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

Desertambition's hostile edit history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Desertambition habitually accuses other editors of bad faith:

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

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

• Proposal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I don't want this topic to get auto archived again. Can we get more comments on this issue so it can be resolved? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support proposed topic ban to address the disruption, neutral on the indef. I am concerned by them making one statement to get unblocked, and then effectively retracting that statement afterwards, but not enough to support the indef at this time - a final last chance could be beneficial to Wikipedia if it turns them into a productive editor who can collaborate with those working in the same space as them. BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support proposed topic ban (though I would have preferred one limited to 9 months, instead of one he/she had to appeal). Since he/she got blocked on 22 March after making 4 reverts in 24 hours, he/she has mostly restricted him/herself to three reverts when edit-warring, and even self-reverted a 4th revert on 10 April after being reported. So Desertambition is capable of learning. He/she still has not understood why we have to put edit warring notices on his/her talk page after he/she has made 3 reverts to a page in 24 hours.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • There were four reverts on 12 April at the Ora article, but either way I do get the impression 3RR is being seen as an allowance rather than a limit. CMD (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - looking through the examples (is this the worst we've got), I'm not seeing much that's actionable at a topic ban level. The edit warring seems more serious than hostility. Riot act has been read - move on. Nfitz (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Closure needed

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

Dicklyon and pointless edits once again

This morning, I asked Dicklyon about a series of useless cosmetic edits he made which filled up watchlists for no benefit to our readers at all[30]. His reply boiled down to "you can hide minor edits", which is not helpful as many of us don't want to do this (as many errors and vandalism are hidden behind "minor edits as well"). He then started on another run of decapitalization edits, which included errors, turning blue links into redlinks[31][32]: when this was pointed out, Dicklyon simply restarted the changes which I objected against in the morning, making more utterly pointless, semi-automated edits[33][34].

This is the umpteenth time they have been told to be more careful, to listen to onjections, to follow policies, ... all to no avail. Can we please just topic ban them from either using semi-automated tools, and/or from capitalization changes? Fram (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The listing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations had been pointed out to me by wbm1058 as a more productive target for my JWB-based case fixing, so when Habsburg Monarchy got moved creating thousands of miscapitalized links that would show up there, I decided to fix it preemptively. I've also worked through a lot of others on that list without issue (though less concentrated to one editor's watchlist I admit). I'll hold off on such work if it's deemed too useless. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you instead commit to holding off on such work until it's deemed useful? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

On the "Test Match" fixes, there were only a few dozen, and I had noticed and avoided Test Match Special in most, but yes I agree I was not careful enough. I promptly fixed them all after the error was noted. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

...an error which wouldn't have been seen if your previous advice to "hide minor edits" was followed of course. Fram (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't we have a general guideline that if there are tasks that are doable by both and large enough in scale that they should be left to be done by a bot? If there was only 20 or 50 such fixes I can see this being done by an editor. But higher counts should be left to bots. --Masem (t) 15:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know of a guideline, but I'd be happy to have bot help when there are more than a few hundred edits needed. However, at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/DoggoBot 5, where 16,000+ edits were needed, I got slow-walked and pushback of the form "why is Dicklyon asking for bot help instead of just doing this himself?" So I did; I got into efficient bot-like clicking and did all of those with zero complaints (except a few redlinks caused by not also moving redirects back at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13A, which we're now trying to get fixed by bot at WP:RFBA#TolBot 13B since I can't do creations or moves with JWB). Dicklyon (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think 500 edits in 12 minutes is the very definition of a meatbot. Fram (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Those link updates were completely safe, so could be done quickly with bot-like clicking (unlike the Test Match fixes which I did more slowly and still made a few mistakes on). I accept your complaint that many of them had no effect at the level of the reader, due to piping, so maybe the link fixing to avoid redirect through a miscapitalization should just not have been done. But don't mix that up with how quickly and efficiently I did them. Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at just one of the many edits that flooded my watchlist, surely this is a violation of WP:NOTBROKEN? I can understand edits such as this more which affect the displayed text, but the Battle of Rocroi edit doesn't change the visual text in any way. FDW777 (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's Fram's exact point, which I have acknowledged. However, though they don't change the displayed text, the edits are not completely pointless. The point is to avoid redirecting through a miscapitalization, to get the complaint count down at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. I acknowledge the harm to your watchlist display, but that's the only harm in these edits. Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that reducing a software-created 'complaint count' that almost nobody seems to be aware of [35] is more important than the time wasted through actual contributors having to look at invisible changes in article space. I've got to say that I don't think such arguments are very convincing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

One of User:wbm1058's complaints was that nobody but him seemed to be aware of that list of errors. He asked me to help, so I've been doing that. I make no judgement, and express no opinion, about which kinds of contributions are more important. Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It's only showing up in that list of errors because you tagged links to it as an error [36], a tag that is completely incorrect anyway since "Not in Wikipedia's style for article titles" is NOT the same thing as a miscapitalisation error. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I'm not sure how feasible it's going to be to get that page to zero entries. rcats aren't this black-and-white thing, and I personally think you mistagged Habsburg Monarchy when you added {{R from miscapitalisation}} to it. That's very clearly a {{R from other capitalisation}} kind of deal (which I went ahead and corrected). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wait.. you actually reverted me. "Habsburg Monarchy" is in no way incorrect just because "Habsburg monarchy" is preferred (Habsburg Monarchy is literally a proper noun, and a differing style guide would say it's fine to write out. Also, literally the article Habsburg monarchy literally leads with Habsburg Monarchy... is a modern umbrella term coined by contemporary historians...

You are misusing the the rcat system right now by claiming that this is a miscapitalization (something that literally unnecessarily adds to the database report you are claiming to care about). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

What I care about is the over-capitalization, not the database report (though the main purpose of the revert was to get it to show up on the report so I could illustrate that). If the RM consensus is that WP uses lowercase, doesn't that make it an error to use uppercase on WP? Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If I'm wrong, then probably most of the others in that report are also wrong and don't belong in a list of things inviting fixes. Other than RM discussions, I don't know of any mechanism for deciding what capitalizations are wrong for WP, and I'm guessing that's how most of those got labeled as such. Dicklyon (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure this is an actionable complaint. Fixing linked miscapitalizations isn't a high priority, but it is a worthwhile task. We shouldn't tolerate errors in our articles, no matter how minor. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The miscapitalisations were invisible to readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

They're not invisible -- they're visible if you hovered over the link. And we should not tolerate errors in our page source, either. There's a reason we fix Linter errors, even though they often don't have an impact on the displayed page. Tolerating errors is bad practice. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

They're not invisible -- they're visible if you hovered over the link. works fine for me, but regardless, wouldn't this happen for any example of WP:NOTBROKEN links? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN includes this advice: "Good reasons to bypass redirects include: ... Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected." Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

An alternative capitalisation, one which until very recently was the actual article title (and also occasionally appears in sources) is neither a spelling error or a mistake; even if it is not the preferred option according to Wikipedia style guidelines. Fixing this non-problem, at a rate of 100s of edits an hour, is a disruptive exercise in time-wasting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

To clarify my comment, I'm referring only to this diff, which you seem to have acknowledged. Those are WP:NOTBROKEN issues, but I'm assuming that is script error. The rest, which result in visible changes to the page output, are not WP:NOTBROKEN issues (and I'm making no comment on those). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

No, not 'script error', the hundreds of WP:NOTBROKEN violations (the ones with a piped link) were deliberate. Fram (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)To open an ANI over this matter seems petty to me. Dicklyon is a reliable and well-respected user who contributes invaluably to this site. I understand some mistakes were made like in regards to test match, but does this warrant an ANI? We all make mistakes some times, but Dicklyon is constantly contributing valuable material and to frame this as "User and his pointless work" seems unnecessary. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Dicklyon is adept at creating busywork. So he pitches up at Habsburg Monarchy instigates a page move to “correct” the title which then creates a “miscapitalization” in redirects … only solvable by Dicklyon saving the day by dozens of corrective edits to those links to the self same article. What a waste of time. DeCausa (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hmmm. How long ago was that whole WP:JR deal? Exact same thing. In all fairness, go check out WP:MAW sometime and you'll see editors who specialize in polluting watchlists in like fashion but have orders of magnitude more edits to their name. Not only do they get usually get a pass, they're even rewarded for such behavior. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The amount of time and effort (and other people's time and effort) a few editors are willing to expend either making or complaining about these kinds of edits is mind-boggling. Like it or not, one of the groups Wikipedia attracts are the kind of people who really get into formatting, organization, and style, and spend a lot of time thinking about, finding, and fixing this stuff. On the whole, that's a good thing. Sometimes it's annoying, but for everyone else, IMO the sooner you learn to ignore or work around/with it, the happier you'll be. This is the sort of nearly pointless edit that we could devote a few hundred k of text on or just say "meh," futz with your watchlist settings a bit, and do something else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• This complaint is without merit. Dicklyon is fixing capitalization errors, which is entirely allowed. He has found an efficient way to do that by targeting the miscapitalizations list. If no one does that the list will grow. Is the list to be ignored? Is the complaint that he is too fast? Would it be better if he strung it out over an hour instead of 12 minutes? The watch list sometimes gets flooded. If it bothers you, take a break. If you miss some vandalism, don’t worry. There will always be plenty of vandalism. This discussion should be closed with an apology to Dicklyon. Constant314 (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  The "errors" being "corrected" seem altogether more minor than some of the ones caused in the process. Had they been done over a hour, they might have been done more accurately. And if there are sub-tasks here that can "safely" be done at bot-like speed, why not use an (approved and flagged) bot to do so? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  As far as I know, the process being complained about (the bypassing of thousands of links through the miscapitalized redirect Habsburg Monarchy) did not create any errors. And the few errors I made with the much smaller and slower batch of "Test Match" fixes created only 6 case errors, which I fixed quickly. Let me know if I'm wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry if I didn't distinguish sufficiently clearly between the two cases. For clarity, I'm saying they're on the one hand being done needlessly and with human error, and on the other, needlessly and unapprovedly in a manner you don't even claim to be supervising. "Only six errors" isn't an especially great accuracy rate, and it's not clear to me that there's no possibility of false positives in the Habsburg Monarchy case, as opposed to merely good fortune none occurred. Or at least were detected yet. Which is kinda the point of prior discussion of full automation of such things, so as get more than one set of eyes on agreeing "yes, no possibility of error here, can be done by bot in the way described". The remedy in the former case seems to be a little more careful; and in the latter, to follow the bot policy. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Before this also becomes a 600k timesink like the last one, can I just say that if people want to help clear down lists there's nearly 24,000 articles with WP:V issues right here Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. It would likely be a better use of time than this thread, or arguing over capitalisation. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• This looks like an unambiguous violation of the bot policy (which includes WP:MEATBOT), all for a very useless edit (WP:NOTBROKEN). Since this is not the first time this has happened to Dicklyon, I would support an editing restriction from any such high speed semi-automated edits (unless prior approval has been sought and obtained as per the bot policy).
• The WP:Bot policy is there for good reasons, and if you're going at a speed of several hundreds of edits an hour (just over the first five days of April so far, Dicklyon has over 11000 edits (and then there's the whole month of March, at a similar pace: who knows how many other problematic edits have gone unnoticed?) - which, even assuming a very generous "awake 16 hours a day and only editing Wikipedia all the time", comes out to nearly 140 edits per hour - and we all know, realistically speaking, it's far faster than that) then there's not much room for wiggle room. Such large scale edits must get community consensus first, even more so if they are purely cosmetic. If they're not willing to abide by the established consensus regarding such edits, well then they shouldn't cry foul when people understandably get upset about it, and they most certainly should not ignore such complaints. This is a collaborative project, and if you're not willing to collaborate with others (which includes, occasionally, disagreeing), then it's time for a trip to the sin bin until community concerns are addressed and corrected. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe not important to fix these, but also not pointless. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Not so. I repeat what I said above, since you missed it: WP:NOTBROKEN includes this advice: "Good reasons to bypass redirects include: ... Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected." Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  "Habsburg Monarchy" is neither a spelling error nor a mistake - it's an alternative stylistic option (which happens to not be favoured by Wikipedia practice, but is entirely legitimate). And, on top of that, it's not even visible to the reader, so it's entirely inconsequential. But, even if you were right, such a large scale editing spree affecting hundreds, nay, thousands of articles should have been checked with other of your fellow editors to see if there was an issue instead of acting like you're all alone and can do whatever you want. Speak of failing to get the point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Over-capitalization is an error with respect to WP style. It's fine elsewhere. As others point out, it's visible in mouseover tips. If people would rather these be not fixed, we should revise WP:NOTBROKEN to say something different about that. The numbers for Applied Mathematics and Valide Sultan there are much lower than they were a few days ago too; these were much more complicated and took a lot longer each due to the variation in the first word capitalization in different contexts, which is not a problem with Habsburg. Several others no in the list today were due to my efforts. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  As for "should have been checked with other of your fellow editors", I think they have been by now, and no errors have been found. Dicklyon (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is you that you're fixing a problem which is not a problem. WP:NOTBROKEN says rather explicitly that There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles.. Whether somebody bothered to create a list of redirects from "miscapitalisations" is entirely that person's problem. Wrong capitals would be a problem if they actually appeared in article text. Given they appear in a redirect, (and given on top of that that until recently, the article was at the capitalised version!: should we change all links in other articles each time a page gets moved?), and are thus not reader-visible, this is entirely an exercise in time-wasting and in irritating your other fellow editors. To take a real-life lesson, there are lots of things you need to get prior permission before doing. Justifying after the fact with "oh, but I didn't do anything wrong" shows that you're not getting the message. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  I quite agree that There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. But when linking through redirects with piping (or without even) when the redirect is an "error" w.r.t. to WP conventions, fixing it is OK, even recommended, per WP:NOTBROKEN, as I read it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Also note that many of these fixes DO affect the article display. Fixing only those would leave a big number listed in the report of linked miscapitalizations, so you could never have confidence in whether the job was done or not. It's better to fix them all, so the count tells you if there are more. Dicklyon (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Re "should we change all links in other articles each time a page gets moved?" that depends. In many cases, yes, changing incoming links is part of the normal page move cleanup process; but it's sometimes hard and complicated, so it doesn't get done. When wbm1058 pointed me at the database of linked miscapitalizations, and suggested that would be a good thing to work on, I was happy to have it as a way to identify such clusters of linking errors. Fixing the visible ones worked best if also fixing the piped ones; I understand from this discussion that some regard that as busywork that serves no useful purpose and just pollutes Fram's watchlist, so maybe I should stop that. Other seem to think it's a good thing; we should probably get to a consensus at WP:NOTBROKEN instead of flogging me about it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• As others have said, there are good reasons to take care and establish consensus for mass changes across a broad swathe of articles. I'd just point out that the community usually loses patience with people whose only edits are tinkering with things that have little or no effect on the reader, especially when done by the thousands, cf. Betacommand, Rich Farmbrough, and many others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Well you're certainly not talking me then, are you? I've recently created multiple new articles, and new illustrations, and lots of other things besides this one bulk case-fix operation across a narrow set of articles. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• They just need a flat out ban from all automated editing and a strict rate limit. Then when they (as will almost certainly happen) refuse to abide by it, they can join the ranks of the indef blocked editors who dont learn. We went down this road for years with editors like Rich Farmbrough, RAN etc. This is just another example. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  No specific accusation, just lump me with others who had problems? Or my work quality is OK, it's just that the quantity is too large? That's not fair to me or anyone. If I've done something wrong, say so specifically. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is that the benefit of having correct capitals is much less than the harm caused by irritating good editors. Whether a particular edit is "good" or not is irrelevant. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Got it: no such thing as a "good" edit, but Fram is a "good" editor and I'm not. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• The only real policy violation that I see alleged is that Dicklyon edits too fast, and I think it's fair to ask him to slow down. Otherwise, fixing capitalization seems to be within the realm of permissible cosmetic edits, yes? Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Dicklyon is too fast too furious. He save his time by Automatic mass edits. Some other slower and more careful editors spend their time to find his mistake Manually - a few found in thousands check - and get upset. Whose time is more valuable? Leemyongpak (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. An editor should not be sanctioned for making proper edits merely because he is fast. Show me an actual policy that says a human correcting capitalization in a bot-like manner is a violation.
  • Per WP:MEATBOT “merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive.” The gist is to avoid high speed editing that causes a lot of errors. No policy violation here.
  • WP:NOTBROKEN is a guideline and not a policy. It makes no mention of miscapitalization. There is no basis to infer that NOTBROKEN applies to the correction of miscapitalization. No violation here.
  • Per WP:COSMETICBOT “this policy applies only to bots, human editors should also follow this guidance.” The editor is in violation of a should and not a policy.
  • The existence of the Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations is tacit approval to resolve items on the list.
  • Incorrect capitalization is a grammatical error, not a cosmetic error.
  • Overloaded watchlists are an irritation. Incorrect capitalization is also an irritation. Who's irritation matters more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constant314 (talk • contribs)

    I think WP:NOTBROKEN applies in support of what I did here. And WP:COSMETICBOT, which I just looked at, has Changes that are typically considered substantive affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia, such as ... the "administration of the encyclopedia", such as the maintenance of hidden categories used to track maintenance backlogs. That's what I was doing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    Utter bonkers. Point by point: "merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time" - as has been shown, this was at the rate of several edits per minute (I think there's one stretch of nearly 500 edits in half an hour, which comes out to one edit per less than 4 seconds: no way a human editor is taking the appropriate measures to avoid errors when doing so - and when edits are done at such a rate, there is a policy, WP:BOTPOL, which needs to be followed, and which was obviously not followed at all). Nor was this for "a short time". Over the past month (March and the beginning of April), Dicklyon has more than 30,000 edits. That's a lot of "short times".... is a guideline and not a policy is the most utterly ridiculous WP:WIKILAWYER that can be said about absolutely anything. It's still a community-accepted norm and simply because it hasn't been given the golden stamp of being a policy does not mean that you can just ignore it as some form of rounding error. Policies and guidelines have been agreed upon over years of collaborative editing, and they obviously set out accepted practice. As for WP:COSMETICBOT, simply because it is a "should" and not a "must" doesn't mean it should be ignored, either. The bot policy also says (WP:MEATBOT) For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. and Editors who choose to use semi-automated tools to assist their editing should be aware that processes which operate at higher speeds, with a higher volume of edits, or with less human involvement are more likely to be treated as bots. If there is any doubt, you should make a bot approval request. If you're going to be making thousands of edits at rates of over a dozen a minute, there should clearly be some doubt... Obviously, both of these statements are valid concerns (which thankfully happen to be from a policy and not a guideline, so no more silly nitpicking on that). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    Re no way a human editor is taking the appropriate measures to avoid errors when doing so. No, of course not. You take precautions to avoid errors up front, just like when making a bot; you don't run fast until you're sure it's right. If you think this is problematic, show me an error. I admitted to the 6 errors on the smaller slower batch of "Test Match --> Test match", where I was actually paying attention; I agree I'm not perfect, but if an error is found, I'm all over making it right. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    Re: it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, that fine. In the case of the bulk Habsburg Monarchy that Fram is complaining about, there was nothing "contrary to consensus", and there were no "errors an attentive human would not make". and re: If there is any doubt, you should make a bot approval request., there was no doubt. If you'd like to look at the particulars for why no error was likely to be possible, I can show you. Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    Re policy vs guideline, I agree it's not a very useful distinction. I respect both. I happen to do a lot of work based on MOS:CAPS, guideline. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Constant314. No policies were violated, but it sure is a good thing that we're spending a lot of time talking about it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions per Constant314. The time sink is not someone doing WP:WIKIGNOME work such as this, the time sink is discussions such as this. There's no rules against working fast, and these kind of periodic ANI discussions are starting to feel like a personal vendetta against Dicklyon. --Jayron32 13:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • If they are different persons bringing these issues here, then it is incorrect to make the claim that this is a "personal vendetta against Dicklyon". As far as I remember, this is my first ANI discussion of Dicklyon's edits (or else it has to have been in some distant past). There are rules about working fast (WP:MEATBOT), and stating that they are gnomish edits doesn't mean that anything goes or that e.g. WP:NOTBROKEN doesn't apply. The timesink is that these unvetted, unnecessary edits are not error-free, and shouldn't just be ignored. For nearly a month, some of his semi-automated "case fixes" ruined a template on a number of pages (e.g. here). This "case fix" of Habsburg monarchy also case fixed multiple cases of "Dual Monarchy" to "dual monarchy" despite this (in thin this context) almost invariably being written with a capital M, it changed "Central Europe" to "central Europe" even though this is commonly capitalized... Just ignoring his gnomish edits will only let such errors proliferate, for little actual benefit. Fram (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Those downcasings of dual monarchy and central Europe were done by hand, based on my interpretation of the evidence in light of guidelines; nothing to do with JWB or the class of edits that polluted your watchlist, annoying you. If you think I'm wrong there, then per WP:BRD, feel free to revert, and we can discuss. And while I did mess up a bit on the Dallas Cowboys (see my talk page), that was while developing patterns that I applied across all the other teams; I verified that I got all those right, but I failed to notice that early mistake in developing the patterns; I own my errors, and quickly fixed it when it was found (11 articles total). Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: Constant314 nailed it with "An editor should not be sanctioned for making proper edits merely because he is fast" (and all the WP:POLICY citations backing that up). This is yet another case of people with a "pet" style they like, trying to defy guidelines and "go after" those who make our material compliant with those guidelines. If you want to propose that WP should not use the capitalization that overwhelingly dominates in reliable sources, and should not default to lower-case when in doubt, feel free to propose such a massive change at WT:MOS. It is not a behaviorial matter and thus is not an ANI matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  You were the one who proposed that! In your essay Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Still work to do

I'm not going to do any more bulk case fixing in piped redirects, but there appear to still be about 267 articles with visible over-capitalization of monarchy. I'll need to go slow to only fix those. I did a few as an example (see edit summaries with case fix (visible text only) (via WP:JWB)). Any reason not to finish those up now? Dicklyon (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Please don't do any more bulk case fixing or any other mechanical-style bulk editing without approval at WP:BRFA first. I'd rather that such edits not be done at all since random minor inconsistency in such things doesn't bother me, but that's just me. I don't agree with Rhododendrites that this stuff in the aggregate is a good thing. It has caused astounding amounts of pain in Wikipedia over the years. Remember the date delinking arbitration, remember Betacommand, it goes on and on. RGloucester made a non-suggestion (i.e. he considered it unthinkable) that I thought was brilliant, that of demoting the WP:MOS from "guideline" to something like "suggestion" in order to shut all this down. That is something to take to heart. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Dicklyon has used semi-automated tools to do an enormous amount of cleanup on tennis articles, the vast majority of which has been completely uncontroversial. If the issue here is that the Habsburg Monarch → Habsburg monarchy changes are unnecessary, then it and redirects like it should be removed from WP:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations (by replacing {{r from miscapitalization}} with {{r from other capitalization}}). If the issue is that changing the capitalization of piped redirects is unnecessary (which I tend to agree with), then the database report generator should be modified so that piped redirects aren't included if possible. Regardless, the report only contains 3400 articles, so we're not talking insane numbers of edits to clear it (assuming highly-linked redirects aren't added to it). Letcord (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

