continue to use it as attribution for that, per WP:BURDEN. El_C 23:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, the bottom line is that Comrade-yutyo has added unsupported or erroneous information to four separate articles ([132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140]), reinstated it once ([141]) at Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–1990) and four separate times at Totalitarianism ([142], [143], [144], [145])—including three reverts on March 5 alone—and overridden this file four separate times on Commons since January, all while impugning other users as bad faith disciples of Friedrich Hayek and questioning the credibility of reliable sources under capitalism. Yet this thread has been dominated by discussion of whether Dronebogus erred by merely linking to a talk page (as opposed to providing specific diffs) and by unilaterally removing Comrade-yutyo's duplicative ANI report (rather than allowing an uninvolved administrator to handle it), with the general tenor being that Comrade-yutyo's actions are more forgivable than Dronebogus's due to the former's inexperience (although Comrade-yutyo has been editing Wikipedia for nearly two years).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Will try to work on omniscience next time. Wish me Luke. El_C 01:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please actually address the problem. Dronebogus (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

If you do not I will go to an uninvolved admin directly with the above diffs and a complaint about administrative incompetence. Dronebogus (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This probably isn't the best tack to take. You may want to step back from attacking, and wait for more attention to come to this thread. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You also may want to revert the attacks, right now, unless you really like boomerangs. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Note to admins: now Dronebogus is going out to WP:CANVAS an admin into the issue: [146]. I feel a boomerang may be warranted. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I am only doing this because the current de facto involved admin is not addressing the actual issue. Dronebogus (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

They declined anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I also chose them completely at random. Dronebogus (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. Your behaviour is just as problematic in this entire thread. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Just as problematic as adding Uncited or incorrect POV material to major articles? Dronebogus (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter the situation. Putting yourself on a pedal stool isn't going to do you any favours. And yes, instances of personal attacks, removing users' comments and canvassing admins are just as problematic. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 19:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I’d guess that “pedal stool” is intended as an insult implying… something about immaturity but the term is so bafflingly obscure I have no idea what you meant by it. Dronebogus (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Likely a typo for "pedestal." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That's what I get for typing on a phone with autocorrect enabled. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt, Dronebogus: Whether you are aware of it or not, you are asking to be blocked. You still have an opportunity to strike your previous inflammatory comments. WaltCip-(talk) 16:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that anyone expecting me to wade into this swamp has been sorely disappointed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

"Sorely disappointed" is the watchword for this whole thread. Sore disappointment all around! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Maxxnite edit-warring

User talk:Maxxnite keeps reverting productive contributions by me and User talk:SecondLooneyaccount on Domino Masters, even after asking him/her to stop edit-warring via edit summaries and Talk:Domino Masters. This will make improving the article more difficult. Please see: [147]. Thank you GoBig22 (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

All three users p-blocked one week for violating WP:3RR. Noting that the OP's first edit was a couple of days ago. El_C 10:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I was done editing it. GoBig22 (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Will try to work on omniscience next time. Wish me Luke. El_C 10:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Adrianwo and unsourced content

I've just reverted Adrianwo (talk · contribs) twice for adding unsourced content on Mac Studio. A brand new article like this should have no excuse for adding content without references, and a Google search for "Mac Studio symmetric multiprocessing" brings back the infamous "It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search" message.

I notice this user has been warned about adding unsourced content again, again, again and again, so maybe it's time for someone to have more of a word? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333:, I'm seeing close to zero communication from this individual. I'd support a block as it appears they have no interest in collaborating or following policy and convention. Tiderolls 15:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hoaxing, personal attacks, etc. by constant IP hopper in Italy

This is a follow-up to my previous discussion, where I talked about an IP hopper in Italy who hoaxed on articles like Kaeloo, violated MOS:OVERLINK on Kitty Is Not a Cat, and personally attacked others when their work was removed.

They are now making edits on List of Kitty Is Not a Cat episodes (in possible violation of their pblock on the main show article on one of their IPs), and when the protection on Kaeloo expired today, they reinstated their hoax content. The page has luckily since been protected, but I'm thinking that more is needed here.

They use the following IPs and ranges:

• 5.91.190.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 5.168.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 5.169.113.64/26 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 37.159.122.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.18.165.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 79.19.174.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 79.22.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 93.45.125.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 95.246.239.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 95.250.142.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 158.148.192.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Hoping that this can be solved. wizzito | say hello! 15:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, two of the three pages have already been protected, and I've now protected the third one (List of), so we're probably good for now. El_C 16:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Jussie Smollett