See below. Dicklyon put the Habsburg Monarchy redirects in the Database rport after the complaints about his edits, and after I said I would raise it at ANI: and he put it back into that Database report after yet another editor had removed it (by, indeed, putting it back to "other capitalization" instead of "miscapitalization"). It wasn't an error when Dicklyon started his "cleanup", it became an error when Dicklyon made it so after he received pushback, and it isn't an error now when another editor reverted him again. This is not an editor trying to clean out error reports, this is an editor creating errors so they can then clean them out... Fram (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If Habsburg Monarchy is indeed an incorrect capitalization, and therefore linking to it erroneous, then regardless of whether it was officially tagged as such (and thus included in the report), it would have been valid to fix those links. So it comes down to whether Dicklyon's considering that redirect's capitalization to be "incorrect" was correct (I have no idea). Perhaps it should be required in future that redirects with over a certain number of non-transcluded links to them be discussed on the report's talk page before being categorized as "incorrect"? That would prevent issues like this from arising again. Letcord (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's what {{r from other capitalisation}} says: This is a redirect from a title with another method of capitalisation. It leads to the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation. That is exactly what "Habsburg Monarchy" is. It being not the option preferred according to Wikipedia style does not make it incorrect. And messing with this ex-post-facto in an attempt to justify such edits is pure disruption and busywork-for-the-sake-of-busywork-style time wasting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking more carefully at the history, this is worse than it appeared. Dicklyon's defense for the Habsburg Monarchy edits is "The listing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations had been pointed out to me by wbm1058 as a more productive target for my JWB-based case fixing, so when Habsburg Monarchy got moved creating thousands of miscapitalized links that would show up there, I decided to fix it preemptively. " But the Habsburg Monarchy redirect (until very recently the actual article title) wasn't on that list when Dicklyon started making these edits, nor when I complained at his talk page, nor when he restarted the same edits, nor when I complained about them again on his talk page. He rapidly added them to that list after I had said I would take him to ANI over these issues[37], and when that edit was undone[38] (not by me), he reverted it[39]. Basically, he is using his own after-the-fact unilateral actions as a justification for his need to clean out that database report: he creates an issue which he then has to work through, against objections from others. In what way is this acceptable editing? Fram (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fram: what. the habsburg monarchy page was moved to the current capitalization. dicklyon should be very well allowed to change those capitalizations. if readers hover over those piped links, they will not see a preview, they don't have a quick summary of that article. raising this on ani seems to me a severe overreaction. the {{r from other/miscapitilization}} thing is an issue, but that's an entire separate thing from what you raised up here! 晚安 (トークページ) 09:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The issues are carrying on when there are objections, instead of dealing with these objections first; making errors when doing these things (the second batch); WP:MEATBOT issues; the creation of an "error", a listing in a database report, to justify his changes after the fact; his edit warring over this. We have guidelines that say that redirects shouldn't be changed to point to the target table instead, per WP:NOTBROKEN. Perhaps that guideline needs changing, but until then it shouldn't be ignored by editors who feel like it. I am now testing the previews (I hadn't enabled them, find them annoying), and for direct links and piped links, they work perfectly (i.e. when a page links to Habsburg Monarchy or to Austria, the hover is for Habsburg monarchy). So as far as I am concerned, the reason you give for these changes is not correct. If it is different for others (mobile, other browser, ...) then please enlighten me: but until then, this change doesn't bring any profit as far as I am concerned. Fram (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I was fixing it "preemptively", that is, before setting it up to appear on that report. I later labeled it miscapitalized to show how it would appear there (just like most of the others there have been labeled as miscapitalized after an RM discussion decided they should not be that way). How is this "worse than it appeared"? It's exaclty what I said. Dicklyon (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

A post hoc justification of creating an error for things you were already removing but which were objected against, and edit warring over it to be kept labeled as an error, is a worse look than finding something on an error report and starting to remove them. "The listing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations had been pointed out to me by wbm1058 as a more productive target for my JWB-based case fixing", so instead of simply doing case-fixing, you put things on that report and then do case fixing, or (as here) you do casefixing and put them on that list when people complain... Fram (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't create any errors, so no such justification was needed. And I did most of that case fixing before marking the miscapitalization, to avoid it showing up in the report with big numbers. You interrupted that work, leaving errors, so then I marked it. Dicklyon (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

"I didn't create any errors" ... "leaving errors": it was only an error (the capitalization) after you turned it into one by labeling it a miscapitalization instead of a different capitalization. Your excuses here don't make any sense, apparently you had to mark the capitalization as an error because I interrupted you? Fram (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

you need a break. 晚安 (トークページ) 07:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@晚安: No, Fram is absolutely in the right for pointing this out. Habsburg Monarchy was incorrectly tagged and placed on a database report it had no business being on. I don't think you seem to understand the situation here based off this reply. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That's an opinion, not absolute. As I see it, Habsburg Monarchy fits very well into the class of redirect titles on Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations; it seems to belong there. Why do you disagree? Dicklyon (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

As pointed out already by RandomCanadian above, just because something does not conform to Wikipedia's specific manual of style does not automatically make it a miscapitalization. The RM did not get consensus for "Habsburg Monarchy is invalid and miscapitalised". The consensus was the article title should be sentence case because our manual of style proscribes that and both capitalization schemes saw about roughly equal use in reliable sources. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I find this to be a novel and odd argument. The whole point of the RM discussion and move was that the capitalized form of the phrase was wrong for Wikipedia, per MOS:CAPS, which is about capitalization, not about titles. What do you think sentence case means? The phrase is not "invalid" or "miscapitalized" in some other styles, but it's wrong for Wikipedia, and ought to be fixed, at least where it shows up in articles. Either that or everything I've been doing for the last 15 years to help Wikipedia move closer to implementing its guidelines has been a waste of time. That's why such things get tagged as miscapitalized, and why we work on fixing them. Numerous respondents here have supported such work. I'm flying out in a few hours, so won't be back to argue this further. Feel free to get the last word in. Dicklyon (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

HabsBurg monarchy would be a wrong capitalisation (no serious source capitalises it like that). Habsburg Monarchy is an alternative capitalisation (not a mistake) which does not conform with the Wikipedia style guide, but might conform with another (or be part of an upper-case title): therefore, it is not "wrong", it is, just as the redirect categorisatio ntemplate says, a redirect from a title with another method of capitalisation. It leads to the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation. Wikipedia naming conventions are not divine truth; and simply because something does not match them does not make it wrong, it just makes it different. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Given the pushback and misunderstandings, and my upcomnig wikibreak, here's what I propose to do:

1. I will leave these 267 articles with visible over-capitalization of Monarchy to others to fix over time to be consistent with the RM consensus.
2. I will stop responding to further cleanup requests at the tennis project, referring them instead to list at AWB task request and/or to seek bot approval (one such is pending and will complete without my further involvement).
3. I will stop interpreting the database report on linked miscapitalizations as suggestions for useful work to be done.
4. I will completely stop using JWB until at least after my upcoming long trip and wikibreak (returning mid May).
5. I may start an RFC on the interpretation of NOTBROKEN, to see how the community feels about fixing very minor errors.
6. While traveling with intermittent Internet I'll restrict my limited WP edits to more creative work like uploading photos.

Thanks to all who have supported me here; but let's not further pollute Fram's watchlist. Dicklyon (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to do a bit of JWB just now to repair a goof I made on a few articles on March 9 that was just pointed out to me. Just a dozen or two articles with about three things to replace, in football. Dicklyon (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Just 11 articles. Dicklyon (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Given that 'Habsburg Monarchy' is as or more common in prose than 'Habsburg monarchy', it seems silly to have a guideline that mandates the second usage throughout Wikipedia. I'm fine with enforcing such a standard for article titles, but shouldn't article text be governed by something like WP:ENGVAR or WP:ERA? At least in cases like this where there are two competing conventions of capitalization in use in reliable sources? I suspect that this is a very common position with historiographical terminology. 'Byzantine Senate' is given as an example at MOS:CAPS, but when I check ngrams it appears that it should be 'Byzantine senate'. A whole lot of historical terminology will probably fail the "substantial majority" test. (Abbasid Caliphate does.) I don't think it is the right test, but even if we use it for titles I see no reason to force it on prose across the board. Srnec (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  If you mean to question or change MOS:CAPS on the basis that it's "silly", this is not the place for that. As for that Byzantine Senate example, I agree, that's a bad one and should be removed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't read all of the above and I won't, but what I will do is comment on the pagemove Habsburg Monarchy to Habsburg monarchy. Look at incoming links from templates for the old title, and then read WP:NAVNOREDIRECT. I have previously tried to get Dicklyon to concentrate on links from templates after his "oh so important" pagemoves, but he seems incapable of "fixing" those redirects which actually DO need fixing, instead preferring to concentrate on those which do not. See his talk page a year ago. DuncanHill (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Duncan, greetings from Amsterdam. Thanks for reminding me about fixing template links first. I didn't forget them, but when I generated the list of files to edit in JWB, from main and Template spaces, it put the Template ones last in the list (I could have done them first if I had thought it would be an issue). Within a day of the move, my process was stopped by Fram complaining here, so didn't get to the templates; and yes I had forgotten after all this discussion to get back and take care of those. As I said, though, there's still work to do and I think I didn't count templates in the 267. Dicklyon (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  OK, I updated 13 templates. There's more to do, like other articles and templates with still-overcapped titles, but those will wait. Off to Cape Town in the morning. Dicklyon (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Page previews

Above, the claim was made that such changes to piped links were useful because "page previews" (the popups you can enable in preference / appearance) don't work for redirects. In my experience (confirmed above by Procrastinatingreader if I read it correctly), page previews work perfectly for redirects as well (e.g. Habsburg monarchy, Habsburg Monarchy, and Austria all give the same result). Can some people test this and indicate whether they see any difference between those three popups? Fram (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say page previews don't work. I said they show the miscapitalized text even when the text is hidden by piping: Habsburg monarchy. My claim was that the hidden text with wrong capitalization (what I was fixing), is "not invisible to users". But the RFC I started at WT:Redirect indicates that people aren't bother by that kind of variation showing up as an extra line in the article preview, so I won't be fixing those anymore. Dicklyon (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

but sometimes it fails? why?

Oddly, it seems to fail intermittently this way, even in exactly the same context. I can't figure out how to make this reliably repeatable. Dicklyon (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it's this: the normal non-redirected preview always works, but the preview through redirect (piped or not) only works the first time after a page load; after that it just shows like this screen clip. Reloading the page resets it to work once again. Or so my limited testing suggests. Dicklyon (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If I'm right, this piping through the article title should keep working: Austria, while the ones piped through redirect don't: Austria. Dicklyon (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

So it seems that piping through redirects is indeed somewhat broken, miscapitalized or not. There should be a global technical fix for that, I would presume (or maybe it's working as intended?). Dicklyon (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Turning off the "Navigation pop-ups gadget" gives a more reliable and completely different looking preview, not showing the redirect name all. So that's where the oddness is, and the behavior I was noting. Resolved. Dicklyon (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Can confirm, the popups for the redirect are supposed to work but frequently fail to load, whereas they work 100% of the time without a redirect. Turning off the gadget does not display any alternate popups whatsoever for me. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

We have, under appearances, a "page preview" toggle that works all the time, it seems, unlike the more buggy gadget. Fram (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

user:Mariofan3 WP:NOTHERE, WP:NOTWEBHOST

Almost all of this user’s edits are to WP:FANCRUFT fake articles about non-notable web shows. They may need blocking for abuse of Wikipedia for webhosting purposes. Dronebogus (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You haven't notified the user, and you have provided zero diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dronebogus's assessment. The editor's entire contribution history is clear that they're using Wikipedia as a webhost and are WP:NOTHERE. Schazjmd (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Notified. Also I peovided “diffs” in the form of statistics because literally their whole edit history counts as evidence. Dronebogus (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Firstly why do you care, secondly they're user pages, I wasn't trying to record notable information cuz the info I was recording was relevant to me, obviously no one is gonna look at those pages so idk why you are calling it "web hosting". Also like i'm gonna use wikipedia of all things to self promote lol, I was just recording info related to my projects cuz it was fun, stop going to furthest extreme, It's just harmless pages I was just practicing the wikipedia source with, calm yourself Ryan Jay (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• • @Mariofan3: It’s not “practicing” if you never put your skills to use on actual articles. Dronebogus (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not exactly fair is it, I admit I got carried away and made a few too many pages, and forgot to actually edit other pages, so I apologize for that, honestly the one user page I care about rlly is the Snowtab in the Void one cause of the amount of time I put into that one Ryan Jay (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• • @Mariofan3 and Dronebogus: Wikipedia:How to use your user space and WP:USER. Many, if not most, users who have been around for any amount of time, create user sub pages for any number of reasons. There's no limit on how many a user can have. How do any of us know they aren't working on ideas for expanding an article, or building ideas and sources for a new article. And as these guidelines say, "You can put more or less anything on your user page, as long as it does not break any other rules (for example, no copyright violations or insults directed at other users)." — Maile (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    I know that, but this user hasn’t spent enough time anywhere else on WP to justify making 500+ edits in userspace Dronebogus (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    Literally 90% of their edits are on personal projects, which is the definition of WP:NOTHERE (“Editing only in user space”) Dronebogus (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    I could easily change that though, I mean I believe I contribute to episode list pages occasionally I could just do it more often but with other pages Ryan Jay (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Fandom exists. They have practically zero standards as long as you don’t add porn, slander, or hate speech. Dronebogus (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • ok Ryan Jay (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @Mariofan3 and Dronebogus: "Fandom" is a more general topic. It would appear to me that the wiki-hosting website Fandom (website) is what might have been intended here. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

      Yes thank you Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Fandom does not like falsehoods any more than we do. wikia:User blog:Wikiatastic/A perfect rules article for your wiki#No Vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    I’ve seen some comically terrible wikis. Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Mariofan3:, please save whatever content you want from these pages ASAP as they will very likely be deleted, either as WP:U5 violations or through WP:MfD.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This user’s mainspace behavior also includes personal attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mariofan3#March_2020 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_DuckTales_(2017_TV_series)_episodes#This_is_annoying), blatant vandalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Steven_Universe_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=838356166 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Screams_of_Silence:_The_Story_of_Brenda_Q&diff=prev&oldid=956108419) and a general flippant and hostile attitude towards editing (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_DuckTales_(2017_TV_series)_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=945408058). Honestly I’m not sure why they expect us to believe they can actually edit the wiki competently. Dronebogus (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

2 Years Ago -_- Ryan Jay (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Also not gonna lie now is when you are starting to be a bit of an ass about this, I already agreed and have been as close to “nice” about this situation as I can be, all your doing now is just bringing up random stuff from 2-4 years ago that doesn’t affect this current situation, what are you, a twitter user? Quit it already, I already agreed to the page deletions (or well even if I disagreed I wouldn’t really have a choice now would I), I don’t care about this situation after this point, so can it just end now lol. Ryan Jay (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal indef block

• Support indef block as nominator for User:Mariofan3. This thread proves itself. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC) – Reinitiated my support due to very uncivil behavior of Mariofan3 at this thread. Even if they are let go, they will surely going to cause headaches and cost editors valuable time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose based on the evidence presented so far. No one is born magically knowing that WP:NOTWEBHOST exists. Dronebogus should have discussed this with Mariofan on his talk page and explained the policy to him rather than taking this to ANI and demanding a block that sounds more punitive than preventative. Mariofan hasn't engaged in any more NOTWEBHOST violations since this thread was started, and seems to understand the policy now, so a block would prevent nothing. And I don't think throwing into the mix some juvenile edits from two years ago changes that. Maybe there's a case to be made for an indef, but the above ain't it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  I said a block may be necessary. I did not demand one, let alone an indefinite one. Dronebogus (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus: If you say at a village pump or on a talk page that a block "may" be necessary, you're saying it may be necessary. If you say it at AN/I, you're requesting one. You came here guns-blazing without attempting to discuss with the user, concerning their violation of a policy that they had no way of knowing existed, and their reaction to that has been predictably one of surprise. If they're indeffed, and/or if they stick to their retirement, that's no great loss to the project in terms of what they've contributed so far, but we'll never know how they would have reacted to a polite explanation of NOTWEBHOST here. Maybe they would have decided to contribute more productively. If you ask me, your starting this thread less than a week after Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1095 § Dronebogus @ MFD is further evidence that your fixation on what others do in their userspace is becoming a net-negative to this project. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 12:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Note that the thread went nowhere. Dronebogus (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Basically everyone who participated in that thread agreed that your conduct was problematic. If what you're saying is "I won't listen to the community's concerns unless there's a consensus to formally warn or sanction me", that's rather troubling. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  No consensus is no consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  WP:BOOMERANG? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Boomerang who? I assume me since I get this threat every time I’m at ANI. Dronebogus (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• weak Oppose I’m unimpressed with this user’s attitude and behavior but we have no reason to assume they’re going to keep violating policy per WP:CRYSTAL. Support on top of the utter lack of meaningful productive editing they also have consistently behaved in a flippant and immature manner towards literally everything outside of their little bubble of vanity pages. No reason to have faith in them at this point. They had their chance right here and they clearly blew it. Dronebogus (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support despite the nom striking their !vote. I really was right about to oppose per Tamzin, but the diffs Dronebogus provided, as well as how User:Mariofan3 reacted to them, suggest that WP:NOTWEBHOST is far from the only reason to not keep them around. I don't agree that a block would prevent nothing. Yes, it was in 2020 that Mariofan3 called other editors retarded and vandalized multiple articles (it's a miracle they weren't blocked for that at the time), so it's possible that they've changed since then; I believe their recent behavior demonstrates that they're no less juvenile today, throwing out WP:NPA like "what are you, a twitter user?" or replying to MfD notifications with a disinterested "did i ask", etc. If they ever choose to use Wikipedia for legitimate purposes, they'd certainly be a problem editor and wind up back at AN/I.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 06:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  I will give them a chance. The reason I strike my proposal is per WP:ROPE: give them another chance, and if they are indeed a problematic editor, they will come back here and get blocked indef. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  They are indeed a problematic editor, and their second chance was now. Dronebogus (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  I will say my piece now as you guys have essentially raided my email box with this for the past week, I literally have no clue what is going on and what exactly you guys are trying to say, the original point was that I had pointless user pages, to which have been deleted and I agreed to their deletion, all you guys are doing now is nitpicking at me for no good reason at all, all my "juvenile reactions" were literally me reacting to this random ass situation like a human being, "are you a twitter user" may sound harsh but to me it just sums up what this is, I made a mistake, and you started picking at my history on the site to make me look even worse for some reason? Also responding to a notification that way in my own talk page should not be an issue lol. So yeah all you've done is ensure that I don't want to ever use this site again, you've made it clear that you just want me gone so i'll just go lol Ryan Jay (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Then go. Bye bye. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  jeez, no need to be so rude about it. 晚安 (トークページ) 12:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Not that something shouldn't be done about the WP:WEBHOST, personal attacks and battleground mentality, but all of the warnings and diffs the OP provided are from two years ago and the OP seems to be (somewhat) piling on and basing their arguments on edit counts rather than entirely on the substance of Mariofan3's edits (with comments like "Literally 90% of their edits are on personal projects, which is the definition of WP:NOTHERE (“Editing only in user space” and "Almost all of this user’s edits are to WP:FANCRUFT fake articles about non-notable web shows."). Recent warnings and lesser sanctions (such as a definite block and a restriction from using their userspace for webhosting) have not been tried and the OP has failed to provide sufficient evidence than an indefinite block would be absolutely necessary. From what I can see, the WP:WEBHOST did not get brought up until this thread and a look here shows that Mariofan3 does in fact contribute to mainspace. While this doesn't in any mean that Mariofan3 is right or that the OP's concerns about WP:NOTHERE are illegitimate, if after sufficient warnings, Mariofan3 continues to use Wikipedia as a WP:WEBHOST and the personal attacks/battleground behavior, then I'd say block indefinitely.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tamzin. The user figured out what they did wrong. casualdejekyll 13:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see why this came here instead of MFD - though who really cares? If the user learns some skills in their user pages and sandbox, isn't that a good thing? Why chase away a potential user, and poke them with a stick until they bite? Nfitz (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Dronebogus warned

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1095 § Dronebogus @ MFD

Dronebogus has said above that they do not see the previous ANI thread as having had a consensus, even though almost everyone agreed that Dronebogus' conduct was problematic, simply because no one bothered to formally close it. In light of that, I propose that the community formally warn Dronebogus that their actions regarding user subpages have been disruptive and have wasted other editors' time for minimal benefit, and in particular warn them to not use MfD and ANI as venues of first resort for cases that might be solved by discussing with users directly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support @Dronebogus: This has all been clearly excessive and disruptive, and devoid of the collegiality and WP:AGF editors should show one another. I just rejected a vanish request from @Mariofan3:, so harassing other users off the project is certainly not what we should be doing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with @Mythdon: --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Support. I don't have anything to add. casualdejekyll 15:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support - bordering on bullying. There's no need to be censoring Wikipedia to this degree! Nfitz (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with everything the nom said. I would like to reiterate to Dronebogus that if they are to nominate dozens of related items for deletion with the same delete rationale, they should be a single nomination so editors don't have to copy and paste their !votes over and over again, this is disruptive and far more time consuming than it needs to be, I asked this of them in the previous ANI too. I do also agree in principle that it's better to discuss with users before going to AN/I (despite me agreeing that the user they brought to AN/I was NOTHERE). I wouldn't agree to warn them not to bulk nominate userboxes in the future, though, as it's still true that most of what they nominate for deletion results in a delete consensus. The nominations themselves aren't the problem, but the way they've gone about them is an issue.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Support Dronebogus's focus on putting a wide swath of userpages up for MFD is tendentious; whether or not those pages need to be deleted or not, pursuing a campaign like that is itself disruptive because it inevitably and invariably involves the pursuit of a goal rather than actually resolving the dispute. Judging from this thread and based on the link Tamzin has provided, if we're going to have a conversation about WP:NOTHERE, that should also include Dronebogus's approach and their obsession with what it's in others' userspace. As I've said above, Dronebogus was right as far as Mariofan3 using Wikipedia as a WP:WEBHOST, but the method by which Dronebogus went about bringing those concerns —going straight to ANI, digging up stuff from 2+ years ago that's nothing to do with the original complaint, WP:BITING Mariofan3 even after Mariofan3 agreed to stop, taking it upon themselves to act as a sort of userspace police putting stuff up for MFD that they don't like or find offensive— is bordening on harassment. Like I said above, Mariofan3 did indeed violate WP:NOTWEBHOST, but how a user approaches whatever they perceive as a violation of policy matters just as (if not more) important than the violation itself. And how Dronebogus approached this (in general and with Mariofan3) it itself a case of WP:NOTHERE and I think Dronebogus should find something better to do than going around policing other users userpages, because all policing does is insists on drama and confronation rather than an amicable solution. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Support -- Dronebogus has an abrasive approach that needs to change. --JBL (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Support Unfortunately, xfds are adversarial by their nature. Sometimes we learn the wrong lessons. I do. As I'd mentioned (and was demonstrated) in the previous ANI thread, Dronebogus has this habit of lashing out, then telling others to drop the stick. I call attention to the back and forth between they and I following this edit, where they attempt to explain calling another editor a name (which they later properly retracted). Dronebogus admits humanity, and then when I'm thinking I'll let it go, I read another un-aimed attack: "double standard much?" They have this history of adding inflaming comments (like the ones I'm trying to redact through my drafting process at this moment, not letting the user continue to effect me). I wish they would learn not to do this; such interjections undercut otherwise good contributions to the pedia. It's great with me that Dronebogus tries to prune dead wood; I'm glad we have sensible and intelligent people thinking this perfectly valid way. If they can get over trying to "win" they could be better at what they do. BusterD (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Persistent addition of bad categories by Sarahlundell and refusal to communicate