Sentencing is scheduled to occur today in the Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax case. [148] The BLP article concerning Smollett was recently the target of multiple editors who insisted he should be described primarily as a felon in the lead sentence, and were prepared to edit war over it (the article already provides appropriate weight in the lead section and in the body with regard to Smollett's legal issues and status). The article currently is protected to require autoconfirmed or confirmed access. Even so, asking for additional eyes on Jussie Smollett, as today's news, whatever it may be, can be expected to revive this disruptive activity. General Ization ^Talk 16:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You've had a grand total of 1 talk page discussion about the appropriateness of including "felon" in the lede sentence. [149] Sounds like you're prejudging what the consensus is and I don't see why anyone should be blocked if they "insist he should be described primarily as a felon in the lead sentence". Just because someone is disagreeing with you doesn't make them disruptive. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: If you'd like to participate in the talk page discussion at Talk:Jussie Smollett#Convicted felon and contribute to the development of a consensus, you are welcome to do so. Those of us who have participated in that discussion and who have experience with editing BLP articles on Wikipedia have thus far rejected the introduction of the term "convicted felon" in the initial sentence of the lead until and unless there is a consensus to do so. Repeatedly making a disputed change to a BLP after being informed that there is no consensus for that change is disruptive. No one has ever been, nor will anyone be, blocked just for disagreeing with me. General Ization ^Talk 01:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Opening an ANI thread because of a pure content dispute that's been resolved is somewhat frowned upon and pre-emptively opening an ANI thread for a content dispute that hasn't really had a firm consensus yet is also questionable. I assumed by "recently" you meant the people discussing on the talk page wanting to get this added in, since at the time you posted this the last time people sought to add this information was over 2 months ago while an IP editor made a reverted edit request a few weeks ago. [150] [151] Since that wasn't the case, I don't really get the point of this ANI thread. ANI is usually when you want someone blocked for doing a bad thing recently. It's not a general noticeboard for "this article may have misguided editors doing things they need a warning for in the near future!" That being said, my opinion on this dispute is you should start the RfC yourself and settle the matter. Sure maybe the editors proposing the change should be doing it but they're all new editors who don't know how to start an RfC. If you really want to curb disruption, starting an RfC yourself means inexperienced editors will have the opportunity to easily comment and give their two cents rather than being told to spend an hour or two learning how to make an RFC and getting frustrated then deciding to just editwar. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: This was not an AN/I complaint, nor a report of or a request for help resolving a dispute. This was a request to administrators for additional eyes on an article due to a history of disruptive editing there, anticipated to resume because of RL news. If you're not interested in offering yours to the task, no one's twisting your arm. I really don't need to justify my posting here to you. General Ization ^Talk 03:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Agree with Chess; this discussion should not have been opened here. BilledMammal (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Then a constructive and helpful response would be to point out where it should have been opened, not to write an essay telling me why I'm wrong to mention it. General Ization ^Talk 03:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a right place. The closest might be WP:AN, but it would be better to wait and see if an issue develops and if it does notify the community about it with a post here. BilledMammal (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

An RfC on the talk page is a good way to get people to opine on a dispute. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive WP:POINT editing

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

In the past, I've gone to ANI about User:Cornerstonepicker's past canvassing and consistent stonewalling in this previous ANI report here, which may be useful context in this situation. However, another incident of disruptive editing has happened..

Background:

In December, I started an RfC on Nicki Minaj to re-add the honorific nickname "Queen of Rap" to her lead section, because new sources had come out that supported it. Before that, Cornerstonepicker started an RfC months prior to remove the title from Nicki Minaj. When I started my RfC to readd it per the overwhelming sources, predictably, Cornerstonepicker strongly opposed it. However, the RfC had enough support votes from other editors to pass. Then, shortly after that, he started mass-adding the "Queen of Rap" title to the lead of other female rappers, such as Lil' Kim and Queen Latifah directly after Nicki Minaj's RfC passed.

If you look at his editing history on those articles, he hadn't edited said artictles for months until after the Nicki Minaj RfC passed, and he edited them to add "Queen of Rap" to their leads, once again after "Queen of Rap" was added to Minaj's lead. Is this not clear disruptive WP:POINT behavior, as he had already previously opposed adding it to Minaj's lead?

Evidence of WP:POINT disruptive editing
More evidence of this can be found in edit histories, these are just specific diffs that highlight the pattern.
Missy Elliot: Last edit (10 November 2021) | Edit after RfC passed adding Queen of Rap to lead (30 January 2022) Lil' Kim: Last edit (24 August 2021) | Edit after RfC passed adding Queen of Rap to lead (15 February 2022), (He had also added weak unreliable sources for Lil' Kim being called the "Queen of Rap." on February 2, such as a non-notable Jamaican newspaper) Queen Latifah: Last edit (15 September 2021) | Edit after RfC passed adding Queen of Rap to lead (30 January 2022) Lauryn Hill: Last edit = nonexistent, because he had never even edited her article before "Queen of Rap" was added to Minaj's lead | Edit after RfC passed adding Queen of Rap to lead (17 February 2022) You can see the full edit histories here and how he has been adding "Queen of Rap" to these articles a lot. (Missy Elliott | Lil' Kim | Queen Latifah | Lauryn Hill)

Note that Cornerstonepicker only added this content after the RfC had passed, afaik not attempting it before on such a wide scale. He had also reverted anyone that questioned this sudden mass adding of "Queen of Rap" to a lot of articles. I'm not even talking about myself here, a different uninvolved editor had gone to his talk page to question why he was edit warring to add this content in almost every female rapper's lead. The editor had commented how Cornerstonepicker adding it to every female rapper's lead is oversaturation, and asked why he was particularly pushing for the "Queen of Rap" title specifically on those leads, not any other title. shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• A note - I've given Shanghai a final warning for edit warring, and while it hasn't been broken yet, there's still an awful lot of reverting going on. Additionally, in my observations, I've noticed that virtually every single edit I've spot-checked has been about adding more positive content about Nicki Minaj, or removing negative information about Nicki Minaj. I'm not saying Cornerstone is innocent, but I do believe there's some WP:OWN and WP:NPOV issues here developing with Shanghai. Take that as you will with reviewing this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Sergecross73: If you look at my edit history, I'm not afraid to add negative information / remove positive information about Minaj when needed. [152] [153] (I can provide more diffs) I've been very open and transparent about being a fan of Minaj, something that Cornerstonepicker himself has attacked me for many times. This is the same person who's been called out for bias against Nicki Minaj by other editors, with seemingly no accountability so far. Meanwhile, I've gotten countless attacks about my transparency to others... shanghai.^{talk to me} 18:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It's true that RogueShanghai has not been neutral with regard to Nicki Minaj, adding far too much positive material, and arguing strenuously for more. There's definitely room for a boomerang with this report. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