Sarahlundell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) won't stop adding incorrect categories to articles, which is 100% of their edits to date. Typically this involves adding random politicans to Category:LGBT heads of government, even people whose article doesn't describe them as gay, as well as edit warring after first attempt is reverted but also adding someone to the LGBT writers category whose article doesn't describe them as gay. I've tried to communicate with them, but they just carry on with the bad category additions. FDW777 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: This user [40] was created within minutes of Sarah Lundell and is doing the exact same, adding LGBT categories. I would be amazed if they weren't connected. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

She is not alone, although she may be alone in adding the category to people who are not openly LGBTQ. Several other people have been eagerly adding this category to everyone from mayors to state legislators. We need to have a discussion somewhere about exactly what constitutes a "head of government". In my opinion, that does not include mayors. Where should this discussion go? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

We have an article Head of government that pretty clearly explains what one is. Deor (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Which I linked them to on their talk page. FDW777 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I saw the "LGBT heads of government" category pop up on some LGBT mayors I've watchlisted and at least one legislator's page. They are not heads of government. I set up a SPI thread for this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ivance1027 prior to seeing this thread (no idea who the "master" is, but it could be Sarahlundell is the "master" account). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I had just commented on the SPI before seeing the thread here. This appears to be part of a WikiEdu course on LGBTQ Wikipedia editing. The stated goals are "adding tags to LGBTQ+ individual's Wikipedia pages as well adding people to lists of LGBTQ+ individuals" - unfortunately it seems like the students did not receive adequate instruction on categorization. Pinging the course instructors Awatkins123, Gabagirl and Whatknows to inform them of this thread, and will crosspost to the education noticeboard. Spicy (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for figuring this out, Spicy, nice work! When you talk to the instructor, be sure to point out that they can't add a category about something that is not mentioned or documented in the article. If these people are trying to teach their students how to edit Wikipedia, that should have been in lesson 1A. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems that these class editing projects, and editathons etc are almost continuously causing issues. I came across another one a few weeks ago where people were assigned articles to edit, and almost every edit had to be reverted. I'm starting to wonder if serious restrictions and rules should be put around these sorts of activity. I don't advocate banning them, but they need to be controlled in some manner as they are very clear net negatives at this point. Canterbury Tail talk 12:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN - we did teach students that categories need to be documented in the article. The articles targeted for adding categories all came from Wikipedia Lists of LGBT people - so if there were people wrongly categorized as LGBT this was a mistake already on Wikipedia. Students were directed to use the citations in the Wikipedia lists to add such information to article to back up categories if it was missing. In this process, we did run across missing or inadequate documentation in the LGBT lists - which we tried to improve when better sources could be found. Awatkins123 (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is the educational benefit from having students add categories to articles? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Idk? Wasting server resources? Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 13:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Why do we need Wiki-Ed? It causes more problems then it solves. What is its purpose? Teaching? There's like, you know, education for that?? Is it to teach people how to edit Wikipedia? Fact is that most people in their life will never edit Wikipedia after Wiki-Ed. The student accounts are a drain on server resources. There's no reason to do this. It's also MASSIVE spam on talk pages. Why does this even exist? Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 02:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

WikiEd editors are in education. They're undergraduate students, making these edits as part of an undergraduate course, under the (sometimes not particularly helpful) direction of their instructor. -- asilvering (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that Wiki-Ed is useless. And as part of a course? Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 21:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This sounds like a village pump matter. Dronebogus (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Ricky Luague and image uploading

Ricky Luague (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ricky Luague is an extended confirmed user with a good number of edits that seem mainly constructive at a first glance, so I consider them to be a decent contributor to the project. However, I have noticed the increasingly large number of files they have uploaded with no source or licensing information at all (empty file description pages). They have been notified, either by a bot or a human, each time at their talk page with absolutely no response. (Their only edit to their talk page was in May 2018.)

This appears to be reaching a level of disruption, as they are leaving these possible copyright violations for others to clean up. (Plus, their consistent lack of edit summaries doesn't help.)

I suggest a partial block from the file namespace, as they are a longtime contributor to the wiki, but I leave that up to the community here. Bsoyka (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have been given any particular non-template warnings of any sort to date, so I've left one. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Stifle: They did the same again. Still no response on their talk page. Bsoyka (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked from File namespace. This is indefinite strictly in the sense of "having no defined end date"; any administrator is hereby authorized to unblock as soon as they are satisfied that Ricky Luague understands and will comply with policy. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 10

Special:Contributions/42.3.120.0/24,this LTA use this IP range after 7 October in 2019 (only 42.3.120.242 is not),please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 05:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Djjjjjl. El_C 14:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

i will light you on fire 晚安 (トークページ) 06:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/112.120.179.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 18 July in last year,please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Plllllljn. El_C 11:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

no 晚安 (トークページ) 11:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Skibbereen-based IP range disrupting film articles

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

---

Someone in Skibbereen, Ireland, has been disrupting film articles using a dozen IP addresses. Disruption ranges from trivial and irrelevant unreferenced additions to wrong names inserted in lists of cast members. I don't see anything useful coming from this person. They have never used an edit summary, and have never replied to a talk page warning. Can we rangeblock them and save us all the trouble? Involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• 86.40.215.233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.214.222 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.215.10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.214.253 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.214.156 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.215.27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.214.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.214.21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Note that 86.40.214.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) was range blocked 3 times in 2018/2019 noted as block evasion in one block. Seems never stopped. That range seems exclusively used by this editor so a range block would have little or no collateral damage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, good catch. I would love to see another rangeblock on the /23 but with a lengthy duration. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. As mentioned, there's practically no collateral damage so blocked for a year. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Marvelous. Thank you, Black Kite. We will revisit the issue in a year! Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruption again started by Mrvillainwolf

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

---

Mrvillainwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mrvillainwolf got blocked by Daniel Case Special:MobileDiff/1076443409 for one month. After their block expired they are back again at disruptive editing as can be seen Special:MobileDiff/1082870333, Special:MobileDiff/1082869951 and even here Special:MobileDiff/1082870537 Please take care of it. Thanks. Packer&Tracker«Talk» 16:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Repeated Copyright violations from User:TheGreengiant23

User:TheGreengiant23 continues to insert repeated copyright violations into articles. In June 2015, this user was blocked for copyright violations.Back in January of this year, [41] an unrelated discussion unearthed multiple violations of copyright, but nothing came of the discussion. There appears to be a Wikipedia:Competence issue with this editor. The latest example is this [42]. I reverted their edits at 2030 Winter Olympics because the opiniated text. On a hunch, did a check to see if there was a copyright issue, and there was. Some of the text is copied from here [43] Note: I have not left a warning for them or notified them of this discussion as per their wish for me to not write on their talk page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I have notified TheGreengiant23 of this discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This user have been told to let me (and others he's bullying) alone. It's a little game he's playing with others, accusing users whom he dont like the contributions to revert without asking their opinion and than accusing them on anything possible (pseudo vandalism, copyright, harassment, etc.) This user have clear mental illness and i wont go further in this non sense. I dunno if their is a rule for falsly reporting users and intimidate like hes doing but plz adm have some lil judgment and don't take his word like cash. Thank you very much. (Speaking in the name of all his victims, who are in vast majority experienced and fabulous and positive contributors) TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@TheGreenGiant23: I strongly recommend you retract your comment about mental illness. Like, immediately. – ².O.^Boxing 10:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

And looking at diffs from the previous ANI discussion regarding these two, GreenGiant seems to enjoy using mental health issues as an insult. Id support an indef just on this. Utterly pathetic. – ².O.^Boxing 10:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see GreenGiant has been rightly blocked. That'll be that issue solved then. – ².O.^Boxing 10:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes utterly pathetic to use mental illness as an insult, but the key issue here is the repeated copyright violations. I do not think this editor understand the policy. From 2015 till now, there have been repeated violations. When will this be dealt with? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@User:Cullen328 What are the next steps in relation to the copyright violations? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234, if you see any clearcut copyright violations by this editor in the future, bring the matter to my attention and I will block the editor. Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The revert looks good to me. In addition to copying that article's title and subtitle verbatim, a sentence was copied from the first source, and the Akimoto quote doesn't appear. The second paragraph's quote is actually from a creative agency's blog, which was not cited. If you have five examples, you can list at WP:Contributor copyright investigations. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

COI/UPE bullying

• Chris troutman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DoubleCross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scope creep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been away from Wikipedia for a few years due to general inactivity + being locked out of my account. But after noticing that a startup called Remote that I was learning about didn't have an article, I tried to log back into my account and to my surprise I succeeded in regaining access. So I started to update myself on what has changed around here, as I would like to become more active again. And I proceeded to create an article on the mentioned company.

That proved to be a quick reminder that Wikipedia is not always an enjoyable experience. The stub was first speedy deleted due to lack of sources while I was still gathering them (I don't think Drafting existed a few years ago so I was just editing as I would before - directly on the mainspace). I reached out to the admin who speedy deleted, who then restored the stub as a draft. I finished adding sources and moved the article back to the mainspace. Shortly afterwards, user Chris troutman nominated it for deletion due to concerns about the company's notability and the sources I had gathered. So far so good, but in his reasoning was also the allegation that I may have a conflict of interest as this company was "an odd choice of article to write after [me] having stopped editing for years".

I ignored that and the discussion proceeded to focus on the sources and how to improve them. As the outcome was leaning towards Keep, Chris brought up the COI allegation again and demanded I disclose whether I have a COI - a demand which I refused to comply. Chris then took it to the COI noticeboard. Two users agreed with him on similar assumptions: the quality of the sources and my choice of article meant I had to have a COI.

Users DoubleCross and Scope creep then decided to up the ante and accuse me of being paid to create the article[44][45]. And now I even have a user implying I7 should be kicked out because I'm so obviously an UPE.

I may have been away from Wikipedia for years, but unless a lot has changed during my absence this is bullying plain and simple. I used to break fights by reminding users to be civil and assume good faith, and I'm disappointed that this type of hounding is allowed to run unopposed.

I would like to be clarified if the users above are in their right to make these accusations. Húsönd 23:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

If you don't have a COI, it's best just to say so. That said, we have high standards for notability of corporations precisely to avoid poorly sourced boosterism, regardless of whether it's well intentioned creation or not. (t · c) buidhe 00:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, due to the spectre of spammers, passions sometimes run high in deletion discussions for companies, and the independence of sources can be debatable. While the launch of this AFD unfortunately followed some snarking by the nominator Chris Troutman to the article creator Husond upon his return, discussion was proceeding quite well. Unfortunately, Scope creep joined in with a rather passionate Delete, and reacted to my answer to his comment by wholly reverting my response [46]. I think this was a decidedly suboptimal reaction, but that happens. Things degenerated from there. As pertains to me, he's now responded to 3rd parties calling him out on his conduct by accusing me and Husond of being corrupt on his own talk page. I've asked him to withdraw the accusation, but he does not seem inclined to do so. I do think a 3rd party look into the conduct issues here all around would be helpful, hopefully leading to a deescalation and withdrawal of rash accusations. Moving from conduct to content, I shake my head sometimes how much more scrutiny we place on articles about 2nd tier but (arguably) notable companies versus minor celebrities, all from a fear of COI which actually arises just as frequently for personal vanity articles. However, this is not new (see for instance [47] from 2006!) and probably not solvable at ANI. Martinp (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that scope creeps reversion was totally out of order and their corrupt accusation is not ideal either. As to the COI insinuations it just makes me uneasy. I can see why they were made and companies are notorious for it, but Husond explanation is also entirely plausible. Overall I think the evidence is a weak to go all out on UPE and it is really just a red herring as regards the AFD anyway. It would be great if scope creep could restore Martins comment and editors could leave out further accusations of COI at the AFD and just focus on sources. If non-neutral editing or spamming results then the COI accusations can be revisited. Aircorn (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree about the odd imbalance between the treatment of notable companies and minor celebrities. People tossing COI accusations around should really check the sources more thoroughly first to determine whether a subject is credible before assuming corporate articles are being put up in bad faith. Sure, there are a lot of crap, spammed company articles, but it is also normally pretty obvious whether they are credible or not from the sourcing. It is also pretty normal for a Wikipedia editor to see a company in the news, go to check for it on Wikipedia, note an absence and then try to do something about it. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Martinp had only made two comments in the discussion prior to the one which scope_creep removed, one of which was Martinp's !vote and the other of which was expanding on the !vote. To say that Martinp bludgeoned by posting a third comment, which was the first time they had replied to another person in the discussion, would stretch the definition of the term "bludgeon" beyond its breaking point. scope_creep should voluntarily restore Martinp's comment at the AfD. I also feel the need to point out that scope_creep has a history of playing fast and loose with COI/UPE allegations, so it does not surprise me that they would refer to Martinp as "corrupt" solely because Martinp disagreed with them. Mlb96 (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Husond, yes, things have changed a lot since the early days when you were highly active before going pretty much silent for a decade or more. You have been an administrator off and on, and have lost your administrator's tools twice, I think. One thing that has changed for the better, in my opinion, is that we work much harder to control the promotional contributions of spammers/paid editors/COI editors. As an administrator for almost the past four years, I have blocked 5849 accounts and about 80% of those were spammers and COI editors. One useful tool is the direct question to a possible COI editor: "Do you have a conflict of interest?" This is not bullying. It is protecting and defending the encyclopedia. You seem to consider this entirely legitimate question to be unacceptably intrusive and are refusing to give a direct answer. Your refusal reflects very poorly on you, because you could have easily and promptly and conclusively denied all accusations of COI editing and PAID editing. But you have declined to do do, which leaves these possibilities open for editors who patrol COI and POV editing. Let me be crystal clear with you. If you harbor any wish to be an administrator again or return to the status of a respected and trusted editor, you need to answer these questions frankly, honestly and fulsomely. Your reluctance to answer places you firmly into the informal category of editors who cannot be trusted. Is that what you really want? Cullen328 (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The direct COI question might not be bullying, but it can be presumptive and certainly feel quite rude depending on the context. A more astute accuser might have AGF upon seeing an editor with 36,000 edits under their belt, a history of adminship and a gazillion barnstars and perhaps recalculated, especially when the article was clearly being built with quality, guideline-compliant sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of the article and its sources. I wouldn't have AfD'd it if it didn't look questionable. More to the point, our deletion discussions are not political events where the consensus casts !votes based upon who's hot and who's not. An editor with longevity isn't given special permission to do undisclosed paid editing. Barnstars don't earn an editor the right to use vulgar language aimed towards another editor. And editors like you create our Super Mario problem, making adminship a big deal, by intoning that if you were once popular and now seem to be violating policies and guidelines a regular editor like me isn't allowed to say so because I'm not of the ruling class. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't make adminship a big deal, or trust editors solely based on counts, but historic access to admin tools does, by definition, carry the implication of a certain level of past community trust, and might give one pause for thought before exercising an itchy trigger finger ... unless one is to totally distrust the whole foundation upon which this community is built. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

We certainly have different views on the question "do you have a conflict of interest?". You find it a useful tool, I find it a tool for fomenting discord. It creates an atmosphere of suspicion that may easily poison the process - as seen here. Even if an editor denies COI when asked to disclose, other editors in the room will still wonder if the editor was being honest. So I can't really see what's the point of the question. Unless of course you get a lot of editors saying "why yes, I do have a COI, thank you for asking" - but even those, I'm inclined to believe did not require the question in the first place as their COI was probably pretty obvious anyway. Now of course you may claim that demanding a user to disclose COI was actually instrumental for increasing your prolific COI block tally - and I would love to learn more about that - but in any case I have serious doubts that it offsets the damage the demand may cause when aimed at the wrong users.

You think my refusal to acquiesce to Chris's demand to disclose COI reflects very poorly on me - that is your opinion, and I can live with it. I never asked for respect or trust - if the community indeed saw me as a respected and trusted editor, that was probably because I was consistent, reliable, and unafraid of expressing positions that may not please everyone but were backed by sound reasoning. You can rest assured that that has not changed, and it is definitely not the mop that is going to make any difference. Húsönd 18:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If you don't have a COI, it's really very simple to say, "No, I don't have a COI." You're well within your rights not to do so, but if you had simply done that from the beginning, I'm quite sure everyone would have assumed some good faith and all of this suspicion and acrimony could have been avoided. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• I wasn't particularly discussing Martinp in any accusation about being corrupt. I didn't believe at the time, they had a handle on the policy, although I've since found out they have written some of the NCORP policy. I was speifically speaking about the behaviour about editors who are trying the game the system, that I believe is happening here on a regular basis. I shouldn't have reverted the comment by Martinp but by the same token, this type of behaviour where editors now try to for push for a no conensus, so the article is kept, by continually pushing the conversation in the same direction that it becomes bludgeoning, is now common. It is standard pattern. I thought it was that. Even after I called out the references, where 6 out the 9 were press-releases, and 2 of the remaining were 2 sentences each, still the comment, ignoring the references and there is no other coverage. Mlb96 above makes the comment about me, playing fast and loose with COI/UPE allegations. To a certain extent I do, but nobody seems to care about it. I thought by now, there would be sea change, but no. I will stop working on coin and Afd and cat:nnn from this point forward. I think about 60% of the articles are now paid for and that it's now de-rigueur to pay for articles on Wikipedia. A few days a sock master self-confessed to running a farm on the coin for four years. That is the tip of the iceberg. I really don't understand why we are doing this. Its madness. I rail against the 1000's of hours I've wasted working to keep it out, that could have going into writing new articles and and there is so much still to be done. scope_creep^Talk 07:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Through comments here at on his own talk page, scope_creep has effectively withdrawn his accusation against me, so that side-show is over. That said, it feels like his accusation of corruption against Husond still stands, though maybe he means it as a general accusation against "spammers" and just assumed Husond was one (and lumped me in briefly too). And I think there's the rub:

• @Husond: (and others): for better or worse, Wikipedia is now pretty merciless regarding COI and UPE, for companies in particular. On Wikipedia, one rarely has to do anything, so formally if someone asks you if you have a COI you don't have to answer, but in practice if you want to Get Things Done you have to answer queries about COI swiftly, truthfully, and nonevasively, even if they raise your hackles. Otherwise your contributions may be treated as suspect. Specifically - asking you to declare whether you have a COI about an article you created that is up for deletion is not inherently out of line; and while you may not have felt the way it was first raised was appropriate, when multiple people are asking, you more or less have to reply.
• @Chris troutman and Scope creep:, and others: The obligation to be civil, to AGF, and to not bully does not stop just because your spidey senses about COI are tingling. It may build a sense of camaraderie to treat spammers as The Enemy, but you still can't BITE newcomers and people speak up when it turns out not to be Evil Spammers or clueless newcomers, but long-term editors that you're bullying. And while you feel strongly it poisons the well when someone is (potentially) being paid to edit, it's also true it poisons the well when accusations of UPE/COI are flying around. They take a life of their own.
• Everyone, at AFD it's good to actually evaluate sources and engage in discussion; and opinions may vary. Be wary of conclusory thinking, especially if there are accusations flying around. Martinp (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

"The obligation to be civil, to AGF, and to not bully does not stop just because your spidey senses about COI are tingling. It may build a sense of camaraderie to treat spammers as The Enemy, but you still can't BITE newcomers and people speak up when it turns out not to be Evil Spammers or clueless newcomers, but long-term editors that you're bullying. And while you feel strongly it poisons the well when someone is (potentially) being paid to edit, it's also true it poisons the well when accusations of UPE/COI are flying around. They take a life of their own." Well said. I think Nietzsche said something about staring into the abyss... Begoon 12:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at your methodology for determining who's an UPE, I'm surprised you think it's only 60%. You accused me of being paid to edit WP, still no statement that there might be a possibility that you might be wrong (let alone a retraction), and now you go on a rant on why the process is broken. At the risk of generalising your contributions to the COI/UPE fight based on my encounter with you, I can't say I will be sorry to hear you intend to be less involved in these matters going forward. Húsönd 18:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• As the guy implying I should be kicked out because I'm so obviously an UPE, no, only if you're an undisclosed paid editor, then, yeah, taxi to Inglewood for you. But Husond, why did you never answer Randykitty's question at BN? That seems a dead cert way of stirring suspicion before you've even done anything. SN54129 13:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps he felt it was ever so slightly akin to the idea of being asked when he had stopped beating his wife? Not everyone takes questions like that in good spirit. I certainly understand why they might sometimes need to be asked, and I'm not saying they should not be asked - but nobody is under any obligation to respond to interrogation and, while you may infer whatever you wish from a non-response such non-response is perfectly valid. We allow (no, we insist on) anonymous editing. There's a huge disconnect between that and the additional step of allowing interrogation of those anonymous editors about their connections. We're not going to solve the tension between anonymity and COI in this thread, and it leads to horrible situations. I'm not sure there is a solution, but I'm damn sure we won't arrive at it here. Begoon 14:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  It was a polite question, one asked in good faith, about a reasonable clarification. Interrogation it was not. Those questions are asked (no, insisted on) every day, and—far more to the point—they were asked back in the OP's own day. This isn't some radical new expectation created just for them. And what makes a refusal to answer worse was that it was in the context of requesting tools back. Frankly, if anyone thinks it's OK to request "powerful" (in-Wikiverse) tools, but refuses to answer basic questions as to account security, then either their competence or good faith absolutely needs to be questioned: asking the community for advanced rights but unwilling to respond to a polite question? The odd thing is, they haven't demonstrated such a thin skin since, either at the AfD, or here... SN54129 14:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  I was making a more general point about the ludicrous position which we take that anonymous editing is fine unless we wish to question people, in which case they must answer. I haven't looked at anything else, so if you've had other discussions with people mentioned in this thread they didn't factor into my response at all. The "beating your wife" thing was just an aside about how we think it's ok to ask unanswerable questions - well, unanswerable without prejudicing the things we say we hold inalienable. I've generally tended to agree with you in the past, and I'm sure I'd probably agree with some of whatever personal points you're making here. None of that was my point. If it's about some "resysop" request, well, ok, I haven't looked. What I'm saying is that you cannot fully allow anonymous editing and then quiz people about their identity/affiliations. The two positions are fundamentally incompatible. But, as I said, we won't solve that in this thread. Begoon 14:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  (EC) @Begoon: I very, very rarely visit BN but I think if someone mentions a question at BN, you can assume it's probably a resysop or desysop request even without knowing that Húsönd used to be an admin which was sort of indicate in this thread. But anyway, you're free to check out BN to see if you think it could be something else Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 46#Resysop request (Husond). You can see it was indeed about a resysop request and the question had zilch to do with identity/affiliations.