100% agree with a boomerang - this editor has been here a frankly absurd number of times for the amount of productive edits they have actually made. For those unfamiliar with the history, here's the list of previous ANI and ANEW threads for this editor, in no particular order:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1075#User:RogueShanghai
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1077#User: RogueShanghai
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1071#Ignoring WP:ONUS and potential COI
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#Ping abuse by user:RogueShanghai
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092#Uncivil abuse from Ronherry
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive438#User:RogueShanghai reported by User:ChicagoWikiEditor (Result: ) (and the section below it)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive436#User:RogueShanghai reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: )

Given the persistent, long term issues with edit warring, ownership of articles and biased/POV editing I am convinced that a boomerang is needed here. For someone with a total of 1850 article edits the amount of time that has been wasted on this editor is absurd, I cannot see how allowing them to continue editing here would be anything other than a timesink. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't really ping this IP so I'll just normally reply. I'm also concerned that an IP address with only 150 edits that only started editing a lot last month, knows so much about disputes that happened several months ago. Would I be crazy to call sock?

Three of those ANI reports were by people who had thrown multiple personal attacks at me, which you did not mentioned at all here. One of the reporters even openly misgendered me in the thread. One of those reports is literally by me about the person who had been throwing me personal attacks, and another of those reports was filed by the same person who went to Cornerstonepicker's talk page above.

I'll say this about my Wikipedia behavior previously in 2021: I'm not proud of it at all and I wish there were so many things I could've done differently. I had only started editing a lot in 2021- I didn't know a lot of the policies, I didn't know how serious edit warring was, and I'm sorry for being stubborn. In my experience, Wikipedia had a very steep learning curve, and there's still stuff that I don't know or that I'm not sure of. I'm really trying here and I feel like I'm getting stonewalled and gaslit continously, to the point where a global steward had noticed it. shanghai.^{talk to me} 22:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The IP editor who commented above is an incredibly valued long-term contributor to many parts of the project. Please retract your socking accusations. DanCherek (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: My bad, I was just suspicious. I'm sorry if this person is actually notable around these parts. shanghai.^{talk to me} 23:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

If you read the comments from the admins and the uninvolved editors who have been responding to those threads the exact same issues are showing up over and over and over again: 1) you adding promotional and positive material to articles and generally writing from a fan's POV. 2) You displaying WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour over the article and being unable to accept other people's opinions. 3) You edit warring and being disruptive to try and get your way. I'm not proposing a ban for your benefit, it's for the benefit of everyone else. If you cannot edit articles about Nicki Minaj without us having to have monthly ANI threads about "RogueShanghai and Nicki Minaj" then you should be topic banned. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll address all of these one by one:

• I've always tried to include reliable notable sources for all of the "promotional" material I add: for example, the "Queen of Rap" title is very well sources, using sources from Billboard, NME, Time Magazine, NBC News. I've already noted below how the previous lead, before I started editing Nicki Minaj, makes note of some achievements like her debut album being certified triple platinum, that aren't in her current lead at all today because while they are notable achievements, they're not due for her lead.
• What other opinions are being talked about here? Provided the discussion is about content and not other editors, I'm always happy to take it to the talk page.
• I've avoided edit warring (afaik at least 3RR) as much as possible and have opened multiple discussions on the talk page instead of edit warring. And this is with my edits being stonewalled and removed for no reason for months. That's the entire reason I started editing Katy Perry, as I was sick of the hostile environment on Nicki Minaj.

No one's managed to point out that I've been doing work on other articles such as Perrys, with no one from that article taking such issue with my edits saying they are "promoting positive material" or "trying to get my way." I've discussed plenty of content on that talk page, and even found the current new image. shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Far too much? All I've been trying to do is to get the article to WP:FA, which I've been working on since last February. I have been transparent about being a fan, yes, but I've always tried to balance it out. Since January, I've literally been cutting down on accomplishments in her lead, minimizing it from four paragraphs to three paragraphs. shanghai.^{talk to me} 22:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The number of paragraphs in the lead section? People aren't worried so much about that. They are worried about the overly promotional tone that you bring. And your three lead paragraphs are beefier than the previous four paragraphs, almost the same size in total characters, so it's not really much of a reduction. As your older example, you ought to have picked the version of the article as it stood right before you first touched it in November 2020; that version was more succinct, with fewer words in the lead section and also fewer words in the article body. The tone of that version was much more neutral. Back when the bio was listed as a Good Article, it was a decent balance of media observations. Now, it's far too promotional. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: If you want to make it about article content "then vs now", let's talk about that.