  I actually don't think what they said is particularly surprising given the edit history. They edited on "2020-04-30T21:09:21" [48] and then next edited on "2022-04-05T13:09:15" [49] which was their request on BN. So "I forgot my password a couple of years ago - which in turn distanced me from WP - but I just remembered it and managed to log back in" seems a reasonable thing to say, as they may have lost access not that long after their last edit in 2020 and then only were able to gain access again it nearly 2 years later. If I'm reading the logs correctly, they were doing enough (maybe just enough at times, not sure) to keep the bit since losing it for about a month in 2012 until they lost it in 2021 [50] which would seem to further support the notion they may have lost access to their account which distanced them from Wikipedia.

  OTOH, I also don't think there was anything wrong with RandyKitty asking that question, it was a reasonable thing to query especially since Húsönd was asking for the bit back. If Húsönd saw it but refused to answer it that IMO does reflect poorly on them, my assumption is they just didn't see it. (They did reply twice in that thread after the question was asked [51] [52] so it can't be a matter of them not checking the thread.)

  I'd note that unless Húsönd transverses time in a different manner from the rest of us, whatever people may feel about the way they were treated and the questions they were asked afterwards in relation to the Remote article etc cannot be the cause or an excuse for them failing to answer Randykitty's question since all that stuff happened after the BN thread was basically dead.

  Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Begoon: Did you misunderstand the question? Husond claimed in his request for the tools that he forgot his password before anyone asked him anything. Perhaps this was a sheepish bullshit (untrue, but not meant to deceive) excuse for not having edited. RandyKitty questioned if this statement was in fact a lie (meant to deceive). 54129 knows about WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, and so questions Husond's apparent need to deceive, about which the community is concerned. Husond could've just been honest and said he wants the tools back and so officially be above the law. He didn't have to excuse not recently editing, but now we are questioning if Husond didn't return to Wikipedia for honest reasons, hence the immediate and unnecessary deception. That Husond started this post at ANI only after editors started supporting deletion of the apparently-CoI article indicates his need to punish those who point out his seeming dishonesty. Of the many problems Wikipedia has, one of them is that the editing community no longer silently adheres to the political agreement that might have existed in 2006 and the oldtimers can't figure out what to do about it. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  While there was definitely nothing wrong with Randykitty asking the question, it's IMO also silly to make a big deal over what Húsönd said. They did basically disappear for nearly 2 years which included them losing the bit in 2021 after they'd been doing enough to keep their admin bit since briefly losing it in 2012. It seems entirely plausible that what they said is basically true, they lost access to the account for 2 years. Technically it wasn't quite 2 years, but people don't have to be that precise over timeframes. I'm reminded of a maybe somewhat unPC joke I once heard about a girlfriend questioning her boyfriend about an ex they met and then questioning him again and making a big deal when he said they dated 3 years the first time and 4 years the next time. (It's also possible they don't quite remember when in 2020 they next tried to access their account and realised they could not. And remember that people's perceptions and memory of time can often be inaccurate, I'd suggest COVID-19 has thrown it out of wack even more for many.) Of course Húsönd should have just clarified if they saw the question and if they intentionally didn't then that does IMO reflect very poorly on them. But it seems easily possible they just missed it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  WP:AGF didn't die out in 2006 and you need to go back to basics. Húsönd 19:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't reply because honestly I didn't understand the point being made so I didn't give much thought to it. But going back to it, I think the user is implying that I couldn't have forgotten my password because I edited in some recent years. I can't see what's suspicious about that. I had access until one day I was prompted to type in my password and realised I didn't know what it was. I used to be permanently logged in and can't even remember when did I have to type in my password prior to that time. Húsönd 19:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Bit of a weird coincidence - minimally active editors suddenly creating controversial articles I mean - Remote is a character from Battle for Dream Island. It's a small world, or something. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Getting it in the record: Battle for Dream Island is NOT a children's show. not all animation is for kids, aight? casualdejekyll 15:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

User:GenoV84

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

---

• GenoV84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On April 14, 2022, I removed a minor sign from Islamic eschatology as it was based on a hadith that was graded as Da'if (weak) meaning that the hadith is unrealiable and should be disregarded. The sources that the user included also state that the Hadith is Da'if as can be seen here: . Another editor indicated this to the user on January 25, 2022. (see edit history) but he ignored the comment. Weak Hadiths are disregarded by the Islamic community either due to discontinuity in the chain of narrators or due to some criticism of a narrator. If a narration cannot be traced back to its source then the narration is unreliable and there is even a chance that it was fabricated therefore hadiths like these which are classified as Da'if should not be used. The user "warned" me on my talk page that I was commiting vandalism but when I tried to engage in conversation he deleted my comments on my talk page and gave me a "third warning." It's clear that the user does not want to engage in conversation. He claims in the edit history that "No academic sources have been provided to support these unsubstantiated claims" yet as i've indicated above, his own sources claim that the hadith is Da'if. 190.83.141.216 (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

We can't base that article on which hadiths are reliable - they are all made up. Besides, this is a content dispute and doesn't belong at Ani. 107.115.5.118 (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Absolutely we don't do content disputes at ANI; this, however, is at least as much about behaviour as it is content ~ the kind of behaviour which is neither collegial nor constructive, so it definitely isn't wrong to be be here. IP 190..., the previous respondant, IP 107..., is quite right, the discussion about some hadith or story being reliable or not worthy of inclusion, is not for here, so please go to the talk page. But, that IP has been thrice accused of vandalism, the first time over a year ago, so potentially not even the same user, and the second and third time (using second and third level templates, which seems a bit silly, considering the length of time since the first) by GenoV84. As far as i can tell neither of the edits thus targeted are vandalism: In the first IP 190... gave a clear explanation (though erroneous) of why the action was taken ~ obviously not vandalism ~ and the second, for which a third level vandalism warning was given, was simply to remove the very old warning from the talk page. I mean, come on, that's just being nasty. I think the best result here is if IP 190... understands and agrees that content disputes belong on the article talk pages, and GenoV84 agrees to be a bit more thoughtful and careful in dealing with other members of the community. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 11:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey yeah I wasn't specifically reporting the content dispute. I was reporting his behaviour in terms of removing my comments from my Talk Page and not being willing to discuss a way foward but yes I know that content disputes belong on article talk pages but after seeing his behaviour on my talk page I decided to ask for advice on this board on a way to move foward. 190.83.141.216 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

As a general rule, editors aren't allowed to remove sourced informations with references from the encyclopedia without consensus, in accordance with the WP policies WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOVHOW, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia which holds a neutral point of view regarding all belief systems, including political ideologies, conspiracy theories, and religious traditions. Posting a warning message on a user's Talk page for their repetitive disruptive behavior and unjustified intentional vandalism is not "nasty", is just the way Wikipedia works: revert, warn, and go on. That's all. GenoV84 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

As a general rule, editors aren't allowed to remove sourced informations with references from the encyclopedia without consensus... that's not correct, and none of the policies you linked to really say that. Here's a better policy to read: WP:NOTVAND. Levivich 20:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, those policies are correct, and in case you didn't look at the history of the Islamic eschatology article, those informations had been originally provided by an anonymous IP, not me; subsequently, various other IPs have attempted to delete the aforementioned content with and without edit summaries, and their edits have been reverted for the exact same reasons. Despite the fact that this hadith can be found in one of the main five hadith collections which Sunni Muslim scholars regard as the most important sources for the sunnah, along with the Quran itself. We can discuss for days and weeks if this particular hadith is sahih (sound/reliable) or not, but that applies to virtually any other hadith, including those collected in the books Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. (See the articles Hadith studies and Criticism of hadith for further information regarding this debate among Muslim scholars). GenoV84 (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

No we cannot discuss whether it is Sahih or not because the source YOU used in that article (which I included above) states that the hadith is Da'if (i.e. not sound or reliable) so there is no debate on whether it is weak or not if the source that you included says that it's weak and everytime I point this out you continue to ignore it. BTW sunni scholars do not regard all of the 5 hadith collections as sahih and the one that you included as I just indicated with your own source is Da'if. Specific hadiths within a Hadith collection can also be weak (just like the one you used in that article for example.) 190.83.141.216 (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The editing policy of Wikipedia is based on collaboration between editors and providing references. I haven't seen one, single, reliable academic reference which attests that this hadith is weak, and even if that was the case, the Islamic eschatology article contains a list of various events related to the end times, and there are plenty of other hadith related to the minor and major signs of the end times, regardless of the varying grade of reliability or chain of transmission. As I stated above, Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, not an "Islamic" encyclopedia. Therefore, we are not obligated to follow the rules of Muslim scholars regarding the religious texts of Islam (or any other religion, for that matter....), and anything significant related to the Islamic religion, including beliefs and practices, can be mentioned and cited here, and that also applies to the hadith and the Quran. If you are not willing to discuss with me or other users, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. Plain and simple. I was right in my judgment to revert and warn you for your blatantly disruptive behavior, it's the standard way to deal with vandals and lots of other users do exactly the same everyday, but you got so butthurt about being reverted that you singlehandedly decided to bring me here hoping that this report would help your case against me, yet you clearly stated that you're not here to discuss or compromise, only to complain. Dear @LindsayH:, stop feeding the trolls. GenoV84 (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Those edits were not vandalism. You're spending your time here arguing the content instead of addressing your improper accusations of vandalism, warnings and reverts. Lindsay is not feeding trolls and is not the only editor with concerns about your edits. Levivich 15:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

References

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

Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo bot-like editing

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

Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo is a two month old account that is racking up thousands of semi-automated edits at a fairly shocking pace. An editor has complained on their talk page that they were removing infobox parameters that could have been fixed, although I'm not sure on what scale they're making mistakes. Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo doesn't appear to be acting in bad faith, but I'm under the impression that this level of rapid semi-automated editing is enough for the user to be considered an unauthorized bot under WP:BOTPOL. What is the best course of action here? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 11:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

hello Swarm!, about the problem on my talk, MB were just reminding me that i have a mistake on editing |postal_code= and also other fixable parameters on "template:infobox settlement". i recently try to avoid those mistakes again and presistently focuses and more carefully fixing them. however i'm not a bot, i know it's shocking, but i actually opened more than 100 tab on Chrome and edit the articles one by one. The general process takes about 1 hour per se. I actually keep an eye on my editing record. And i'm also surprised that i managed to make 2000 edit on a month period. overall, thank you for mentioning me in WP:ANI, and i hope i did not make any awful mistake. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you aware of WP:MEATBOT? If you are editing rapidly and such editing is producing errors an attentive human would not make then it doesn't matter if you are running a bot, using a script or just editing very quickly. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The pace of editing definitely seems human and is not too rapid. (I mean, for comparison, this board has often refused to take action against established editors who are actually possibly using bots on their account, or at least making so many (debatable) systematic edits that their behaviour is indistinguishable from one.) Different question as to whether or not any of the edits are problematic, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

taken into account the amount of problematic edits that i made, it's only a handful, and mostly on a high-traffic pages, as MB mentioned on my talk that i noticed. however, there are mainly mistakes that i made, for example mentioned above, |Postal_code= or |iso_code= and sometimes map, but luckily some other helpful editors fixed it aferwards. i did fix them as of now though. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m not trying to get you in trouble for making mistakes, I just think this scale of bot-like editing means you get treated like a bot under bot policy. Like, you can’t do it without approval. I could be wrong. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 11:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

if ever, i will try to reduce it to more acceptable pace. but the reason of those quick-paced edits that i made was solely for my intent to reduce backlog for the corresponding template. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that you're making a lot of mistakes in doing it, I just had a peek at a few of the edits you've made and there were issues with over half of them.

In this edit the parameter needed its name fixing, not deleting [53]. You should have just removed the "Gibbons is home to K.B"

In this edit [54] the "Parameter" you removed was someone's attempt at adding an image caption, it should have been moved to the caption parameter.

In this edit [55] the parameter needed the half HTML comment removing to fix the name, it didn't need deleting.

You've made a load of edits where you've been deleting "pushpin_map1" and related parameters [56] [57] [58]. These are an old obsolete method of adding multiple pushpin maps that was removed a few years ago. These should have been converted to the new format like so:

|pushpin_map = Map 1#Map 2

|pushpin_map_caption = Caption 1##Caption 2

Rather than being deleted.

I looked at less than 10 edits, The error rate here seems enormous. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this kind of behaviour requires approval under how the bot policy is currently implemented, but the edits do have to be improvements and absent of errors, otherwise it's just disruptive editing.

On that note, as to the purpose of Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo's edits, afaics I think they're (mostly) removing parameters used in articles that aren't recognised by the infobox template? If this is because the parameters were renamed/removed, then fwiw Primefac has a bot task to clean that up (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 30). If there is a new format to convert them to, such that they will produce an output, then that should be preferred to just removing them. For edits like [59], these are legitimate, because that's not a parameter that's ever existed in the template AFAIK. Others, like this, result in visible improvements to the article by removing bad parameter fields. In general, the removal of non-existent parameters is considered a useful task, since it improves wikitext clarity and reduces confusion (c.f. the PrimeBOT 30 approval). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes exactly!, i was removing parameters that are not recognized by the format. however, there are some mistakes. but i believe it is not as serious as precieved. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

192.76.8.70 take into consideration that most pages that i actually edited is low-traffic to low-importance but this is not the case. the general intent for me is to reduce the backlog. as i said earlier, i did mistakes. the |pushin_map1= and other parameters that were labeled per se, some of them did not show any changes to the infobox overall. So i flag them as "unknown format" anyway. thoroughly i did fixed some of them, but my focus was to remove the unrecognized format out of the infobox. i did recheck and re-preview most of them, except those that i missed. Take into consideration that this is not simple and short task to do. Infact it is a very time-energy consuming task to do. and i doubt there are many people who willing to do it on a large scale. moreover, the articles that i got was randomized aswell per Category:Pages using infobox settlement with unknown parameters. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 12:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo: I've just been through your last 40 ish edits and at least 10 of them contained mistakes, that's an error rate of 25%. You're making even more questionable edits while this discussion is going on which is probably not a good idea.

In this edit [60] Why did you delete the latitude and longitude information rather than converting them into proper parameters?

You need to slow down, double check every edit and make sure that everything you are removing couldn't be placed in another parameter. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you checking the edits you are making at all? Because I find it hard to believe that anyone who was paying even the smallest amount of attention would have made this edit [61]. Why did you delete the parameter rather than fixing the obvious vandalism that was causing the error? 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@192.76.8.70 I did not know which one of them is questionable, i did checked and re-checked. and also my apologize for not updating the parameter. but on what condition does my recent edit is questionable ? They seems to be fine on a sense. i just trying to clean them. And that was actually is a mistake. but on a sense, it isnt. I just reverted a blatant vandalism. why not you fix it ? i did not know why did you talk in an antagonizing manner right now. i try to keep things warm and civil here. I did change and put things where it belong, for example, sometimes |pin_code= was mistaken to be a |postal_code= and vice versa, i did put things where it belong and fixing it if it isnt. but i do make mistake, just so be clear. right now, you talk to me as if i did not recognize there is one. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 12:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If you've been brought to the administrator's noticeboard because people have concerns about you performing rapid bot like editing it's generally a bad idea to continue performing rapid bot like editing while the discussion is ongoing.

I have been fixing the errors in your edits when I've come across them, but other people shouldn't be needing to follow you around cleaning up your mistakes. If you're going to be making large scale changes to articles then you need to get them right first time. The issue here isn't specifically "pin code vs post code" or the map edits, it's generally that you don't seem to be making any effort to check what you're doing and are creating a lot of messes for other people to clean up. If we wanted to bulk delete all incorrect parameters we could get a bot to do it trivially, but we don't. We want people to take care, think about what they're doing and fix the issues where possible. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

"Infact it is a very time-energy consuming task to do. and i doubt there are many people who willing to do it on a large scale." If it (whatever "it" is) was widely viewed as a major issue, though, there probably would be, don't you think?

" i did recheck and re-preview most of them, except those that i missed. " You should be checking and previewing every edit, don't you think? Begoon 13:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

i'm not reffering to those pin code errors, i just trying to make a stand here that those mistakes were inevitable as you said about |longtitude= etc, it is really clear that the format detects it to be unrecognized. Where should i put it ? consider it. I did put focus on it. If seen on your POV right now, seems that all my edits were problematic. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You should have read the documentation at Template:Infobox settlement which clearly explains how to deal with all the different parameters the template can handle and what format they need to be in. You shouldn't be deleting stuff just because an automated tool tells you it's unrecognised, you should be putting some effort into figuring out how to fix it. Yes, there is a parameter for keeping longitude and latitude data in, and it should take you a few seconds of reading the documentation page to figure out which one it is. Yes, your edits are problematic, because you've been making thousands of edits deleting stuff from templates without bothering to read up on how the template works, without bothering to see if the information could be preserved in another parameter and seemingly without bothering to check your edits before you save them. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Begoon yes i did preview it 2 or 3 times before publishing it and as you said, "if it's a major issue". But is it ? No it isnt. But the thing is only a few people would like to do this on a large scale on a "minor issue", on a pretext to minimize the backlogs. and i'm actually happy to see people fixing the errors i made, i feel that they helped me in a certain way. anyhow i did not intend to create any harm to the encyclopaedia. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

But your comment, confusingly, says that you previewed most of them, except those you missed. Can you elaborate? Begoon 13:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

take note about my saying above on line 2, i opened more than 100 tabs on chrome, (which now seems to be a bad idea). i did preview most of them as i said above, 2 or 3 times. But there are some i missed. By "some" is not elaborated as many, but infact minority of them. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

So, if, having now seen that people have concerns about the speed and possible inaccuracy/undesirable nature of what you are doing, you were to stop doing it for a little while and re-evaluate your approach, do you think that would be a problem? I guess what I'm really asking is whether you think there is some kind of urgent emergency that means you can't just take the feedback on board and adjust your approach to include the better ways of dealing with things described above, applying more thought to how to fix things rather than just removing stuff, for a less disruptive overall result. Begoon 13:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a note, Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo: you may notice that many Wikipedians are highly skeptical of anyone making large numbers of edits, and will comb through them to make sure you're not making mistakes. The problem is the amount of work it makes for other people when there are mistakes. Some people (basically everyone at the top of WP:4000) do successfully make large numbers of edits for a long time... others (including some of the people at the top of WP:4000) wind up getting banned because the benefit of lots of small changes doesn't quite make up for a lot of other people's time spent cleaning up when those small changes go wrong. The takeaway here should be: be extra careful when editing rapidly, and maybe even slow down a little. If there's a single large batch of edits you want to make, you can always create a WP:BOT account. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Rhododendrites thank you very much for the advice!, i will be extra careful next time. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a really good idea. I'm sure that slowing down and being more circumspect will be appreciated. If you have time to answer the questions I asked above, which you probably missed, I'd appreciate it, but regardless of that, your greater care, deeper consideration, more thoughtful consideration of options and willingness to engage can only be a good thing. Thank you. Begoon 13:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Begoon i did and i will re-evaluate my approach, but does that mean i will stop editing ? No, these are critiques and advices that i sought have to accept. i infact still and will keep editing on that topic and try to improve my approach and slowing down a bit. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Good luck. I hope this discussion has avoided the whole thing becoming a bigger/ongoing issue. Begoon 13:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Begoon it wont!, thank you for the participation and advices on this discussion! -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Indulge me, because I'd like to just ask one of those questions again:

"So, if, having now seen that people have concerns about the speed and possible inaccuracy/undesirable nature of what you are doing, you were to stop doing it for a little while and re-evaluate your approach, do you think that would be a problem?"

I'm particularly interested in "whether you think there is some kind of urgent emergency that means you can't just take the feedback on board and adjust your approach to include the better ways of dealing with things described above, applying more thought to how to fix things rather than just removing stuff, for a less disruptive overall result. Begoon 14:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Begoon 1. stop doing it for a little while and re-evaluate your approach, i did not agree on the first half sentence, however, i did agree on to re-evaluate. the thing is, i did not have an intention to stop editing. the secenario that i would be ended up doing is to slow down and carefully fix the parameters on the format per se. in my opinion, it's really unproductive to stop just because you made a mistake. what you must do is that; you must fix it and overcome it much more carefully.

2. take the feedback on board and adjust your approach to include the better ways of dealing with things described above, applying more thought to how to fix things rather than just removing stuff, for a less disruptive overall result. I'm actually quite having a trouble on comprehensing this one. But if you meant that, will i accept the advices on board above or not? definitely i will accept them. There is no way i'm not gonna accept them. Overall the general reason for me here on the encyclopaedia is to contribute and do the right thing. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 14:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. We'll see how that goes. I'm not entirely optimistic, because it feels like the things you don't want to do - taking more care, slowing down, listening to people who disagree with you rather than plowing on, accepting your path may be flawed, finding better ways to edit, are not really things you seem keen to hear. I somehow don't feel it will be long before we can know for sure though... Begoon 14:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I just fixed one of this editor's "delete the parameter instead of fixing it" errors that was made two hours ago. This editor is failing to listen to advice and continuing their disruption. Here's another recent one from less than three hours ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Jonesey95 that edit was made before this ANI discussion even started, and were already addressed. thank you for fixing it. but this doesn't mean it porhibits me to correct other article's parameters carefully. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 15:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Untrue, AFAICT, based on the time stamps. The discussion was started four hours ago; the disruptive editor responded nine minutes later. Both erroneous edits were made after that response. I just reviewed this editor's most recent 30 edits and had to revert 8 of them. This is a terrible error rate. This editor should take the time to read the template's documentation and commit to stop removing parameters. In general, when the editor fixed a parameter name instead of removing the parameter and value entirely, the fix was valid. The editor should focus on that type of edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps not - but you're not really showing the positive commitment I'd have hoped for here. I'll ask you again: What's the emergency that makes you think you can edit like a bot against very clear consensus? And why haven't you just said "ok, I'll stop doing that because it's not clear that I should" yet?

You're starting, if I'm honest, to just look like a nuisance. Begoon 15:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• I blocked the user for a week, just to reduce damage to the project, since they kept high-rate editing against objections. I leave the discussion here open.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem necessary. After their response to me above, they made nine edits in nine minutes. That's not a particularly high rate of editing. Has anyone identified problems with any of those nine edits? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    • AFAICT, all 3 of the edits 192 commented on Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango's talk page were after they replied to you, actually after all replies by them on this thread except that to Jonesy95. They're counting 3 out of 8, you're 3 out of 9, either way assume 192's assessment is fair that's a terrible error rate. Technically, these may have only been specifically identified after the block but IMO it was reasonable enough under the circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Indeed. :/ Looks like the message didn't sink in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I just visited another 50 or so of this editor's edits to settlement infoboxes, and I found that they deleted valuable information instead of fixing the broken parameters at least a quarter of the time. It pains me to say that, unfortunately, all of this editor's infobox settlement edits that are current edits should probably be reverted so that they can be revisited properly via Category:Pages using infobox settlement with unknown parameters. It appears that there are about 2,000 such edits dating back to March 25. Here's one dating from March 25 that I just had to revert. I don't know how this would be done, or if there is a better way to address these hundreds of errors tucked away amid some valid edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Why shall trolling usernames, only intended to disrupt collaborative editing, be allowed to stand? TrangaBellam (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Mass revert seems appropriate. There are scripts that do the bulk of them in a few clicks (User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Perhaps I'm jaded but the user name, signature and edit summaries smell troll to me. Coupled with the inability to read the mood here and the arbitrary nature of the edits (some improve things and some don't), I would be inclined to block indefinitely, particularly if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  2,000 edits, most of them helpful, without attracting attention until the 1,900th edit, doesn't smell like a troll to me. It seems more like a CIR problem to me. I don't think it changes the outcome; a longer block is probably appropriate if the editor fails to comprehend the problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  I’d recommend a conversion to indef for CIR indistinguishable from trolling, pending only a logged WP:CONDUNBLOCK. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, troll or incompetent, either way, the username just screams "I'm not here to make your lives any easier". SN54129 18:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  WP:UNCONF. Basically, a “confusing” username (excessive length is cited as an example) is strongly discouraged but not outright prohibited by the policy. However, such a username should be viewed through the lens of its edits, and it can be viewed as an aggravating factor, including when issuing blocks. That’s the policy guidance as far as the username goes. Regarding the user, if there are no objections I am not going to let the block expire and will be converting it to an indef until a conditional unblock can be negotiated. Regarding the edits, if there are no objections to a mass rollback I can do that as well. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Swarm, makes sense. SN54129 14:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  For icing on the cake, see User:Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  And they stole the name I was going to use if/when I rename my account! I wonder if User:Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo2 is free... But on a serious note, at the pending changes reviewer page, they tried to "up" their account, after making the required minimum edits to get that far. Past experience suggests they're not a new editor and/or up to no good. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

user Rooveaouravevo (2 threads)

Requesting help to stop vandalism on chinnese australians

User:TyronMcLannister is vandalising the wikipage Chinese Australians by repeatedly removing Chinese Australians of partial European descent despite leaving out other wikipages Cornish Australians and German Australians that contain famous figures that are of mixed cornish and mixed german ancestry as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooveaouravevo (talk • contribs) 10:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Rooveaouravevo: This isn't vandalism - this is a content dispute. Go to the talk page of the article, Talk:Chinese Australians, and have a discussion with TyronMcLannister about what definition of Chinese Australian should be used in the article, If that fails to resolve the issue follow the steps outlined at WP:Dispute resolution. Be careful chucking around accusations of vandalism - vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm the project, disagreements about content are not vandalism. You are also supposed to notify other editors when you open a thread about them here, I have done that for you. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is a new account whose entire field of interest is original research in citing sources in specific two articles:[62] and [63], as well as changing the established definition of ethnicity in the article to its own. My friendly and polite attempts to explain to the new user that it is necessary to cooperate and seek consensus with other editors based on reliable sources were unsuccessful, he began a vindictive action of accusing me of vandalism and spamming these accusations, including on the administrators Talk pages, as we can see. Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. TyronMcLannister (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I was only removing your fabricated false definition and following what other ethnic Australian wikipages have defined. Chinese ancestry are those of full or partial Chinese roots just like the wikipage African Americans identified Barack Obama as African American despite his mother being of European and the wikipage Cornish Australians identified Robert Menzies as Cornish Australian even though his father is not Cornish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooveaouravevo (talk • contribs) 16:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You continuesly refuse in constructive cooperation in the creation of the encyclopedia and continue to project personal attacks, accusing me of "false fabrication" of something. And what does this have to do with African Americans and Barack Obama? In the United States, a different definition of ethnicity has historically developed in the context of blacks, and even more so, Barack Obama associates himself with African Americans, which is confirmed by sources. Even before you registered an account in the project and started making changes, the Chinese Australians page had a well-established definition for a long time, and if you do not like it, you must first come to a consensus in the discussion in order to change it. Wikipedia does not standardize definitions from other articles. It is also unacceptable to make unconstructive edits, replacing quotes from reliable sources with your own thoughts. TyronMcLannister (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

OR and CIVIL issues with user Rooveaouravevo

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

Rooveaouravevo this is a new account created less than a week ago whose entire field of interest is original research of citing sources in specific two articles:[64] and [65], as well as changing the established definition of ethnicity in the article to its own without consensus with other contributors. To my friendly and polite attempt [66] to explain to the new user that it is necessary to cooperate and seek consensus with other editors based on reliable sources were unsuccessful, he made a false claim that his edits were based sources [67] and then began a vindictive action of accusing me of vandalism and spamming these accusations, including on the administrators talk pages as we can see [68], [69]. Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. TyronMcLannister (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Um, it seems way too early to conclude Rooveaouravevo is NOTHERE. Yes they don't seem to understanding our sourcing requirements and are way too quick to throw around accusations but I see no reason to think they aren't here to build an encyclopaedia. While you have made an effort to engage with them on their talk page, it's often difficult especially for a new editor to see the other editor is right when they're in direct dispute with this editor. Also while your earlier effort was decent [70], you too seem to have descended into false accusations of vandalism [71]. Since you yourself have seemingly been here for less than a month, I guess this can be forgiven but it's a little bit silly to complain about an editor falsely accusing you of vandalism if you've decided to give as good as you got. I'd also note that the article talk page doesn't seem to have been touched by a person in 3.5+ years and I don't see any significant discussion of definitions even in the past. Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think that your boorish opinion is somehow appropriate here? Don't project or mirror yourself in me, because that's the only thing "a little silly" here. I did 100% right in interacting with this user who was unwilling to cooperate constructively and deliberately changed the meaning of source citations, wherever he made any edits. But you twisted the whole context of my actions in your comment. It even looks like you are interested in this controversial account in some way. TyronMcLannister (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

All Wikipedians who have the time should speak up when an editor is proposing action against another editor without evidence or reason to support such action. And no, you were not 100% right. You cannot falsely accuse an editor of vandalism just because they falsely accused you of vandalism, that's ludicrous. It's actually still a personal attack which could lead to you being blocked just the same as Rooveaouravevo, but Rooveaouravevo has already been warned by the IP above. Since you yourself apparently a new editor, we can be taken as a case of the blind leading the blind, but we can fairly say perhaps one of the reasons Rooveaouravevo is confused about what vandalism is is because they were unfortunately taught incorrectly by you.

Also, to some extent Rooveaouravevo is now starting to "win" this content dispute in behavioural terms (which is what interests us at ANI) since they've made it to the talk page [72] while you have not. While it was perhaps a good thing to approach Rooveaouravevo directly especially as a new editor; as always teach don't preach. Since you yourself are involved in the content dispute and edit warring to boot, at some stage and especially before you came to ANI to complain, you should have started the talk page discussion and invited them rather than waiting for Rooveaouravevo to do so. Whatever WP:ONUS says (and it doesn't say it's okay for either party to edit war), it's incredibly lame when an editor comes to ANI and there's zero talk page discussion because one or both editors are insisting the other editor needs to be the one to initiate it.

My earlier point is an important one, we don't deal in content disputes here so it doesn't matter much to us who might be right in the content dispute with the possible exception of cases where the content changes are so terrible that no editor can reasonably defend them, simply the editor's behaviours in the content dispute and starting a talk page discussion is one of the very basic requirements.

Again, I'm taking you as your edit history suggests as a new editor so won't bring WP:BITE etc in to it, however you still should not expect to be treated favourably at ANI if you're going to propose severe action against another editor and your own track record in the dispute is very far from the ideal.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If they have nothing to say other than baseless accusations to "defend" someone who is wrong but has a similar view on the "topic" being contested, then they should not speak up. TyronMcLannister (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@TyronMcLannister: For once I have to agree with Nil Einne, who has perhaps been a little harsh on you, just as you are being harsh with Rooveaouravevo. It's inconsistent for you to complain about someone else's incivility and then call his opinion "boorish". Deb (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Another mushroom after the rain... You seem to have misunderstood my comment, just as Neil Einne misunderstood my actions towards the user: I'm not "complaining" about his tone, I'm not truth sensitive and I'm proud of it. I complain about his hypocritical passive-aggressive false accusations that I am "not sincere" in my actions, he literally projects himself and mirrors these qualities to me, and everything else is a rhetorical device. Again, you do not need to project to me the qualities that you yourself have, but ask directly. Better to be honest but rude than pseudo-polite and projective. TyronMcLannister (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Best of all to read WP:CIVIL before you get a well deserved block for aggressive assholery. --JBL (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

No need to scare me, it won't work anyway, better turn your advice to yourself. TyronMcLannister (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• @TyronMcLannister: Tread carefully. Between this and your attempted refactoring someone else's edit, you are on very thin ice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: How about the comment right above yours. This is not even rudeness, but something more. TyronMcLannister (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I would have used another term. But the principle difference is that your uncivil commentary looks like an ongoing pattern of behavior compounded by a bad case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I'm sorry that you have such a view of the situation. Because i'm actually sincerely support constructive criticism with facts and logic and i'm ready to change as soon as there is a reason for it. But i can't tolerate slander and manipulations. I am ready to admit that I am a bit rude in rhetoric by American standarts, which means Wikipedia standards (but I am Russian and this is not "rude" here) - there is a factor of cultural differences but I can adapt, also I mistaken in editing another answer, but I do not admit rest of the accusations, such as accusing me of being "insincerity" about my concerns from one of the local "rules experts". He initially stated that I allegedly "out of revenge" warned the editor about vandalism on his page, such an accusation does not hold water, because I left evidence that the editor was first warned about the rules of Wikipedia in a friendly and polite manner, but Rooveaouravevo not only didn't listen and consciously continued to do what he did, but also went to slander me, accusing ME of vandalism. Nil Einne literally rearranged the context of my actions, created strawman to make my complaint look irrelevant and absurd. So I reacted to his comments as I reacted. TyronMcLannister (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

TyronMcLannister, since the issue is already being discussed here at ANI, it's unhelpful to also raise the issue on individual admins' talk pages.[73][74] Please see WP:FORUMSHOP. Schazjmd (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no reason to poke other admins. Especially if they do not respond in your favour (Prime example of WP:BOOMERANG. Sorry, but I'm not your friend.). —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@K6ka:You are not the first admin to approach this situation in this way: with harsh criticism of my actions. I'm not blaming anyone, perhaps i look like a wolf near a flock of sheep. I have already explained, in detail, to another admin my point of view on this situation and why my (unmistakable errorenous) tone was the way it was, and it looks like he changed categorical judgment some way, at least didnt challenged and didnt banned account. You can read this explanation some above. In turn, I already carefully studied the rules and will change my tone towards "controversial" acts of other users. Not because of the risk of a ban (I don't care and I can finely live with it), but because I don't want to bring destruction and more conflict to the encyclopedia that I have been using in many languages for many years. I don't intend to bother you anymore, good luck! TyronMcLannister (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I just want to point out something I wasn't aware at the time of my earlier replies. This isn't the simple case that I thought it was where Rooveaouravevo was trying to introduce a change and TyronMcLannister was reverting. In fact, TyronMcLannister had recently removed a bunch of names [75] and even more in another article [76]. While it was a few days before Rooveaouravevo came along, it hadn't been long enough that TyronMcLannister can reasonably be consider the stable version or WP:status quo ante bellum. I didn't check when these names were added but I'm guessing it was over time, long enough that most or all of them can be considered part of the status quo. While Rooveaouravevo was also trying to make some other changes which were IMO unhelpful to the situation, and also unnecessary since there was nothing in the article restricting it to people of full descent as TyronMcLannister seemed to suggest, the reversion of the removal of names could reasonably be considered a recent change being reverted. This doesn't mean it was a good idea, notably a number of those people removed are living persons and there are no sources for anyone so removing them is likely justified although this does apply to everyone whether full or partial descent. However it does IMO further emphasise my point of why most of the time it's spectacularly unhelpful for one editor to be insisting that the other editor needs to be the one to start the article talk page discussion since without considering BLP, BRD would imply we stick with the reversion before TyronMcLannister removed those names. Someone just needs to do it and get on with it (there are exceptions where we can understand an editor leaving it for the other party). Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

>While it was a few days before Rooveaouravevo came along, it hadn't been long enough that TyronMcLannister can reasonably be consider the stable version or WP:status quo ante bellum.

In fact we can consider my edits as a reasonable status quo, since there is no rule ANYWHERE specifying from when an edit can be considered as such. It's been more than a week since my edits to the article since user Rooveaouravevo started disputing them, so there's no contradiction in the rule that EXACTLY this account should have started a discussion in order to change something that causes controversy. Also, the article prior to Rooveaouravevo's edits did not suggest that it was appropriate to include people of mixed ancestry, that why user changed defenition in lead to make his edits appropriate. It seems that I have already made a compromise - I removed all people without clear reliable sources that points their ethnicity. If there still need another compromise that suits both, then I'm ready to hear suggestions from Rooveaouravevo in the already ongoing discussion on the Talk page TyronMcLannister (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That is... a novel take. No, a week isn't enough to establish the status quo, and Wikilawyering about the timeframe not being codified isn't a good look. I am glad you're discussing it on the talk page, though. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

So you also have the opinion that a week is not enough to establish the status quo in the article. But what are your considerations and how much is enough then to approve this status? Considering the fact that it is not my edits that are not inconsistent with the spirit of earlier version of the article that are being disputed, but the edits of another user who even registered week after my edits. I don't consider my previous statement to be some kind of "wikilabel" just out of a desire to be clear and reach constructivity, otherwise anyone can name a convenient time for them and use it as a rhetorical device to point out that the other editor is wrong. We don't want that here, do we? The main thing is that the dispute is already being actively resolved on the talk page and it seems to me that Rooveaouravevo suits my compromise. TyronMcLannister (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

User:BrightWikiEditor

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

---

This editor primary contributions here for many years is their sandbox about a fake polymath, and nothing else. No edit on main namespace, not even on their talk pages. This is an obvious WP:NOTHERE incident, which to quote from the essay, has "long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Related ANI discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#user:Mariofan3 WP:NOTHERE, WP:NOTWEBHOST. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

BrightWikiEditor has been blocked by GeneralNotability. Deor (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Djm-leighpark bullying

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

---

• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Polycarpa aurata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aviram7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Polycarpa has requested I self-refer at Special:Diff/1083071207 to ANI where tehy will present evidence of my bullying of Polycarpa & Aviram7. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

To be clear at the outset Aviram7 had explained and removed the somewhat disturbing (at least to me) monetizing word from their user page and replaced by monitoring the issue probably arising from English not being there native language tongue and I fully AGF monitoring was the word that they intended to use. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• All of your actions surrounding this article here and on Hindi wiki are nothing short of mind boggling. Do you really think @Polycarpa aurata I confirm I have not had intercourse with that woman or that man to my knowledge. I have not been a member of Wikimedia UK but have had virtual intercourse with one of more members of Wikimedia UK and have sent an email to them from Arnold/Daybrook MacDonald's on the morning of 1st April 2022 waiting 2 hours from an NHS professional in West Sussex which never happened. Now if you want further information you'll need to jump and raise a WP:COIN. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 4:43 pm, 12 April 2022, last Tuesday (4 days ago) (UTC−4) is appropriate? CUPIDICAE💕 22:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  That sounds like a language/WP:CIR issue. I hope. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You'd hope, but I'm fairly sure Djm has in the past said they're a native english speaker. If it is a CIR issue, well they've been around long enough that they should know better and should be CIR blocked in that case. CUPIDICAE💕 22:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I've re-read that quote multiple times now; it's nothing short of mystifying. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

'Intercourse' has the meaning of 'communication' here but it is very poor phrasing. "...I have not communicated with..." / "...have had virtual communication with..." would be sooo much better. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The relations of different nations among themselves depend upon the extent to which each has developed its productive forces, the division of labour and internal intercourse. This statement is generally recognised. But not only the relation of one nation to others, but also the whole internal structure of the nation itself depends on the stage of development reached by its production and its internal and external intercourse. ("Production and Intercourse. Division of Labour and Forms of Property – Tribal, Ancient, Feudal." The German Ideology, 1845).

El_C 18:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Actually you know, reading through this behavior, I think a boomerang and block is in order. Djm has a tendency, as noted in several different ANI threads to fly off the handle and spout nonsense at the drop of the hat whenever there is conflict involved. So to save on the long winded non-explanations, we should just cut to the chase and stop the disruption. See below:
  • Implied intent to reveal personal information - a year ago
  • AFD interference and allegations 6 months ago, which features these gems: Djm-leighpark requesting self-block: @RandomCanadian: Given that's the way you wish to play that AfD farce which I have been requested I not to comment on I am not becoming inclined to take WP psychotic actions and therefore requesting you or some other admim block me (& Djm-mobile ^ bigdelboy) on english Wikipedia for 2 weeks to avoid me making uncharitable personal attacks which I now feel is inevitably welling up within me an would likely result in a likely indef block. I understand it is reasonable to make this request. While I use WikiBreak enforcer I will not use it for this purpose. Given my previous block history is is reasonable for me to make this request. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:21 am, 10 October 2021, Sunday (6 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−4) among others
  • continued disruptive COI editing where Djm...booomerangs himself? Pure disruption to ANI, just as this ridiculous thread is
  • another disruptive ANI thread where Djm talks to themselves the whole time.

I could go on but I think there's a point at which we as editors have had enough disruption. CUPIDICAE💕 22:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark tried to bully me after I made a single edit to Monisha Shah an article which seems inexplicably important to him. He left big warning messages about "biographical articles" and "India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan". Monisha Shah was born in India but so far as I know is a British citizen who has lived in England for decades. Djm-leighpark started a new section where (based his "analysis") he accused me of having previous accounts. I replied that I did not, but he continued to harass me because he didn't like the way I phrased my answer. Eventually an admin had to ask him to stop. All of this over a single edit. I saw him doing the very same thing to User:Aviram7, the user who asked for Djm-leighpark's Google-translated Hindi article on Monisha Shah to be deleted. I told Aviram7 that Djm-leighpark was a bully and Aviram7 did not need to be concerned by what he was saying. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment. This exchange is straight up wild to me:

@Djm-leighpark: So a relative of yours missed an xray appointment. Can you tell me how that is *any* way related to me or to Wikipedia? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Polycarpa aurata:: Because I screwed up in cancelling it early dealing with your privacy pushing which has cascaded out pushing a lot of other issues. I've also threatened a complaint against a hospital over failure to handle something. That's my fault but its affecting other people in real life. Yes that's my problem. And you've done everything but answered the straightforward question. Is there something your're not telling us? Now have your last word. I likely not to respond to it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I've interacted with both Djm-leighpark and Polycarpa aurata before. I can't say I have had a negative experience with either of them, but... my gosh I have no clue what Djm-leighpark was thinking here. It's so guilt-trip-y, and it makes me question whether Djm-leighpark can actually edit Wikipedia without seriously adversely affecting their personal life. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Monisha Shah and Samir Shah

This concerns the page for Monisha Shah and editor User:Djm-leighpark. There was a Monisha Shah page but it got deleted in November 2021 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monisha Shah). Djm-leighpark contested the deletion (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 November 28). At some point Djm-leighpark started a new page for Monisha Shah as a draft and it was approved last month. That page was also deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monisha Shah (2nd nomination)). Before it was deleted, Djm-leighpark used Google translate to translate it to Hindi and added the page to the Hindi Wikipedia. Not only didn't Djm-leighpark add any Hindi sources, he actually removed most of the English sources that had been used on the page here. I suspect that Djm-leighpark is not even able to read one of the sources (which is behind a paywall), but he has not responded to my question. He has said that he intends to contest the second deletion of the Monisha Shah page here. I tried to ask him about his interest in Monisha Shah but his replies were nonsense.