Compare the "2014-2017 The Pinkprint" section now vs "when I first touched it". The section previously had a bad flow, had ten paragraphs, and had very poor sources such as "elitedaily.com". Now look at the section that I had recently put a lot of work into cleaning up a couple of days ago. I cut the entire thing down to five paragraphs, kept the relevant stuff (for example, having the entire critical reception in the article body isn't due and instead should be kept for the actual album article), I replaced bad sources, fixed referencing to properly cite magazines instead of "websites", etc.

This also applies to the Queen section. Before I "touched it", the Queen section had twelve breaks/paragraphs, poor sources, and original research. I cleaned up the bad flow and unnecessary sentences, again fixed references, and cleaned it up. Please tell me that the career section before with its messy sentences and bad flow is better than the version that I had fixed. shanghai.^{talk to me} 23:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, there's so much positive information / achievements in the previous lead that isn't even noted in the current 2022 lead at all, such as the top five/top ten positions of Starships, Anaconda, Turn Me On, and Chun Li, the triple platinum RIAA status of Pink Friday, the lead sentence calling her an "actress" and a "model", Minaj being cited as one of the most influential female rap artists of all time that Cornerstone has been trying to prevent being readded to Minaj's article. There's actually so much stuff that I purposefully didn't include in Minaj's lead because it wasn't due weight for the lead. I'd even say that the previous sounds more promotional, because of consistent mentioning of U.S. chart positions for a lot of her singles. shanghai.^{talk to me} 00:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

These things are not mutually exclusive though. You can be generally be improving the article in some ways, while also skewing things too positively. You can be holding back on adding positive content...and still be adding too much positive content. Sergecross73 msg me 00:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:, but Binksternet's entire point was that the article was "worse" off and had a "more promotional tone" when I'm just showing that it's in an arguably better quality. To quote Binksternet, he literally said "that version was more succinct with fewer words in the article body" and a "decent balance." A really long 2018 section isn't a decent balance at all... shanghai.^{talk to me} 02:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to 192.76.8.70 that listed all the reports against RogueShanghai and such behavior on the Nicki Minaj article. The most recent suspicious behavior was:

• Removing over and over again the reason given by SA victim Jennifer Hough for moving her lawsuit against Minaj and her husband to another state, leaving it at "voluntarily dropped", only quoting Minaj and Minaj's lawyer. RogueShanghai cited "original research" twice for deleting it (when it is explicitly written in the reference). [154] [155]
  • In the same topic, RogueShanghai has kept removing that the accusation is for harassment to "recant her account" [156] [157]
• Removing the whole Controversy section from the article. [158]
• Minaj said it so it must be true, examples: [159] [160] [161]
• Removing the "swollen testicles" part on the vaccine controversy section without pointing out why. [162]
• More promotional language [163].
• Instead of removing one word, removing alot of criticism [164]; also citing 'vandalism' to remove criticism [165]

This account, RogueShanghai, is here with a single purpose. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll respond to a lot of this later- you've taken it a lot of my diffs purposefully out of context, many IPs had in fact vandalized the Boyz article to the point where several admins had to protect it several times. I removed the Controversy section following the advice of an editor who has brought multiple BLPs to Wikipedia. Those controversies were not actually controversies, they were And you've still failed to acknowledge your disruptive WP:POINT editing.

That being said, Cornerstonepicker, I'm sick and tired of you misgendering me since January, I have made it very clear on multiple occasions what pronouns I use yet you've been doing this for weeks. Please explain why you've been misgendering me for months w/o no reason? shanghai.^{talk to me} 02:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

How is anybody suppose to know or remember? please write they/them/pref pronoun in your signature. I randomly remembered you wrote the word misgendering once last year so I made the previous post genderless before you replied. [166]. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The onus shouldn't be on me for you to do basic civil behavior by using the proper pronouns that I've made clear many times, but even so, you literally said yourself that I've confronted you about your misgendering last year.. and yet you are still doing it """by mistake""" all these months later, It is highly irritating and uncivil every time you misgender me because you've done it multiple times. Why do you continue with such an uncollaborative environment... I'm sick of misgendering being treated like it's literally nothing when it is very insulting. shanghai.^{talk to me} 02:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Please use your signature, nobody is keeping that in their minds, we have lives outside of this discussion. As I said, I barely remembered that (was not many times, that's not true) and changed it before you replied. It's sad that you're accusing me of misgendering you on purpose, and yesterday you acussed another user of misogynist on the Nicki Minaj talk page#RFC. don't use a serious social issue to redirect the topic. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be the one changing the topic from your WP:POINT disruptive editing pattern on female rappers articles... which you still haven't addressed, I asked you to address it on Minaj's talk page and here as well, but there is still no addressing of the "Queen of Rap" edits on every female rapper after the RfC for it on Minaj's article passed.