Samir Shah is Monisha Shah's brother. A draft page was created by User:OliverSeager. It was rejected. Djm-leighpark decided to edit it and it was moved to a page. After OliverSeager kept editing it, Djm-leighpark accused him of conflict of interest. Djm-leighpark went so far as to dig up archives of a page for Samir Shah's company to show that OliverSeager worked for him. Neither of the pages for the Shahs would exist here if not for Djm-leighpark's actions. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark blocked indef

User_talk:Djm-leighpark#Indefinite_block. El_C 23:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Good block (per my above comment). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Return to Monkey Island editing

Return to Monkey Island (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I noticed Return to Monkey Island was making weird edits on their userpage [77] [78] [79]. They have also trolled admins in the sandbox [80] and when warned about it, said the warning was abuse and that nobody was allowed on their talk page [81] [82]. They also like to remove links without a proper explanation [83] [84]. They have also personally attack admins in their sandbox [85]. Overall, this pattern shows Return to Monkey Island should be blocked for WP:NOTHERE behavior. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:612A:5550:531E:89C0 (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree but started with a message at their talk. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow. If even half of that is true, then me thinks that what we have is a young person who needs to develop more writing skills before editing Wikipedia. The editor's very odd userpage kinda confirms this. A loose necktie (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• They backed away from this comment [86] after making it and reverting it, but it demonstrates a lack of self control, as that was a wildly inappropriate response to what was a very mild and relaxed discussion. I just backed out and prepared to watch the crash and burn that was inevitable on some page or another, to be honest. I get the feeling the WP:CIR issues are at play. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  If I wasn't clear, I don't think this user should be editing here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I said sorry and didn't make any more of the edits I was told to. Unless you want me to beg forgiveness after apologising what ore can I do. Especially when I haven't made any edits that are vandalising on pages. And the redlink thing I was doing it cos I thought it made wiki better then stopped when told it was a rule. I made mistakes and owned up you can see I said sorry to people about them I'm only human. Return to Monkey Island (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Other then sandbox which is for more relaxed editing (I will not make fun of admins there again) any edit I made on pages I thought I was correct and I have apologised on that guys page and someone else's. If I was intentionally editing pages to take the piss then yh block but I have not ever intentionally made wiki bad and since apologised when I did. Return to Monkey Island (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Also here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabrina:_The_Animated_Series&oldid=1082695203 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monkey_Island&oldid=1082711683 show I have edited constructively fixing grammar and adding sources see I knew Alexandria Boyed was in it but the tweet was vague and you can check the talk page I asked if the tweet was enough a source and told no so agreed not to edit it until another source came that out right said she is in the game I then edited it with the source, Showing I am not here to vandalise this site I am here to help build an encyclopaedia even if I have made mistakes about how I have done it. Return to Monkey Island (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think you're missing the point, or at least my point. I'm not really concerned of your opinion of admins, or redlinks. What concerns me is the fact that you seem to have a problem with self-control. THAT causes problems around here. Just because you think of something, doesn't mean you have to leave it in a post. Your knee jerk reaction on Acroterion was unexpected and a bit disturbing, particularly since he and I were simply explaining how redlinks are useful. I expected "oh, I get it, although I don't like the look of it" or similar. Instead, you start telling us when we can and can't block you. I think I can speak for both of us when I say, a block was not remotely in our mindset. We were just being helpful, what you called "insanity". That makes me question your competence; your ability to function in a collaborative environment. If you react that poorly when someone tries to help you, I can't imagine how you are going to react when there is an actual dispute. Well, actually I can: very poorly. I'm not sure if it is your age, your situation, I don't know, but I don't think you have the competence to be here, honestly. To me, it's just a matter of time (say, 1 week or less) before we are hearing more of your disruptive reactions to what most people would consider are ordinary events. WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  But I apologised and for my outburst like if I do it again then you'll be like "HA I knew it" but If I owned up said sorry and haven't done any of the things you said not to (all before this admin page thingy) then surley you could give me a chance. . Return to Monkey Island (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  That's nice. But you seem to have a problem with going to 11 when responding to ordinary interactions and explanations. I am not encouraged by the way you keep responding. You're being given a chance. Please make use of it and learn from experience. Acroterion (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  thank you. Return to Monkey Island (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Return to Monkey Island is a video game that is slated to be released this year; it was announced on April 4. User:Return to Monkey Island was created on April 7. Maybe I'm off base here, but am I the only one who thinks that "Return to Monkey Island" is an inappropriate promotional username in this context? It strikes me as a type of product placement. Levivich 17:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm just hpyed about the game I don't work for anyone or trying to sell it Return to Monkey Island (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not going to lie, this user name alone got me hyped. It's kinda weird to be suspect of someone naming their account after what will likely be one of the best releases in a decade. 107.115.5.107 (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Same I was so happy they were making a new Monkey Island I saw this guys name and thought wow a super fan who edits we can be friends and edit Monkey Island pages together and then I see he's retired looked at the history and saw the staff bullied him off! Well I'm not making an account if this is how you treat fans who want to edit pages they care about. 51.9.73.127 (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  I hear a WP:DUCK quacking...--WaltCip-(talk) 12:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  is that a three headed monkey?

• If Return to Monkey Island gets a pass here, they need to understand they are skating on this ice, and this discussion should be viewed as a last warning. Lashing out over normal things, acting childish and pouting or striking out, these are things we don't have time for. Even this discussion is a time sink, time that would better be spent working on articles. If there is anything in the future like we've seen in these diffs, I will block on the spot, no more second chances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

POV pushing from user:Sloppyjoes7

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

---

Original statement without the in-line replies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Collins_(Jeopardy!_contestant)&diff=prev&oldid=1082592810 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Collins_(Jeopardy!_contestant)&diff=prev&oldid=1062741551 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julia_Collins_(Jeopardy!_contestant)#Erroneous_sentence_was_corrected,_then_reverted_by_an_administrator and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sloppyjoes7#April_2022 denies transwoman is female, repeatedly, backing their claims up with misinterpreted information https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Florida&diff=prev&oldid=1082592098 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Florida&diff=prev&oldid=1082593422 whitewashing anti-trans sports bill twice https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Sky_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=1082590965 not offensive in a vacuum but the summary + overall edit history implies whitewashing under the guise of “correcting bias” This isn’t a new phenomenon, in this editor’s meager history they’ve also made edits like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_flood_narrative&diff=prev&oldid=510347606 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genesis_flood_narrative&diff=prev&oldid=510347764 pro-creationism POV push https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham&diff=prev&oldid=507175376 fake balance inserted into another religion-related article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham&diff=prev&oldid=500347056 another extremely weasely POV edit to same article Getting WP:NOTHERE vibes. Dronebogus (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Collins_(Jeopardy!_contestant)&diff=prev&oldid=1082592810 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Collins_(Jeopardy!_contestant)&diff=prev&oldid=1062741551 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julia_Collins_(Jeopardy!_contestant)#Erroneous_sentence_was_corrected,_then_reverted_by_an_administrator and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sloppyjoes7#April_2022 denies transwoman is female, repeatedly, backing their claims up with misinterpreted information

This is false, as nothing was misinterpreted. My edits and comments were absolutely factual, and not a single editor or admin has presented any evidence that my edits contained misinformation. A few days ago I asked for any such evidence, and to date, no evidence has been presented. Literally just accusations without any reason, explanation, or defense. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Florida&diff=prev&oldid=1082592098 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Florida&diff=prev&oldid=1082593422 whitewashing anti-trans sports bill twice

Eliminating extreme bias is not "whitewashing." Please refer to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and follow those guidelines. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

When multiple reliable sources have reported that the law's phrasing regarding "of the male sex" is focused on barring transgender girls and women, trying to say we can only use the law (which uses the phrasing it does probably for a few reasons which likely include trying to cover legal challenges with a plausible denial) as the source is cherry picking sources that support a particular view and is in fact contradictory to the very first sentence of WP:NPOV you cite. Describing the views reported in reliable sources with a reasonable amount of weight is not "extreme" bias. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The law in question literally does not "bar" transgender persons. It does, however, prevent male individuals from competing in sports deemed for females. Therefore, male individuals are still allowed to compete, so long as those individuals compete in sports deemed for males. So, even now, you are misrepresenting the facts by claiming it is "barring transgender girls and women". This is why it is important to maintain a neutral POV and state the facts. Opinions may be included in articles, as well as alternative points of views, but they should be adequately labeled as such.

As for the claim that quoting a law is "cherrypicking" in an article about said law, this claim is so patently bizarre, it defies reason. No, it is not cherrypicking to quote a law in an article about said law. Laws are a subject where the wording of the law is *particularly* important. So, while the arcane nature of many laws often justifies interpretation or clarification, it is not reasonable to say that quoting the applicable portion of a law is "cherrypicking."

As for the WP:NPOV, the actual concern is you calling it "whitewashing" to correctly describe a law. The term "whitewashing" implies that the law is wrong, bad, or otherwise offensive, and that attempts to explain or describe it (as opposed to condemning it) are "whitewashing." Your usage of the term "whitewashing" suggests that you are not willing and/or incapable of describing the law in question without introducing your personal bias. This should be taken into account regarding this situation. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time to address all the parts of this reply (I just have a habit of refreshing tabs before I close them, maybe I'll revisit this response later), but I wanted to note that I'm not the one who used the term "whitewashing" at all; that would be the person who opened this section, who I am not. Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, the person who used the phrase "whitewashing" multiple times was User:Dronebogus Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I was about to correct you but you beat me to it. I'm not the one who is trying to "push a certain narrative" here, and you're the one who introduced the "confusing formatting" with your in-line replies, FWIW. Funcrunch (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Sky_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=1082590965 not offensive in a vacuum but the summary + overall edit history implies whitewashing under the guise of “correcting bias”

You can be an advocate, but Wikipedia is supposed to present factual information, not be a place where people can twist facts to push narratives and advocacy. I did not "whitewash" anything, and the record is clear on this. I removed biased non-neutral information, and replaced it with correct and accurate information. (Which has since been twisted back into non-neutral POV, and is still non-neutral as of today.)Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

As the article on Florida House Bill 1557 states that it is commonly known by critics as the "Don't Say Gay bill" I thought that saying "Florida House Bill 1557, known by some as the Don't Say Gay bill" was a reasonable thing to say but I admit that I did not include citations when I made that change. Following your comment here I have added 2 citations to the article to support the fact that it is known by some under that name which I hope deals with your concerns about NPOV editing. Gusfriend (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This isn’t a new phenomenon, in this editor’s meager history they’ve also made edits like:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_flood_narrative&diff=prev&oldid=510347606 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genesis_flood_narrative&diff=prev&oldid=510347764 pro-creationism POV push
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham&diff=prev&oldid=507175376 fake balance inserted into another religion-related article
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham&diff=prev&oldid=500347056 another extremely weasely POV edit to same article

It is true that I have made edits to articles that flatly call the Judeo-Christian worldview a lie. Those corrections were to fix articles that violate the WP:RNPOV of Wikipedia. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Getting WP:NOTHERE vibes. Dronebogus (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Then these "vibes" are not based in reality. While I am not saying every edit is perfect, they have been made in good faith, and I try to include sources/citations wherever applicable. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This person's edits seem... I don't want to overuse this term, but... tendentious at best. They read as advancing a particular POV and bias hiding behind a civil veneer of misapplying policies in a way that seems meant to advance their views. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sloppyjoes7: Trans women are women who were assigned male at birth. Being assigned male is not necessarily equivalent to being of the male sex. Calling trans women male, or saying that they are not female, is misgendering just as much as calling them men or saying that they are not women is. This is not just my personal opinion or "fringe", this is the current consensus of the Wikipedia community. Funcrunch (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not the consensus of the Wikipedia community, which makes a distinction between an individual's sex and gender. It is also a belief held by a minority of people. Furthermore, and more to the point, the terms "male" and "female" refer to an individual's sex, not their gender, and therefore have nothing to do with misgendering. While I have very strong views on the subject, I did not include my personal views, and the edits in question were not about the word "woman" but rather the word "female." This is an important distinction when it comes to Wikipedia guidelines. I carefully looked through Wikipedia's entire article on Trans woman to see if I was conflicting with that article, as well as a few related articles, and found no conflict. Those articles clearly assert and describe a distinction between an individual's sex and gender. If there is evidence to the contrary, (as I have already said days ago), I am open to seeing such evidence. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, and more to the point, the terms "male" and "female" refer to an individual's sex, not their gender, and therefore have nothing to do with misgendering. Trans woman says, in its second sentence: Trans women have a female gender identity. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 02:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "female gender identity" is, indeed, a phrase, and those three words should be taken together, not apart. Therefore, there is a distinction between "female" and "female gender identity." In fact, that article delves into that very distinction. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Any editor who believes, in spite of the reliable sources, that the term "female" always refers to "sex" and never refers to "gender" is simply not competent to edit in the domain of the gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions. Any such editor who is not topic banned from the area will simply continue to waste the community's time, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

According to Yale, https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/what-do-we-mean-by-sex-and-gender/ "In 2001, a committee convened by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a nonprofit think tank that took on issues of importance to the national health, addressed the question of whether it mattered to study the biology of women as well as men. [...] The committee advised that scientists use these definitions in the following ways:

• In the study of human subjects, the term sex should be used as a classification, generally as male or female, according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement [generally XX for female and XY for male].
• In the study of human subjects, the term gender should be used to refer to a person's self-representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions on the basis of the individual's gender presentation." Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You have cited a source that does not support your own language preferences - according to this source, "male" and "female" are terms for gender or sex depending on context. You edited as though these terms always refer to "sex". Hmmmm. Newimpartial (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

References

The very next line of your source is: "These working definitions were a good start in recognizing the value of studying sex and gender and their interactions, yet they were always meant to evolve. Now, we are learning more about ourselves and so must adapt our terminology to be inclusive, respectful, and more accurate." You seem very intent on not hearing or understanding views other than your own. Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You might be right, of course I think so. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

And the very next lines give examples, none of which appear to apply here, or have already been thoroughly addressed. Context is important, and should not be cherrypicked. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the prior statement Calling trans women male, or saying that they are not female, is misgendering just as much as calling them men or saying that they are not women is does, in fact, reflect the consensus of the Wikipedia community. MOS:GENDERID says not to do that in article space, and many, many editors have been topic- or site- banned for doing that in Talk space. Trying to edit in the area of gender and sexuality without understanding this will inevitably result in incompatibility with Wikipedia as a project. Newimpartial (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Your first sentence is not correct. The Wikipedia guidelines you linked (MOS:GENDERID) do not support your assertion. It never says anything about calling trans people "male" or "female", and does not say that describing their sex is "misgendering." And talking about biological sex is not banned on Wikipedia when it comes to gender identity. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

If you do not realize that "male" or "female" are gendered terms in the sense of GENDERID, (1) you haven't been paying attention to the way the guideline is actually used and (2) you don't seem COMPETENT to edit in this area. We don't edit trans BLPs based on editors' opinions about biological sex. Period. Newimpartial (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

If the guideline is being used incorrectly, that is a separate issue, and perhaps should be brought up separately. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The guideline is written correctly and is being used correctly. Even you admit, below, that "male" and "female" are used to indicate gender. I might be curious in an abstract sense to hear how you would WP:LAWYER MOS:GENDERID to allow the description of BLP subjects based on your notion of biological sex, I am not really interested, because whatever your personal views are they do not give you an opt-out from site-wide consensus, especially not concerning WP:BLP information. Newimpartial (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I do agree lack of competence is the takeaway here. It's obvious Sloppyjoes7 should not be focusing on this subject, especially in BLPs, as they are refusing to listen to any viewpoint other than their own. --Kbabej (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I never said, or as you put it, "admit" that "male" and "female" are used to indicate gender. Even if I said that, there are two wildly different ways it could be interpreted.

Nevertheless, there is no such "site-wide consensus" that gender and sex are synonymous and can and should be used interchangeably. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

In a previous comment, you said I never denied that "the terms 'male' and 'female' are used in the context of gender". But now you are saying that I never said, or as you put it, "admit" that "male" and "female" are used to indicate gender. If there is a non-sophistical way to reconcile these statements, I'm sure you will share that with the class.

As far as your STRAWMAN supposition that gender and sex are synonymous and can and should be used interchangeably, literally nobody has proposed that (obviously false) premise, nor is it assumed by Wikipedia policy or community consensus. The principle that has community consensus is that we edit biographies based on gender, not sex so far as the subject matter permits. This has been pointed out to you over and over again, and your refusal to hear that is plainly disruptive at this point. Newimpartial (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIR I think you are caught up thinking about where people pee from and may not be aware of how disruptive your peepee justice campaign is. 2600:387:F:4011:0:0:0:4 (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. Sloppyjoes7 replied to Dronebogus's original statement in flagrant violation of WP:INTERPOLATE. I'm slightly disappointed that no one in the above exchange noticed this (except Funcrunch) and corrected it. I have restored the original post as a collapsed statement.
  @Sloppyjoes7: Don't ever do that again. When you respond in-line like that, it makes everything impossible to keep track. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Topic ban on gender related topics broadly construed

• I believe that a topic ban on gender replated topics is called for at this point. My proposal is partially based on a desire to short circuit the discussion before it reaches the point that Sloppyjoes7 talks themselves into a site wide ban. Apologies if that is not appropriate reasoning or if it is too soon to propose. Any other editor should feel free to suggest a different course of action. Gusfriend (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  It is absolutely too soon, and is unfounded entirely. What is clear, as evidenced from the handful of editors replying here, (seen in their own self-descriptions on their profiles), is the people calling for such a ban are advocates. A neutral POV is unsatisfactory to them.

  In other words, a few advocates pushing a certain POV are trying to not only silence opposition to their POV, but (in this case) silence accurate information that they don't feel is adequately biased enough. So it's not only about silencing one point of view, but actually silencing a neutral point of view. Therefore there is a stronger case to ban User:Gusfriend, User:Isabelle_Belato, and User:Dronebogus than there is to ban me. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  By your logic, shouldn't you be suggesting that Drmies (an administrator) be banned as well, for warning you about this edit summary? Funcrunch (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. I believe that Drmies, at the very least, should lose administrator status, as being an admin requires greater dedication to neutrality and accuracy, as well as more trustworthiness. That warning was unfounded, entirely. Furthermore, I believe the warning was a form of abuse of authority, and therefore, I would consider a ban justified. (Obviously I have no way to enact or enforce this, that I'm aware of.) Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 13:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Clarify - Are you claiming that Amy Schneider is not a female? GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Sloppyjoes7: Can you answer this question? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  This is an inappropriate question, is out of place, and is bait to create an off-topic debate/argument. Please do not engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  In the edit summary that got you a warning, you stated: The sentence claims that Amy Schneider is "female," which is false and unsupported by any source. Fixed language. The request for clarification seems perfectly appropriate to me. Funcrunch (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  The question is somewhat pertentant. If the charge against you is that you are pushing a specific POV, then a defence to that accusation is that you don't hold the POV. Another defense would be that what you are pushing for aligns with what reliable sources say on the matter.
  You said the claim that Amy Schneider is "female," is false and unsupported by any source. You are being given the chance to clarify what you meant and what you actually believe. The sentence you were disputing was citing this source which pretty clearly states: On Wednesday, Ms. Schneider, 42, an engineering manager from Oakland, Calif., became the first woman in the show's history to achieve 21 consecutive wins, surpassing Julia Collins, who had set the record of 20 wins in 2014. I don't know why you thought that was unsupportive of the claim that Amy Schneider is "female," but I don't want to assume bad faith.
  Therefore, I am going to ask for a final time what you actually believe, so I can understand why you said what you said. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Note that the same source also explicitly refers to Schneider as female, both in the title (Amy Schneider Wins the Most Consecutive ‘Jeopardy!’ Games of Any Female Contestant) and in the sentence referring to her prize winnings: the highest amount won by a female contestant in the show’s history. Funcrunch (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  That discussion is already started on other pages. It is inappropriate to discuss it here, as I already stated. Furthermore, any witch hunt to try and get me to state my personal beliefs, then use my personal beliefs to try and topic ban me, violates Wikipedia guidelines. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  You are, of course, entitled to hold whatever views you like. But you must accept that Wikipedia may not hold those same views, and must either abide by Wikipedia's standards or advocate within the rules for changes. It does not seem to me as though that is what you are doing, but I am often wrong. Dumuzid (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sloppyjoes7: I don't think you understand the issue people are raising is that your personal beliefs go against what our reliable sources, the ones cited in the articles you edited, say, so it seems like you are adding your own point of view to those articles. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 19:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  In other words, you know the answer will get you topic banned. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Based on what has been said so far, I fully support a ban. I do not believe this user is giving edits on here in good faith and is coming to edits with a biased, partisan viewpoint, even questioning "female gender identity" as a concept, in one of their above edits, claiming it is different than "female" but offering no evidence to support their assertion. Sloppyjoes7 appears to be, from what I have looked at and seen, bad news. Historyday01 (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Support - From what I've read in this thread. Their understanding of laws as sources is also deeply problematic, and I would encourage them to read WP:RSLAW to understand when and how to use sources of or about law in articles. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 06:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  FYI: I have read those articles. I believe this is in reference to me quoting a "primary source", which Wikipedia says to do "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" and must be a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" and "reputably published". The edit in question followed every single guideline in WP:RSLAW and every guideline in WP:PRIMARY. The article in question is still heavily based on secondary sources, but in this case, a single sentence from a primary source was added by myself. It is that single sentence for which I was criticized, with some arguing that quoting the law was entirely inappropriate in an article about that law. Yes, I find this absurd, and there is no standard practice or guideline that bars primary sources entirely. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  You have also said that Edits should be based in the facts, not in (possibly erroneous) interpretations of said facts. Therefore, actually quoting what a law says and does is more useful and introduces less bias than using an article that potentially twists and distorts its purpose and intent. Is this still your belief? Dumuzid (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  This is a tricky issue, and I'm concerned is being taken out of context. I stand by my statement that edits should be based in the facts. Yes, this includes quoting, citing, and using secondary sources, as is standard practice on Wikipedia. However, secondary sources should not be treated as infallible, as others appeared to be doing. It is that specific approach I was criticizing in the quote you provided.

  Furthermore, I was responding to strong criticism for daring to quote a primary source. While Wikipedia guidelines say to use secondary sources in general, it does also allow primary sources, and this is actually common. For example, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution article not only includes the full text, but even includes an image of the text. If "no primary sources" were taken to the extreme, then this would not be allowed. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Can you see why your statement, as quoted above, would appear to me to be contrary to Wikipedia policy? Dumuzid (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  The main issue is adding your own interpretation of a primary sources. Your edit quoted a small part of a law, but excluded how it defines "the male sex", which in this case is sex assigned at birth. As many reliable secondary sources note, that includes definition includes transgender girls and women. There's nothing contradictory in those secondary sources that would make them incorrect. But this is just one example of your editing that led to this ANI, that appears solely focused on calling transgender women males, to the contradiction of reliable sources. Politanvm ^talk 20:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Supoort per evidence I presented, WP:NOTHERE and Wikipedia:IDHT problems. Wouldn’t mind a complete ban since they’re also engaging in vindictive WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior against everyone they disagree with, demanding arbitrary blocks left and right, which is unrelated to the topic of LGBT issues. Dronebogus (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  I have never seen this "Administrators noticeboard" before, so this is new to me. So, not only have I not seen this process, I am now subject to being banned through this process. Is that correct?

  If so, is it not reasonable to reply to others civilly, calmly, and in good faith in order to address personal attacks that threaten to delete my account? Is that not precisely what I have done? Can I literally be considered as violating rules for simply responding to accusations against me that I see as totally and utterly false, and explaining why those accusations are false?

  At this point, I think I may need WP:DR, though I'm not totally sure that's appropriate here. Again, I am a casual editor who only edits from time to time, and this whole thing has blindsided me, and I'm not sure where it's all coming from, or why it's attracting such attention from censorious individuals. I don't know what is typically done in these matters. Perhaps most people are simply banned before they even see or are aware of this board. I don't know.

  (Note: no, I have not "demanded" anybody be blocked, much less arbitrarily. You will see no such thing in my edit history.) Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  As it says at the top of this page, When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. You were notified. No, most people are not "simply banned before they even see or are aware of this board". Funcrunch (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Just a minor note: I said "Perhaps most people are simply banned before they even see or are aware of this board." Just because someone was notified doesn't mean they saw the notification, or if they even saw it, understood it. I said this specifically because I usually don't notice notifications, never knew what they were, I would go months without checking messages, and generally don't live on Wikipedia. This site has a steep learning curve, and I suspect your casual editor doesn't understand the bureaucracy. I didn't even know anything about admins until one warned me last week. I believe a rather large percentage of Wikipedia editors are similar, and thus could be notified and still not see or even be aware of this board. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Casual editors still need to follow the rules. You can configure a setting to send you an email whenever you get a talk page message. And if you don't do that or don't check your email regularly either, well, that's not really our problem. Funcrunch (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support Evidence here is clear that Sloppyjoes7 has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, especially in regards to editing related to gender issues. Their WP:BLUDGEON-type behavior in this discussion alone is enough evidence that they don't recognize the problem with their own behavior. --Jayron32 17:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - User clearly is pushing an agenda, while claiming everyone else is attempting to eliminate accurate information that they don't feel is adequately biased enough. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - let's prevent additional time-wasting before this editor really gets going. Newimpartial (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Their responses continue to show they're trying to appear as what they think comes off as civil while pushing a POV and misinterpreting policies to try to suggest they're not. In particular, their recent dancing around attempts by others to clarify what they mean by phrasings they are using as edit summaries as well as arguments in discussions here and elsewhere suggests they know their "personal beliefs" (quoting from upthread for a reason, not intended to be scare quotes) are directly influencing their editing in a disruptive way they're trying in increasingly antsy fashion to direct attention away from (and thus they appear to be concerned if they answer the question people will "use [their] personal beliefs to try and topic ban [them]", though in context this would actually be people recognizing their personal beliefs are influencing their editing in a way which is disruptive and thus might be worth exploring a topic ban for the purpose of preventing that disruption). - Purplewowies (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Editor's responses show a willful disregard for Wikipedia consensus regarding gender related topics, and a refusal to accept explanations on what is wrong with their edits in this area. (Note to Sloppyjoes7: The discussion in this section is not a vote. It's up to the admins whether or not to topic ban you, and if you are banned you may appeal.) Funcrunch (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  I would add clarification to that - what's being discussed is a "topic ban", not a "community ban". Based on the number of edits by Sloppyjoes7, that distinction may not be as obvious to them. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  That is what I intended to convey in my note; sorry if my language wasn't clear. Funcrunch (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support - the arguments above seem to be in-line with my parsing through their edits. They appear to think Wikipedia is their place to POV push their views on this subject. It's not. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - The editor is purposefully disregarding WP consensus to push a POV agenda regarding gender-related topics and is engaging in a BATTLEGROUND mentality. If they truly want to support the project, they can do so outside of gender-related articles. --Kbabej (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral - But noting, what one believes or might believe, doesn't quite cut it on the project, if there's no consensus for it. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. I likely would have opposed if it wasn't for their behavior in this thread (remember, preventative, not punitive), which clearly shows that they wish to push their own position over what the sources say even after being told to stop, in flagrant violation of WP:NPOV. casualdejekyll 17:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Where have I said I want to "push [my] own position over what the sources say"? Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  You didn't say that, but you have showed that you don't seem to care about what sources say despite multiple good faith attempts to clarify what your intentions were with this edit summary. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Where have I "showed that [I] don't seem to care about what sources say"? I believe a count would show I referred to and cited more sources than everyone else in this discussion combined. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  As one example, in this edit. When presented with a source that's generally considered reliable (NPR), you assert without evidence that its interpretation is erroneous. Politanvm ^talk 20:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. I did assert, in that case, that a source had a biased interpretation. I did not, as you claim, do so "without evidence." In fact, I presented such evidence, cited that evidence, and quoted that evidence. Furthermore, a single example of me saying a source may be biased, and then presenting other information that appears to contradict said source, is not me showing I "don't seem to care about what sources say". I literally added another source that appeared to contradict the first source, and this is a far cry from not caring about sources.

  A better solution would be to add further sources, not attack me for quoting and citing a source you personally disagree with. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  You asked for an example where you didn't care what sources say, so I shared one. I haven't attacked you here, or elsewhere. I didn't even remove the citation to the primary source law, but returned the reliable secondary source and quoted directly from the primary source law. Politanvm ^talk 20:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Making reference to a source that supports the precisely point you were arguing against should cast some doubt on your claim to referred to and cited more sources than everyone else in this discussion combined - normally, at least, we expect editors to present sources that are relevant to the text they are proposing for articles. Newimpartial (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't support the point I was arguing against. It flatly contradicts the point I was arguing against. But I understand that someone has already made the assertion you're making again now. You are free to hold that opinion. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  In the diff I literally just presented, I told you that the terms "male" and "female" are used in the context of gender as well as sex. In attempting to argue against me, you presented a source (in the diff I linked) that also supports the use of "male" and "female" in the context of gender as well as sex. This is clearly a WP:CIR issue at this point. Newimpartial (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  I never denied that "the terms 'male' and 'female' are used in the context of gender". That's moving the goalposts, and putting words in my mouth. I said they are not the same words and should not be used wholly interchangeably. And the linked article supports what I said. But I think this topic is now exhausted, and there's no point in arguing or going in circles. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

If you recognize that "male" and "female" are also used for gender, then what was the basis for this edit summary?Or this one? Perhaps I was trying too hard to WP:AGF... Newimpartial (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I gave sloppyjoes7 many chances to clarify what they meant in this diff. They've doubled down and refused to actually engage with people's concerns here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  And I answered you. I said that discussion is already being held in the appropriate place (you can see the talk page of the article in question, which doesn't need to be rehashed here). You wanted to argue and attack my personal beliefs, by stating "I am going to ask for a final time what you actually believe". I explained, again, why this was inappropriate.

  Furthermore, you accuse me of refusing to actually engage with people's concerns, while other editors are accusing me of engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. So if I respond, I'm violating the rules, and if I don't respond, I'm violating the rules. This doesn't seem fair. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Sloppyjoes7: I am not sure how I can help you understand what you are doing wrong here. You are obviously very passionate and probably want to do the right thing, but you are going about everything in a way that is only going to hurt your future prospects here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Passionate and rightful transphobia - ahem. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sloppyjoes, are you still under the impression that your Julia Collins edits, linked at the opening of this section, and related edit summaries, were absolutely factual, and not a single editor or admin has presented any evidence that my edits contained misinformation? If so, you should probably be offering to voluntarily remove yourself from the gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions area, because you quite clearly have not understood the obvious problems with your edits in question - problems that have by now been explained to you many times over. Newimpartial (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  At the time, nobody had presented any evidence. Since then, someone has linked an article from the NY Times. However, that article was after the quote you're referring to.

  Also, while I am open to information, (and have indeed asked for information many times), I would appreciate you not talking to me in a demeaning manner like I don't understand this topic and need to have things "explained" to me. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  The information that you need - and have been given, but seem reluctant to accept - is that on Wikipedia we use gendered language, including such terms as "male and female", to refer to biographical subjects based on their most recently expressed gender identity. We do not speculate on people's chromosomes or birth certificates to come up with pretexts to misgender them. MOS:GENDERID reflects what is actually a long-discussed and well-established site-wide consensus. If you are, as you say, open to this information, then you should be prepared to say so and to edit accordingly in future. Newimpartial (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  The New York Times article that referred to Amy Schneider as female both in the title and the article itself was literally cited in the same sentence that you "fixed" with the edit summary The sentence claims that Amy Schneider is "female," which is false and unsupported by any source. Fixed language. I have zero belief that you are acting in good faith at this point. Funcrunch (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• TBan Acutely and intentionally disruptive in pursuance of a bigoted cause. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per MJL - they've been given multiple chances in this thread to defend their behavior, but they've only articulated that they're on a crusade to rewrite articles mentioning trans people and deliberately misgender them. They are apparently of the belief that it violates WP:FRINGE to affirm trans people? If they ever go further and purposefully misgender individual Wikipedia editors, more than just a topic ban would be appropriate.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 06:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Same IP user likes to edit a page

This IP user 103.144.225.75 (talk) (contributions) somehow continue to disrupt edit page on Myanmar National Airlines by adding widebody aircrafts (although no announce from the airline) and adding a country with no reliable source provide. I even left a warning to stop but did not listening. Hopefully this IP user will be block. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain but it is necessary to explain issues to editors, and that includes IPs. Talk:Myanmar Airways International (their most recent edits) was last edited in 2013 and the first step would be to put a new section at that page and explain why unsourced additions are not supported. You could ask for opinions at WT:WikiProject Aviation. Put a polite request on the IP's talk with a link to the article talk section and ask them to participate. Myanmar National Airlines has been semi-protected for a month which will resolve problems there. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Master Vampire Shihab and 89.147.140.163

Master Vampire Shihab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
89.147.140.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Sylhet Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sylhet region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Greater Sylhet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The User:Master Vampire Shihab has had multiple warnings on his talk page regarding his troublesome edits by multiple users, and actively edits with his IP too. On 24 March 2022, I raised the issue on this noticeboard and he was subsequently blocked for 31 hours. Despite this, the user continues to vandalise Wikipedia, refusing to engage in a civil manner. UserNumber (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

On my DYK contributions

Summary of DYK process on Wikipedia

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

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

Table for Successful DYKs [87]

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

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

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

My entire DYK contributions timeline

My entire DYK contributions timeline Diff No. Date Event Notes DYK Credits QPQ expected from the DYK Nominator? Is user expected to review Other DYKs ? [88] 16 Dec 1st DYK nomination submitted for review, later closed as unseccessful as improvements were not done in one month time 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [89] 17 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 10 Jan) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [90] 22 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 10 April) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [91] 27 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 18 Jan) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [92] 27 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 11 Feb) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [93] 11 Jan DYK nomination submitted for review, later closed as unsuccessful by Narutolovehinata5 as timely improvements were not made 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 1 14 Jan First DYK credit successful 1 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [94] 15 Jan DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 1 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 2 22 Jan 2nd DYK credit successful 2 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [95] 10 Feb DYK nomination submitted for review. later closed as unsuccessful on 10 Feb 2 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs Diff No. Date Event Notes DYK Credits QPQ expected from the DYK Nominator? Is user expected to review Other DYKs ? 3 16 Feb 3rd DYK credit successful 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [96] 23 Feb DYK nomination submitted for review 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [97] 22 Mar DYK closed Narutolovehinata5 did an involved closure of the discussed he participated in, as unsuccessful. I requested for a review, but was ignored by Narutolovehinata5. Other users pointed involved closure, I asked to re-open, my request ignored By Narutolovehinata5 who did not undo the close. I gave up pursuing this. 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [98] 23 Mar DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 4 2 Apr 4th DYK credit successful 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [99] 4 Apr DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [100] 6 Apr DYK Rules changed the WP:DYKRULES werr changed by Theleekycauldron from checking for DYK Credits, to check for "nominations" (successful or unsuccessful or whatever) [101] 7 Apr DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [102] 7 Apr DYK Rules restored I objected to the change as no new RfC had been done and the change required an RfC. I asked the proposer to conduct an RfC for the proposed change. My request ignored. No RfC started. Diff No. Date Event Notes DYK Credits QPQ expected from the DYK Nominator? Is user expected to review Other DYKs ? Reviews done [103] 19:28, 7 Apr DYK reviewed Reviewed another dyk even though not expected to review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 1 [104] 22:31 7 Apr Harassment New thread started by Schwede66 to attack me over my objections saying that I am a newbie with strong opinions. Schwede66 Made several inaccurate statements, admonished me for not reviewing DYKs and at the same time admittedly conveniently ignoring that 3 hours ago, I had already done my first review following the changed rules. Schwede66 started a thread claiming that I was not reviewing DYKs and yet calls the fact that I had already started reviewing, as "irrelevant" and not worth commenting. In this comment Schwede66 wrongly accuses me of saying "I don't need to do QPQs" he gave no diffs and I never said that. Schwede66 continued later, [105] [106] 1 [107] 8 Apr Rfc Started to discuss DYK Rule change No RfC was started for a day, So I go ahead and start the RfC linking the diff and seeking opinion for the new change of WP:DYKRULES, and I note my objections as oppose !vote. The new rules essentially demanded new users without successful DYK credits to review other nominations 1 [108] 8 Apr Rfc closed in 12 hours Several users voted as support and oppose, yet the RfC was inappropriately closed within 12 hours of starting. I did not object to this closure, even though I believed the closure was not appropriate. Essentially I WP:DROPped the WP:STICK 1 [109] 12 Apr DYK reviewed Reviewed another dyk even though not expected to review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 2 5 14 Apr 5th DYK credit successful 5 QPQ expected Nominator expected to review DYKs 2 [110] 14 Apr DYK reviewed Reviewed another dyk 5 QPQ expected Nominator expected to review DYKs 3 At the time of writing, I have 5 Successful DYK nominations, 3 unsuccessful and 4 are awaiting review.

Policy disagreement on a recent change of rule

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

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

Harassment

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

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

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

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

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

I have added few more diffs in the table row 7 April, Some attacks with factually inaccurate statements and slander are these [111] [112] [113] [114], in the last thread Joseph2302 attacks me and claims I have started tonnes of QPQ discussion threads when they were started by Narutoloveninata5 or Theleekycauldron. The only thread I started was RfC for seeking dispute resolution. Venkat TL (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I am as concerned at others about Venkat's intense focus on the QPQs, and whether he does or does not have to complete them. That is such a strange thing for someone to focus this much attention on. Even stranger for a new editor, whose account was created in August 2021. But then Venkat's made over 20,000 edits in these last nine months (that's about 75 edits a day, every day) [115], of which only about 4,000 are semi-automated [116]. That leaves me wondering if this is a continuation of some older dispute. Anyone who can put out 16,000 non-automated edits in 9 months (that's about 60 non-automated edits every day!) would not be trying to delay doing a QPQ for DYK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:BOOMERANG

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

  [117][118] You are proposing a topic ban without any ongoing disruption or evidence of disruption. In the last 6 days I have not posted 'anything' on WT:DYK. How is that for a demonstration? In my opening post above also I have noted that I am not pursuing either of the said issues. Those issues and incidents from 2 weeks ago and earlier, were only posted here to give a context, not to re-litigate anything. I have moved on. . So please clarify what "ongoing disruption" do you seek to contain by proposing this topic ban? If any type of BAN is imposed without clear evidence of ongoing disruption, then I assure I will abandon editing altogether. I am not contributing here for any sort of winning or defeats. Perhaps my retirement is what Narutolovehinata5 and friends intend to achieve from all this targeting. I believe a retirement would be ultimate demonstration of WP:DROPping the WP:STICK. --Venkat TL (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'd like to point out in conjunction with what JBL said above, this is clearly a user whose battleground behavior extends far beyond DYK. Just on these noticeboards, there are numerous examples ([119] [120] [121] [122]) displaying clear battleground behavior, bludgeoning discussions, and making everything personal; all of this can even be seen in this thread. Curbon7 (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support any kind of topic ban although I generally favor indefinite to be lifted on an appeal showing clue. DYK is a very important part of Wikipedia and should be protected from people who devote too much time and energy to arguments. Whether the details of Venkat TL's statement are correct is not relevant—life is not always smooth and we have to live with what happens. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from DYK, to be appealed no sooner than six months. Venkat TL is warned that taking this type of behavior to other areas of the encyclopedia is likely to lead to an indefinite sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. Venkat TL seems entirely unable to grasp that DYK is supposed to have a collegial atmosphere and is completely incompatible with their battleground attitude. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban/appeal in 6 months possible. Evidence is clear that Venkat TL's battleground mentality and incessant wiki-lawyering over what is supposed to be a light-hearted part of the encyclopedia is creating a hostile working environment over there. --Jayron32 17:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Commnet I do not support an outright ban. A limited ban is appropriate. I also think that if Venkat TL agrees to abide by the rules and stop being argumentative, it would go to greatly shorten the ban. --evrik ^(talk) 00:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as above. I already suggested this on the DYK talk boards, but I had been leaning towards the thought that maybe the discussion there might have convinced Venkat TL that their battleground approach was unproductive and to back down, making this step unnecessary. Unfortunately, Venkat TL's behavior in bringing this to ANI preemptively before someone else brought them there makes it clear that the battleground behavior is still ongoing. That is incompatible with the cooperative process needed to make DYK (or really any of the rest of the encyclopedia editing) work. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban from DYK or Support topic ban from South Asia per diffs provided by Curbon7. The battleground mentality and comprehension problems with the user extend beyond DYK. I don't think that letting him off with a topic ban from mere DYK will do enough good given the continued display of WP:IDHT and battleground mentality in this sub-thread alone. GenuineArt (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Note I have made a recent reply hereVenkat TL (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

The new tool, which counts nominations rather than credits, is at [123], although it's still a work in progress. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Repeat violations Qaumrambista

• Eastern Catholic Churches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Syro-Malabar Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Epiclesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Qaumrambista (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There have been repeated incidents wherein editor Qaumrambista has demonstrated inappropriate behavior, violated Wikipedia rules, lied about engaging in sockpuppetry, and circumvented blocks. The user in question initially came to my attention regarding edits to the page Eastern Catholic Church, their first being an IP edit on 14 April that was reverted by Vif12vf. A series of repeated efforts to insert this information into the page ensued, with the editor violating the 3RR standard from multiple IP addresses (including IP 1, IP 2, and IP 3. Another IP has been blocked, but I do not know if this IP is the same editor). The IP editor received a block from editing Eastern Catholic Churches following a request for protection I initiated. The editor promptly created an account, Qaumrambista, to circumvent the block (a charge they unintentionally admit to here). The block was extended to this new account on 15 April.

A new incident was initiated after I performed cited edits to the article Syro-Malabar Church. The editor started a conversation on the talk page, to their credit, but from an IP address. This same IP edited the articles Epiclesis and Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites, (edits for Epiclesis, rites). On the edits on the rites page, the IP editor cited the initiated conversation on Talk:Syro-Malabar Church. Part way through the discussion on the talk page, the editor swapped to their account (it appears the editor is logged in only on their phone and not their desktop). The editor has deleted sourced information, inserted improperly sourced information, and ignored the discussion when it suits them. Most impressively, they have claimed it was not them who performed the edits on other articles, suggesting an intention to use the IP as a future sockpuppet. When pressed about the issue further, the editor evaded.

Besides the technical violations, the editor has behaved inappropriately towards me more than once. The most frustrating incident of this was referring to my edits as "ignorance" and "stupidity" on my talk page. The conversation devolved further, despite my repeated efforts to remain cordial. I request administrator action to at the very minimum protect the pages listed above, and more if possible. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I neglected to add a warning from admin Yamla, who declined a request for unblock and offered advice to the editor in question to avoid editing religious articles for a short period until they had developed their editing abilities further. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, since nobody seems to have looked into it yet, here's an example of why we should also suspect this editor of WP:NOTHERE: [124]. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Let me answer the allegations one by one. First of all, I acknowledge that before creating this account I used to edit with an ip address. But since the account creation, I have edited only with this account. I haven't edited in Epiclesis and Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites. And the alleged desktop ip address that initiated the discussion in Syro-Malabar Church is not mine. Secondly, the block was extended to my new account only in the article Eastern Catholic Churches, and it was due to a misunderstanding. I thought I was allowed edit if I created an account as the message that I got from Wikipedia implied. Meanwhile, Pbritti is constantly and continuously vandalising articles related to Syro-Malabar Church. For example, Pbritti was repeatedly removing the sourced content in Eastern Catholic Churches and reverting to an erroneous date 1663 which one new user had added very recently. The article actually had the correct version before these erroneous edits from some ignorant users. I tried to correct it but was again reverted, this time by another user due to block evasion accusation placed by Pbritti. I urge Pbritti to avoid these kinds of vandalisms and request administrator intervention into these matters. Thirdly, I have no plan to do any sort of sockpuppetry anywhere.Qaumrambista (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qaumrambista: I see no evidence that Pbritti is editing in bad faith; please do not label their edits as vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the IP that the user claims is not them appears to be a dynamic IP and when Qaumrambista was tagged, that IP ceased editing entirely and the logged in user joined. This is by no means absolute evidence, but compelling enough that I had felt the need to include it. Almost too pointedly, they can't refrain from calling a user "ignorant" in this thread. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Well, I'm ready to drop that accusation of vandalism. However, I have no doubt that Pbritti's edits on the articles related to Syro-Malabar Church are mostly disruptive.Qaumrambista (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think either user in this scenario acted perfectly well. Per this source, I have restored the 1923 date. I think it is.. odd that Pbritti was insisting on the 1663 date. That isn't reflected in the article on the Syro-Malabar Church nor cite_note-93.
Don't get me wrong, Quamrambista has a lot to learn (especially in the way of Civility), but Pbritti is a major contributor to the article for the Syro-Malabar Church. They should have known when the modern day church hierarchy was set up (or at least have been willing to double check). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect to MJL, the 1663 date is the documented as the return/reestablishment of the Syro-Malabar episcopacy within the Catholic Church, which is the way other particular churches have their foundational date reckoned. The date the user offered was either the arrival of Christianity in India (irrelevant) or the latter date of a reordering of Syro-Malabar structure. The "current hierarchy" as described for the 1923 date has more relevancy to a debate over whether the Syro-Malabar would be insular to the Chaldeans or otherwise–something I can elaborate on in the talk page for this topic if you'd prefer. All of this is rather irrelevant to the matter here, where I am requesting intervention after a user repeatedly behaved uncivilly and against the standards of this website. If they disagree, they can go about it the proper way without issuing false accusations, which they have done in this thread and every other thread. They have ignored admin encouragement to improve their editing ethics. They have repeatedly demonstrated a personal agenda and engaged in personal insults. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It is a relief to know that some people are agreeing with what I have always said. At the same time, Pbritti denial does not surprise me. That is Pbritti's usual behavior. They do not agree with anyone else but insist on their own pov. At the same time I have one more thing to say: I have not yet had an uncivil conversation with this user in my account. When I was editing with my ip address, I didn't know the general guidelines of Wikipedia. But now I am aware of it and feel bound to it.Qaumrambista (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

See these two discussions. Pbritti is pushing their pov. [125] [126] The last discussion was initiated when I was editing with my ip address. There you can see Pbritti blindly lying. They said that the source provided backs their statement in that specific page. In reality it doesn't.Qaumrambista (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to the POV you claim I am pushing. I say the articles suggest that the Syro-Malabar episcopacy was restored in 1663 and that this is generally the way the establishment date of particular church is reckoned. Similarly, I point to ecclesial documents and RSs for the official naming convention, which you dismissed out of turn. This is all without addressing your rudeness and apparent evasion over the use of an alternate IP. If there is an admin willing to mediate here, please intervene. It has been two days, for goodness sake, and the only one to show up ignored a talk page discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qaumrambista: Pbritti has done nothing that can be considered blindly lying so claiming that's what he is doing would be uncivil.
Literally, just stop assuming Pbritti is acting in bad faith, apologize for what you have said to him thus far, and focus on content rather than the contributor. Do all that, and you will have a better time getting your arguments towards consensus. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: just for consensus sake, I am not going to agree with anyone's lies. Pbritti is undoubtedly lying there [127] [128] [129]. Otherwise from where did Pbritti get the date 1663 from that book. There is not even single mention of 1663 in that book as google shows. Then, from where did Pbritti alone find it.Qaumrambista (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Because I would like anyone passing by to know I am in a disagreement over definition, rather than reality, I'll engage with this accusation by referring to Donald Attwater's 1937 edition The Christian Churches of the East: Volume I: Churches in Communion With Rome, specifically page 213. While the date "1663" is not typed out, the phrasing used refers to the year 1662, followed with "In the following year". While I will not go so far as to call the user accusing me of "lying" as lying himself, I might encourage him to do better than pressing Control+F before impugning the character of a stranger. As an aside, I don't think I ever mentioned this message he left for me, but suffice to say that sums up my engagement with Qaumrambista. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: at the same time, you can find 1923 date in the same book page 203. However I did not find 1663 anywhere there. Pbritti said that they found the contrary, the date 1663, in page 213. They also said that they have the book in front. When asked to show the citation, they stopped the discussion.Qaumrambista (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, @Qaumrambista: Now I see why you accused me of lying. Rather than assuming good faith when you failed to see something in a photocopied book you lack access to, you accused me of lying. Simply searching a book with the word-search feature of Google Books is an inefficient way to fully examine a text. While I would share a free PDF of the book, none seems available. Willing to post a picture of the book if needed! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: you were not ready to add the quotation and now you are ready to share the pdf? First add the specific quotation from page 213 of that book. Meanwhile the conversation that you have linked is mot from my account. It is an ip address only.Qaumrambista (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qaumrambista: As I just mentioned: a PDF is not freely available. I, being a massive fan of David Attwater and having made a point of owning nearly every book he (and his wife) wrote, own that book. I refrained from continuing that conversation because I went to bed (I live in the United States) and because I rather felt like I did not feel like typing out a full page to convince you when you had been anything but polite to me and accused me before even considering you could be wrong. However, since I'm feeling especially done with your accusations, deflections, and crassness:

"...and by 1662, 84 of the 116 Indian 'parishes' had returned to Catholic unity. The remained became the schismatic body now known as the Malabar Jacobites (see Vol. II). In the following year the Dutch drove out all other Europeans from Cochin. Before he went, Mgr. Sebastiani consecrated bishop, as administrator for the Indians, a native priest..."