I didn't even accuse anyone of misogyny on Nicki's talk page, I said that someone's implication came across as possibly misogynist. I told you straight up on that talk page "tell me where I called this editor a misogynist." As for the misgendering, if you truly misremembered, then all I ask from you is a genuine apology for using the wrong pronouns. That's it. shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Editors'_pronouns#..._can't_I_just_say_their_username_instead? applies here, as you only changed the misgendered pronoun "he" to "RogueShanghai".... shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Already addressed this: I changed my post to genderless before you replied. Then, you accused me of misgendering you on purpose. This conversation is offtopic, the other editors involved pointing out stuff do not have to read all of this. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It's still not the pronouns that I'm asking for (you changed the he pronouns to my username) and now you're accusing me of using a "social issue" to redirect the topic when I am literally nonbinary and part of that social issue. I'm just noticing a pattern of calling me "he" from editors that have directed personal attacks at me before... shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

As I said, already addressed this; you're still deflecting the topic. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

If you misgender me, I have the full right to call it out... it's extremely offensive. You're insisting it was a "genuine mistake" but at the same time I've never seen you apologize, which is all I'm asking for when anyone misgenders me.

Additionally, you keep saying "I'm deflecting" for calling out offensive misgendering but you haven't even acknowledged the reason that this thread was created in the first place, your WP:POINT editing pattern across female rapper articles.... shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel like you're not reading my replies at all, and going deep in a serious social issue to deflect the ownership behavior pointed out here in the Nicki Minaj article. this back and forth is not helping anything here. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Misgendering is not a "social issue", it is an insult. You've been stonewalling all of my edits since March 2021, for months now, consistently, I would prefer you actually address that because that's the root of the dispute here, while I'm trying to move on to productively improving other sections of the article that need it, like her Career section, you seem to be still attempting to get "lyricism" and "most influential female rapper" removed from her lead... even though the former has seventeen sources that make note of it...

and again, I've pointed out that you keep deflecting from explaining your WP:POINT mass editing because of the passed "Queen of Rap" RfC on Minaj. shanghai.^{talk to me} 04:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed you have used the same argument [167] against Ronherry when called out for your behavior. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker: your explanation might be fine if this was an editor you rarely interact with. But it's clear from your own comments RogueShanghai is an editor you regularly interact with to the extent you remember the alleged problems with their editing behaviour. That being the case, you need to make much more of an effort to remember the editor's preferred pronouns and avoiding misgendering an editor, even temporarily. Notably, if you can remember that an editor finds misgendering particularly offensive you should be able to remember their preference and if you really can't, then make the small effort to check before posting. While avoiding gender pronouns may be fine in some cases, doing it when you know the editor has clearly expressed a preference and you are avoiding using that preference is not acceptable and is the sort of think which has lead to blocks before. If you do that or misgender this particular editor again, I'll fully support a site ban of you. Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, I would never misgender somebody on purpose. I'm fully aware of what that means and how it is used to harm, I've educated myself on the topic. I used the name of the editor here to be specific of who I'm mentioning. I also support that anybody that does that on purpose should be banned. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

A lot of these diffs are straight up out of context, and don't paint the full picture at all.. here's the necessary context for all of it:

1. Actually, I cited "original research" because the article makes it clear that the whole jurisdictional laws thing (I'm not American) is only her lawyers claim, which you didn't note at all in your edit. That's one of the reasons I removed it, plus, it's not due weight. Hough's lawyer only statement is "Stay tuned! The lawsuit will be refiled in California!" which is already noted in the section.. and I removed "recant her account" because "recant her account" falls under alleged intimidation.

2. The entire "controversy" section does not have any actual controversy besides the COVID vaccine tweets. In fact, I didn't actually remove the Controversies header itself at all, I kept it, it was another editor who removed the section heading. I removed the feuds from her article, because none of these feuds with other rappers were key to Minaj's notability at all and didn't need their own section. They were moved to the "diss track" song articles by Minaj such as Roman's Revenge and No Frauds, as they have more due weight there. In fact, the same editor who brought Katy Perry and Lady Gaga to featured article remarked that the "feuds and controversies section" was undue negative weight.

3a. The UK officer's comments are still undue weight because the controversy revolves around someone based in Trinidad, not England. However, in retrospect Fauci specifcially being the one that Minaj was supposed to call with was a claim that needed better sourcing than Instagram Live. I'll admit fault there.

3b & 3c. This directly deals with songwriting credits, where Minaj revealed that she wrote the entirety of "Chun Li" herself, and that Jeremy Reid was only added to the songwriting credit for his production. This is a comment from the musicians mouth herself about her own music, wouldn't it make sense to use her own words as a source in this situation per WP:BLPSELFPUB?

4. Because "swollen balls" is seemingly quite vulgar, although if there is proof that notable sources did use these words specifically and consistently, then it would be acceptable.

5. How is this even promotional language when it has already been in the article way before I started even editing Minaj's article? Minaj being noted for her influence by TNYT even dates back to when the article was originally given GA status in 2012, so your framing of this as a "new edit" that "contains promotional language" is confusing..

6. As I showed above, the article WAS getting lots of IP vandalism, where several admins had to protect the page because of the amount of vandalism it was getting.. it wasn't a shield for criticism, those edits were actually being made by vandals. shanghai.^{talk to me} 04:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

1. I did... then only add the quotation marks, instead of removing the reason given by the lawyer of Jennifer Hough (Minaj's husband's sexual assault victim). If you had space to quote what both Minaj and Kenneth Petty's lawyer said, you can also add that. Here you gave a paragraph to Minaj's defense not using quotation marks (this: The filing also alleged that Hough's story was inconsistent and had multiple discrepancies.), so that wasn't a problem for you there. And "Harassment" does not imply "to recant her account" at all.
   And look at the language in your contribution here: It is a common misconception that Minaj had helped Jelani, however, Minaj did not post her brother's bail [168], with the source being gossip blog Bossip (context for non-involved editors: Jelani Maraj was sentenced for SA minors and was bailed out; that it was not by Nicki Minaj is pushing a narrative). Yet you removed the interview that Jennifer Hough gave to The Daily Beast [169] beause it is a 'tabloid'. why does it feel you are taking sides on Hough's lawsuit?
2. SNUGGUMS, whose contributions I've fully appreciated through the years and whose message made me come back, was clear: after removing the rest, you only left the COVID vaccine controversy in the section, then that topic becomes the header.
3. Your argument is still basically Minaj said it so is true.
4. The quotation (from the subject) was "swollen testicles" caused by the vaccine, and wikipedia is not censored; yet you removed it.
5. In the diff, that's you adding the promotional language.
6. It was one bad word to be removed: yet you removed paragraphs of criticism of the Minaj song.

In my opinion, and I think I'm not the only that perceives it, you are using wikipedia as a tool for promotional language and to push narratives that benefit Minaj's image. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Replying to the original comment, it's not necessarily a point violation to add the term to other articles after it was added to the one article due to an RfC. It really depends on the strength of the sources and how the editor engaged in discussion afterwards which isn't something I'm willing to look in to. It seems reasonable to me that an editor may feel adding terms like queen of rap to the lead of any article isn't supported by our policies and guidelines. When consensus develops to add it to one article, they may feel since the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in that earlier case is clearly against them, perhaps the communities views of the situation is different from theirs and so it's reasonable to add it to others. Any editor opposing such a change in other articles needs to explain their support in that one article but opposition in the other, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not withstanding. There may very well be reasons relating to the strength of the sources etc for why it belongs in one article but not the other, but if there isn't this does suggest their editing maybe unacceptably biased. Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, the consensus in that specific matter was that, if is backed by many sources, it is ok to add the nickname. I opened a conversation on Missy Elliott's talk page to make sure everything is ok about the topic, and a third-party editor opined the same. All three that had the nickname added were backed by numerous sources. Those three, at the same time, are not random articles that I never clicked on, I fully created and implemented their "Legacy" sections. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Break

So, I'm pretty certain this discussion is an example of why we keep having ANI discussions about this without resolutions. They get so long-winded and spiraling that you're just going to scare away anyone from intervening. And that's not a great approach - eventually you're going to exhaust the community's patience and irritate some admin into doling out blocks. I'm often told I give people too many chances before blocking editors, and even I'm starting to get exhausted by all this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at David Wheeler

Multiple dynamic IPs have been involved with disruptive editing on the page David Wheeler (Alabama politician), including Special:Contributions/107.115.243.58, Special:Contributions/107.127.39.33, and Special:Contributions/107.115.243.50. Reliable sources report on Wheeler's age at the time of his death, though the IPs have been changing the page to include their own unsourced interpretation, stating "I don't agree" with the sources. I attempted to revert parts of the edits, but ceased as it approached 3RR and attempted to leave a message for the most recent IP. I later added a source for Wheeler's year of birth, which was followed by another edit from an IP and a talk page blanking from the IP. Assistance would be appreciated. Kafoxe (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The page has been protected for a couple of days by discospinster. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Massive disruption at Opinion polling for the next Greek legislative election

Opinion polling for the next Greek legislative election is being subject to a massive disruption/edit-warring among IP users in the last days. These include: random removal/alteration of polling data, inclusion of fake polls (with links to pages that pop up security warning messages), random clashes between those IP users' edits, as well as, well, using edit summaries to throw insults. Individual warnings are not enough to prevent this disruption from going further, and there is precedent for this article in particular to being subject to such IP periodical disruption in waves. Aside of page protection to logged-in users, the problematic edit summaries should be revdel-ed (the latter of which is the motive why I am filling this case in here rather than at WP:RPP). Thanks! Impru20^talk 20:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I've requested page protection. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Revdel of the edits adding links to the pages that show security warnings would also be appropriate, as that is the epitome of a "purely disruptive" edit. Just my 0.50 AUD. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 22:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001 and Impru20: Can you give an example of a site with a security warning? I had a look at [170] and did not find a site which had a security warning. The only thing I found was Aftodioikisi.gr which gives a Cloudflare access denied notification. That is not a security warning. All that says is that the site has enabled some form of Cloudflare's DDoS protection and is blocking me. I assume the site is genuinely under DDoS but I don't know but in any case a site being DDoSed doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the site and a site being DDoSed is not dangerous to the end user although may be difficult to access. In fact such a site may still be a perfectly valid RS despite temporary access problems. I don't know why the site is blocking me in NZ when I'm accessing from a residential ISP IP and have never done anything to trigger Cloudflare on this IP that I'm aware, perhaps as a Greek site they felt banning all non Greek IPs was the best way to deal with an attack. Nil Einne (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

possible vandal

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

---

Special:Contributions/203.128.83.115 shows a seemingly endless amount of edits that are all very similar. I believe it's a vandal or spammer, but I am not certain. -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 23:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like they're converting all uses of {{Current events header}}/{{Current events footer}} to {{Current events}}. I have no idea if that's necessary, or event desirable, but if so, it seems like an ideal task for a bot. Still, at first glance this looks harmless. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh looks like there already is a thread about doing this with a bot: Wikipedia:Bot requests § Convert old current events subpages to the current format. I'm inclined to agree with Primefac though: there is absolutely nothing wrong with the IP editor making these changes. Hell, if they manage to convert all of the pages before we finish debating the issue, it becomes a moot point! IP, those edits make me wince, but in the end it's your carpal tunnels. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please forgive me of accusing you of vandalism, @User:203.128.83.115. I hope we can let this go. -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 23:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Recently registered user has username issues

So, there was a user that was recently registered. Their username is Mothafaker. The username itself is inappropriate and considered to be profanity. Should we do something? Meltdown reverter (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:UAA is the place for such reports. I've already filed it. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I was just about to post that very same thing. Even though I'm an admin, I don't really work with usernames, so even I just report it to them, and let the regular admins with experience handle it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I do a lot of work at WP:UAA these days. Normally, we do not block an editor for a dubious or problematic username unless there has been at least one obviously bad edit and no good edits. However, all rules have exceptions and I see this username as such an egregious violation that I think that an immediate hard block is correct. That is just what Orangemike has done, and I agree with him. Cullen328 (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, incivility and OWNership

Walter Görlitz has made several incivil and rude comments to myself and other editors over the past few days while edit warring at Charlotte FC and New England Revolution, two articles in their "territory".

• Deciding to skip the last step in BRD, Walter Görlitz decides to double down on a claimed ENGVAR convention that is not present in other American English articles on soccer. They later self-revert.
• Following a routine cleanup of disruptive edits by an uninvolved user warned several times for making mass changes, my talk page is graced with a "reminder".
• After reverting the message on my talk page, in line with policies on page blanking within one's own userspace, Walter Görlitz decides to post a longer message that begins with belittlement ("You either do not understand what a revert is").
• After asking them to back off, I'm pinged inappropriately at Talk:Charlotte FC by a message that includes "so, yes, you do need an instructional session on WP:3RR". Again, a belittling statement.
• After I asked them not to message me again, they respond with "I'll message you until i feel you get the message", which is textbook hounding.
• Walter Görlitz then reverts an addition by Oluwasegu to New England Revolution that was made in good faith, starting another edit war.
• They then return to Charlotte FC to remove an entire section without discussion, which I revert and they revert back.

The basis of the new content dispute is whether mentioning previous soccer teams in a given city is appropriate for an article on a modern soccer team. Given that this hasn't been an issue in existing FAs (such as Seattle Sounders FC) and not brought up in the two years that Charlotte FC has had the section, it seems to have be a personal opinion.

What I take issue with is the clearly combative manner in which these comments are made, as if questioning the competence of every other user. I'll note that Walter Görlitz had been blocked previously for edit warring and personal attacks (including the same brand of incivil comments) and has not learned their lesson. I'm seeking guidance while I try to find some enjoyment while editing, which has hard to find in the past few days. SounderBruce 06:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I erred. I was reverted by another editor and did not notice it was the same e4ditor. I opened a discussion and am happy to self-revert. No ownership implied. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

And I am not returning to the article, it, and all MLS articles, are on my watch list. These are not edit wars, they are an application of previous seen actions as I mentioned on the talk page of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Can an admin move a leftover local description of Wikimedia Commons file?

When a file is moved on Wikimedia Commons, a local description for it on Wikipedia is not moved as well and is left orphan. I have identified such local descriptions and tagged them for renaming, but it looks like file movers cannot move them. Can admins move them? So that they would be in sync with name on Wikimedia Commons again? So that their content is displayed? BTW, you have to add redirect=no to see local descriptions instead of Wikimedia Commons page. Mitar (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Mitar, why is this on WP:ANI instead of WP:AN? For the redirect thing, there's User:Alexis Jazz/RedirectCommonsRedirects. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

When I started adding it to WP:AN, I read: "If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you." Because this is about concrete list of files to be fixed I saw it as a help request. Mitar (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Σύμμαχος

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

I recently reported this user for constantly altering (sourced) information [171]. He was blocked for his conduct on the talk page of the article, but now has resumed his disruption of the article [172]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion by Eastern Australian geography and BLP IP user

1.144.107.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Long term disruption, edit warring, maintenance template removal without explanation or resolving the problem, failure to use any meaningful edit summaries, failure to engage. Currently evading a block on Special:Contributions/1.145.0.0/17 @JBW: Did you want to take a look at this? May need a new rangeblock. (moved from AIV) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: Can you explain what shows that this is the same person evading the block? It isn't obvious from a quick look. JBW (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Edin balgarin

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

---

Note: I tweaked the header from it's original Edin balgarin and "if it's born with a dick, then it ain't no chick"; that's what some people are specifically referring to below. If anyone disagrees I'll defer to them, but my thought is, especially now that this has run its course, there's no need for that obnoxiousness to show up on watchlists and archive tables of contents. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC))

Edin balgarin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Most days this stuff doesn't bother me and but at this moment I am emotionally taxed and not in a mood to tolerate this bullshit. On my user talk page, Edin balgarin and Horse Eye's Back were discussing WP:ARBEE after being notified of WP:1RR restrictions and discretionary sanctions on Kosovo. Edin balgarin took exception to being referred to as "they". This was the most recent post I found when I logged in:

We haven't cleared anything up. "They/them/theirs" is most definitely not some "general concepion". It is a new-fangled brain fart. When they taught me English in Bulgaria, they said "they" is for plural, and we were not to even generalise when the sex wasn't known. Instead we continued the longstanding convention of "he" until it is known otherwise. I previously referred to you as "he", and if you are a biological female then I wholeheartedly apologise for having ascribed the wrong sex. If you indeed came into this world with a Y chromosome then there is nothing to apologise for simply because you choose to identify as something else. I have seen the Wikipedia practice of referring to some individuals as "they" and I am likely not to touch those articles, because I stand by the adage that "if it's born with a dick, then it ain't no chick". Yes people like me are considered dinosaurs, and I know that here in the west where I live, it demonstrates a major chasm between older and younger generations. In Bulgaria where I am from, it has not regressed to that phoniness. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are one of these. You are simply one person who is well within your right on this otherwise anonymous project to conceal every aspect of your life story - and what's more, I support and protect that right. I am also a realist and accept that some people come into this world, are believed at birth to be one thing and later on discover that internally, they have some properties of the other sex. I refer to intersex which I think applies to about 0.5% (1 in 200) of people who come into this world. But not even they get to use this discrepancy to go from "he" to "she", let alone "they" depending how they feel at the time of day. It's a scientific phenomenon, and it presents language problems because tongues developed over millennia to see male and female without thinking that some configurations are a mash-up of the two despite the individual being perfectly healthy in every way. "They" however is reserved for where we know there is more than one. The word will never be ambiguous, i.e. "when you say 'they', do you mean there was more than one person, or were you referring to an individual that denies the biological sex and denies identifying as the opposite sex"? That's never going to happen. I take care to write this language in accordance with the prescriptive tradition, and the style guides I use (such as Simon Heffer whom you won't like) don't even recommend saying "he or she". I see no problem with saying, "he or she was driving too fast" when a car shoots passed at a dangerous speed, but the guidance is that until we know different, "he" extends meaning. Saying "they were driving too fast" because I couldn't see if it were a man or a woman is plain asinine. I'm sorry Horse Eye's Back. It is one or the other.

Given that I'm not able to be neutral about this right now, I'm bring this incident it here for review. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Well I can definitely say it’s absolutely beyond a conduct violation to address a pronoun misunderstanding with that virulently transphobic wall of text. Dronebogus (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• It's interesting that he claims to be very very very concerned about the proper use of pronouns, but is still of the opinion that it is OK to refer to a transgender person as "it" (as long he thinks it's hilarious, I guess?). I take this as definite proof that he is not actually a strict grammarian, but instead a garden variety bigot. While pronoun use is still in flux, and I'm not interested in sanctioning people who are just confused or still on a learning curve, I am inclined to block people who demonstrate that they are actual bigots hiding behind the fig leaf of grammar. At this point, I'm inclined to block indef, the same as we would do with a racist or misogynist. Any objection? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, there's no way of reading this as someone who is innocently confused; it's blatant transphobia and we would never accept equally blatant sexism or racism. I would support an indef block. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Indef block this kind of bigotry is inexcusable, and even “learning curve” isn’t a justification (not that’d be anyway) because they’ve been here since 2015. Dronebogus (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Indef block. Either they truly don't understand the basics of English, in which case they should not be editing here anyways, or they are choosing to apply a fundamental misunderstanding of English in order to push an anti-trans POV. ––FormalDude talk 16:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• At least a warning as noted, this goes beyond mere translation issues. Also, as a self-described prescriptivist, I am a bit surprised this editor considers himself a greater authority than one William Shakespeare, who had no problem with singular "they." Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Too late. Blonked. Dronebogus (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes - I have blocked. I tried to post here but kept getting edit conflicts. In short, even when wearing my extra-thick rose-tinted AGF goggles, I think that this was someone being willfully offensive towards someone he disagreed with, which just isn't acceptable. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Checking needed

Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He is a long time wikipedia editor. He didn't improve the article and keeps moving my page. Finally, he wanted to delete it. 15:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

{{Expand Chinese}} I think is a good tool, so any action next that i can do?

I have pages hung, coz i cant undid it, or im blocked. I dont know what to do next. I think is very serious acting almighty or start a civil war.

Yan Han (Jin Dynasty) Restored revision 1076526187 by Onel5969 (talk): As per WP:BURDEN, do not readd uncited material, and as per WP:DDE, it could get you blocked. You also might want to cool it with vandalism claims, which also could get you blocked.

Yan Zhiyi Undid revision 1076543612 by Ngancheekean (talk)You do not appear to get it, as per WP:BURDEN. The next time I'll be forced to go to ANI about this, as well as the vandal comments. Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngancheekean (talk • contribs)

I agree with Onel5969's reverts. The english was very poor, and when the prose was (rarely) sourced, the sources were mostly unreliable. Also, you have to notify editors when you start a discussion about them. I've done so for you, as well as moved your post from the top of the page where you placed it directly under the instructions NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE. It seems likely that you lack the english language skills to edit this Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia:Teahouse#Checking needed, where they brought up the same thing (and missed the same instruction to add to the bottom of the page). — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 17:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to add on that there's nothing stopping you from going to the Chinese Wikipedia and editing there. To be polite, your English is not good enough to write Wikipedia articles if this is the best you can do. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)