~ Donald Attwater, The Christian Churches of the East: Volume I: Churches in Communion With Rome, Pg. 213

Additionally, I would like to point out that the IP edit I linked to is you, something you've previously admitted to. What is up for discussion is not the account Qaumrambista, but the person that is behind the IP and the account: you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere in the quotation says that the Syro-Malabar hierarchy was established in 1663. Pbritti claimed that the present hierarchy of the Syro-Malabar Church originates from 1663. Pbritti is pushing pov out of nowhere.Qaumrambista (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. @Qaumrambista: WP:DROPTHESTICK. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: This editor has been abusive from the get-go and has ignored multiple other warnings/requests. Can't more action be taken? ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I'm not an admin, so I can't really do much on the conduct side to resolve this. I've opened up a new section of the talk page to try and get clear consensus for the date.
It's hard to figure out what the remedy for the conduct issue is here. If Qaumrambista makes another personal attack, I would just suggest finding a random admin to apply an indef block. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: Thanks for the advice, sorry for presuming you're an admin! Thanks for starting that discussion. There are some other details that could be hashed out, but your proposal seems more than sufficient until the day there are more editors who focus on this topic who are willing to contribute to a new consensus. More of a question about how all this works because this is the first time encountering a repeatedly mean editor: how does one go about getting the attention of admins? I sourced some very flagrant diffs and priors, and all I received was your input (no offense, yours has been substantive, efficacious, and patient input). ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Trolling, possible compromised account or just an editor with an agenda?

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

---

I came across what I assumed to be vandalism from a new account at Jack Posobiec by Npsaltos62. I was surprised to see a long term editor thought inserting their personal commentary ([130][131][132]) into a mainspace article was appropriate, so I left them a warning, which they responded with some pretty nasty statements, including some anti-semetic remarks.

• • Slanted political opinions are dripping from every word. Do you truly lack self-awareness? Disgusting, Disgusting, Disgusting, Disgusting. Your day is coming. The world is not taking this crap any longer.[133]
  • Grow up, you childish, petulant, globalist drone. There is no originality, critical thinking or open-minded acceptance of opposing opinions. You are driving our society directly into the evils of authoritarian control. No debate means no originality. [134]

I'm asking for an idefinite block at this point because it doesn't appear they're here to contribute meaningfully and only here to support their personal agenda, as evidenced by their past edits and block history CUPIDICAE💕 18:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't think we can just ignore that. This is laced with WP:NOTHERE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I would support an indef, but prefer it be a community decision. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Especially given their most recent response...I'd say a cban is warranted. CUPIDICAE💕 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems kind of weird. I went through their contribution history (last 1000) and they seemed to make anodyne edits until suddenly going off the rails today. Schazjmd (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: is there a possibility of a compromised account? This seems like a weird time, place, and manner for an editor to just snap that way... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I suspected the same but I'm fairly confident they're not actually compromised, but given they gave their real identity, a quick google search shows this to be...part of their personality to say the least. CUPIDICAE💕 19:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

ah. that's a real shame. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

A cban would definitely be overkill here, there is no long history of problems. This was sudden, but severe. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a cban is ever inappropriate for someone who is spouting racist and anti-semetic dogwhistles (really, it's a vuvuzela.) CUPIDICAE💕 20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: erm... Whats racist dogwhistles? —usernamekiran (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I linked it in my opening statement, the use of globalist is a known alt-right/far-right/right-wing dog whistle usually referring to Jews. More context, and more and even moreCUPIDICAE💕 12:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

On the chance you're asking what a dogwhistle itself is, there's an article for that: Dog whistle (politics) - Purplewowies (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked. GiantSnowman 19:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Post close comment, for the record should the user request unblock in the future. This is not the first time they have added unsourced commentary and/or unsourced personal opinion into articles. See their edit warring at Patrick Moore and at Greenpeace in 2019 (repeatedly reinstating various versions of this and this), and their 2020 addition to Intimate partner violence. It's an occasional problem, but there is something of a pattern there that would need to be addressed. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Baseball Bugs

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've asked this editor multiple times to leave me alone. The editor continues to stalk my edits, either undoing my edits or by newly editing pages the user has never edited prior to my edit, and by leaving messages on my talk page about my own edits.

This stems from several months ago during an issue at a television show article. Since then, the user continues to leave messages on my talk page following edits I've made and undoes edits where I've removed content that does not meet WP guidelines. The user then labels my edits "ownership" in edit summaries.

The user has been blocked six times for personal harassment and personal attacks, and has other topic bans based upon disruptive behavior. [135]

Earlier, the user made this edit to Talk:List of The Mary Tyler Moore Show episodes—a page never edited by the user—immediately after my edit. The user made this edit to The Mary Tyler Moore Show—another page never edited by the user—immediately after my edit.

I edited The Beverly Hillbillies on 11 and 15 April, removing cruft about character "abilities" and in-universe details about a fictional house. [136] Later on 15 April the user left a message on my talk page about a person I removed from the "guest stars" list of The Beverly Hillbillies. [137]. The user had not previously edited The Beverly Hillbillies article.

I asked the user to leave me alone and stop stalking me on the same day. [138]. On 17 April, the user undid my edits to The Beverly Hillbillies with the edit summary "Reverting attempts to own the article." [139] The user then left a message on my talk page stating "Every editor, me included, has the right to read your edits and comment on them." [140] After I again posted on the user's talk page asking him to leave me alone, the editor made another edit to my talk page "warning" me of ownership. [141]

AldezD (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

There is some history here [142][143][144][145]. There is a lot of incivilty in that from both sides. On the 13 August 2021 Bugs asked Aldez not to post on their talk page[146]. Since then Aldez has posted five times that I can work out with two of them ANI notices. Over the same time Bugs has posted 17 times on Aldez's page (Excluding Aldez there are only 6 other non automated posts during that time). Yes I guess asking someone not to post on your talk page does not mean you can't post on theirs, but this is taking the piss a bit. And seriously both of your archiving systems are terrible. This seems to fall within the scope of WP:Hounding. And some of the other edits clearly show following. Maybe just 2-way iBan both and be done with it. Aircorn (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, so Bugs has posted 17 times on my talk page despite my repeated asks to leave me alone. And the user continues to WP:HOUND and WP:STALK me. I want this editor to stop this behavior. It's Wikipedia—a free encyclopedia/#hashtag repository of minutia. This editor is going out of their way to bother me, revert edits, and labeling my removal of cruft as "owning" an article. It's a long-term pattern of behavior that the editor has been previously been blocked multiple times. I'm responding on the editor's talk page when they confront me. I'm not stalking the editor's revisions. Now the editor labels my edits to a page I've never edited previously as "ownership", and continues to harass me. Nonsense, stalking, obsession. AldezD (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

In the spirit of full disclosure as an administrator, I have a very peripheral involvement in this content dispute, as the primary author of Sierra Railway 3, the actual operating steam locomotive that portrayed the fictional Hooterville Cannonball in the related sitcom, Petticoat Junction. So, I am curious why a beat up fictional pickup truck is described as a "character" in the article about one 60 year old situation comedy, while a fictional steam locomotive is excluded from the character list in another 1960s sitcom. That is perhaps worthy of debate elsewhere. "Should mechanical machines be included in character lists for works of fiction?" So, the solution is to discuss the content issues at the articles about the various American 1960s situation comedy shows mentioned here, informed by an awareness and an understanding that this is an argument about obscure trivialities, and that disruptive editing about trivialities is especially unacceptable. The OP should, of course, take to heart the advice at WP:OWNERSHIP, and Baseball Bugs should back off, and instead ask for input from other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) AldezD is correct that Baseball Bugs never touched The Beverly Hillbillies until AldezD edited it and only found this by going through AldezD's edits. Baseball Bugs continued to hound AldezD ([147]) after AldezD told him to stop ([148]). Most of the hostility (from what I can see) is being perpetuated by Baseball Bugs. Given the history, Baseball Bugs should not have been going through and reverting AldezD's edits, and seems to be carrying on a dispute with AldezD from months ago. I see in the previous ANI thread, user:Ched suggested that Baseball Bugs and AldezD avoid each other, but that sort of suggestion is ineffective unless both users are willing to abide by it (or forced to abide by it). That being said, I agree with Ched that both users are better off avoiding each other, but I also think there should be a discussion about whether Baseball Bugs is baiting AldezD. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mythdon: I have avoided this user. The interactions are one-sided. I've repeatedly asked the user to leave me alone. The solution from Ched is ineffective since Baseball Bugs continues to harass me. I haven't interacted with the user outside of asking the user to leave me alone. Re: "that sort of suggestion is ineffective unless both users are willing to abide by it", one of us is abiding by it. Baseball Bugs continues to stalk my edits, post to my talk page, and revert edits to articles the user has never touched. It's a long-term evidenced pattern of harassment and personal attacks, previous behavior that has led to multiple blocks for the user. AldezD (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• simply noting that I've seen the ping. However, I'm not up to speed on this particular .... debate. I'm also not active enough, nor inclined enough, to get up to speed. Therefore I can't offer any substance of value. — Ched (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe both would be happier with a no-fault 2 way tban with autoexpire in a year. I was once a victim of stalking when I was new and it was really harmful. Easily disguised as "just following the rules" where it reality it was going far beyond the norm. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: I don't feel this should be a two-way ban since I am explicitly going out of my way to avoid interacting with this user. The only time I communicate with the user is when the user stalks me and posts warning messages on my talk page. Banning both of us from editing each other's talk page doesn't stop the user from continuing to stalk me. AldezD (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Stalking your edits would definitely be in violation of an interaction ban. --JBL (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Circling back to the Beverly Hillbilly edits - AldezD's first edits to remove the trivia are on 4/11, (MOS:TVCAST, unsourced nonsense), then more on 4/15, (A prop is not a member of the cast. recurring/MOS:TVCAST). 2 days later Baseball Bugs reverts all that, citing "Reverting attempts to own the article". How is this possibly an issue of WP:OWN when the person has only ever edited the article twice over 4 days? 4 minutes before B. Bugs reversion, they posted this. I have certainly looked at an editor's history to see what they're up to, but it invariably stems from an actionable reason, like they made a bad edit on a page I'm on, an untowards talk page entry, and so on. I'm not getting any "this guy is sus" vibes from AldezD's edits that'd call for a combing. On its face this is kind of coming across as stalking. Zaathras (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It is definitely hounding, but Bugs has over 100k edits, so we should allow it like we would for other experienced editors. 2600:387:F:4011:0:0:0:4 (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Experienced editors get sanctioned too for hounding. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is an IP editor who has not edited since 29 September 2021 now randomly finding this specific ANI and commenting, supporting Baseball Bugs? Similar edits were made by 174.244.243.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in August 2021 supporting Baseball Bugs. AldezD (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It's one of my "fans" trying to dupe you into (again) falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry. I've been stalked for over a decade. You have no idea what real "stalking" is. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The IP is trolling and is not supporting Baseball Bugs. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Could you please respond here to the substance of this thread? Unless I've missed it, you've commented about the IP, but not about the original concern that was raised. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The OP's complaint has no substance. To use one of his favorite terms, it's "nonsense". The general issue is the same one as last summer: The OP wants to take ownership of articles and resents any scrutiny of his efforts. What started this particular one is his mass deletion in an article,[149] which he termed "unsourced nonsense". First, the specific episodes were listed. But if he had said simply "unsourced", that could be a reasonable argument. The problem is the "nonsense" part. The first item on the list happened to be Leo Durocher. I posted 3 examples of Durocher's appearances on TV sitcoms of the early 1960s, including the one from the Hillbillies. He also called those items "nonsense". Considering he doesn't seem to know what real stalking and real sockpuppetry are, it's possible his definition of "nonsense" is similarly warped. But even forgetting that, too often he reverts stuff without giving any rationale at all. To me, that's article ownership. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Thesaurus33

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

---

User:Thesaurus33 has currently been engaging in disruptive editing on Peyton Manning and Drew Brees by changing the tenses from former to retired. I have already notified the user of their behavior on their talk page, but am not sure if they should be blocked or not. 2001:569:7F96:EE00:C130:FB31:A294:F1FF (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything more than a semantic difference between 'former' and 'retired' in this context? — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 20:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

What sort of difference other than a semantic difference would you expect? "Former" simply means that a person used to be an athlete, but "retired" can mean that a person no longer has any gainful employment - it is rather ambiguous on that point. The difference is semantic, but important. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a change of word, not a change of tense. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

If you look at the Wikipedia articles of retired athletes (eg. NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, etc.), they all say former, not retired. 2001:569:7F96:EE00:7807:3148:4619:EC7C (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC) This user has already engaged in disruptive editing on Peyton Manning and Drew Brees twice by changing the tenses from former to retired, but both edits have already been reverted. I'm currently worried that they will still continue this disruptive behavior, despite leaving them a message on their talk page. 2001:569:7F96:EE00:C130:FB31:A294:F1FF (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Could we maybe dial down the "disruptive" accusations? They've made 4 edits you disagree with, none of those edits are in the article now, no one explained why they were reverting him, he has not made those edits again since you left an unnecessarily threatening message on his talk page, and nothing at all has happened between the time you left that first aggressive message and you reported him here. You didn't even tell him about this report. It is possible to be a new good faith editor making small mistakes without needing to be threatened. Jesus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  I am fairly new to editing on here so please bear with me as I continue to explore with the "training wheels" approach to editing source content. I am not a writer by nature but am trying to improve and get better at it especially for college. Thesaurus33 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for overreacting. 2001:569:7F96:EE00:C130:FB31:A294:F1FF (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

All you had to do was message me, I'm easy going enough to work with and would have respected your input. Thesaurus33 (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think this can be closed, can't it? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Long history of refusing to communicate when warned for disruptive edits or addition of poorly sourced and unsourced content

User:Kielcerin has a history of not engaging with other editors' when warned. User never talks. See past examples in February and March [150] [151] [152], including recent warning [153] for changes made in an article that have twice been reverted without engaging with the editor or providing edit summaries. Earlier raised through 3RR noticeboard, but advised to bring this up to ANI. While some of the edits can be WP:AGF, several editors have also raised concerns over the last few months and there has been no change in behavior or editing pattern(s). I seem to observe that warnings have proven to be futile and perhaps user is WP:NOTHERE. --Pseud 14 (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This does look like classic WP:RADAR behavior. This [154] appears to be the only time they have ever spoken to another user, and as you can see, it's... not great. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Beeblebrox. I don't like blocking under these conditions, but there may not be much of a choice. At some point you have to be responsive to other editors. Mackensen (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Andrewgprout

Andrewgprout is reverting edits from Chandigarh - Vistara operates UK707 using A321N IXC-DEL-CCU with same aircraft, same flight number and pax does not disembark from plane. That is direct route via DEL. I have made attempt to chat with him on his chat page and he didn’t cared about and still reverted the edits and in the past he has got several warning for edits. I want to report this user. I dont know how I can. Admin please help and look into this matter.

Please check the article if the edit that user made is correct or not. Chandigarh Airport - Airlines and Destinations - Vistara - It operates direct flight from Chandigarh to Kolkata via Delhi without changing anything as UK 707 and even airline’s website mentions the same.

I had provided the enough proof from the Wikipedia Airport pages section and still he is reverting. I request the urgent intervention in this issue as he is not ready to discuss either. If you check his talk page, there are several edit warnings. 649pardeep (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: 649pardeep based on your edits, there are no direct flight from Kolkata to Chandigarh even tho it's only a one stop to Delhi according to this website: https://www.airvistara.com/lk/en/where-we-fly. Plus Andrewgprout made a clear reason, so I don't have any wrong with his edit. :)) Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Response:

Cornerstone2.0 Please refer to this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/page_content Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content - Body -> Airlines & destination — Point 7) List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports. Since UK707 operates IXC-DEL-CCU without any change of aircraft, flight number and passengers getting off plane. Also, you should look at FlightRadar24 data to confirm the same https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/uk707

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/uk706

Update : UK706 operates - CCU-DEL-IXC & UK707 operates - IXC-DEL-CCU using A321N. 649pardeep (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@649pardeep: I guess with only 1509 edits you're still somewhat inexperienced even if you've been here for 4 years, but really you should know better already. This is a WP:content dispute, take it to the article talk page. Talk:Chandigarh Airport has had some activity like bots edits, moves and assessment but doesn't seem to have received a comment in over 9 years! Instead of posting to that most important location, you've managed to post all over the place about this dispute many of them inappropriate both in message and location, like here and ANEW [155] and to a bunch of random editors talk pages [156], [157]+[158] & [159]. You've also posted on Wikiproject Aviation talk pages [160] & [161] which while normally okay should only generally come after you've at least opened a discussion on the article talk page. And maybe more importantly I don't think either of those talk pages are really intended for such messages (putting aside the block request). You did at least try discussing with Andrewpgrout on their talk page [162] although I'd note that came only after you asked LeoFrank for help and you posted all over the place before trying one more time [163]. However even if you'd done those from the get go, it's still no excuse for not posting on the article talk page when you weren't satisfied or received no response. And importantly, if posting on the article talk page while giving ample time for responses (i.e. days not hours) doesn't achieve a result, you need to use some form of dispute resolution. That involves seeking more responses to resolve the disagreement about you two on whether the information you're adding is supported by sources sufficient for our purposes, rather than asking for Andrewgprout to be blocked which is most of your messages elsewhere did request in part. Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Reply : As you can see that the talk page of Chandigarh Airport is inactive and there is no comment since many years. I know LeoFrank as he helped me with some edits in the past and yes, I agree that I am still inexperienced, I did research here and then got the idea to discuss with the user and got no engagement. I am not requesting them to be blocked nor did I mentioned (reporting doesn’t mean to block them). I provided enough references and they still reverted (if user can revert the edit they can also answer) if you check the users talk, they haven’t replied most the queries. Since, you’re experienced user here, I request you to provide me some links/resources for dispute resolution.

I request you to check the first link about airport page - that clearly mentions the same procedure and I cannot understand if Wikipedia procedures clearly states what to do then that is not followed. I came here for the resolution. 649pardeep (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@649pardeep: You have no way of knowing who will comment until you've tried. At the very least, editors involved in a dispute are often more willing to comment when you start a discussion on the article talk page since many dislike discussing content disputes on their talk pages yet editors are generally expected to discuss when there is a content dispute. Yes Andrewpgrout could have started the talk page discussion too, but you're the one who came here and posted all over the place without ever posting on the article talk page, not them. So please just post on the article talk page already and wait a few days, it's the most basic step you've failed to undertake. If that doesn't work, I've already provided a link WP:Content dispute which is a link to our guideline on dispute resolution. As I said, dispute resolution does not entail asking for Andrewpgrout to be blocked. And when you report a editor you're basically asking for them to be blocked otherwise there's no point in reporting them. Often there's no need to even mention the other editor in a content dispute and definitely not their behaviour, focus on the dispute. Note as I've already said the first step should generally always be to post on the article talk page no where else, especially if you're an inexperienced editor. Most forms of dispute resolution assume you've already tried on the article talk page in part since they assume all editors involved made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute which entails talking to each other which cannot be done via edit summaries. So unless you're willing to open a discussion on the article talk page, there's a fair chance you're just going to be ignored, or wind up blocked yourself if you keep at it, even if you ask for help in better venues. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I have followed your step - started discussion on article page. Please clear me one thing if Wikipedia procedures directs what to do then still we need to have discussion?? I apologize for the use of wording reporting that I never intended to for blocking user but you are giving warning for the blocking myself is very rude (seems like you are taking it personally) 649pardeep (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It's simple, if you try to make a change and another editor reverts you, you need to discuss it on the article talk page. Maybe the other editor has already started discussion on the article talk page, if they haven't then you start it. Per WP:BRD and WP:Edit warring rarely should you make the change again until you've come to a WP:consensus. It does not matter if you're sure that your edit is supported by our policies and guidelines, discuss don't edit war. If your change is clearly supported by our policies and guidelines, most of the time the discussion will be short since you'll just explain your change, other editors will consider it and say you're right and it will end there.

Note there is never any editor who will rule on a content dispute, it needs to be resolved via discussion. At most, an editor may assess a discussion and find if there's consensus.

There are a few exceptions especially WP:BLP where it's acceptable to force a change but these only apply when the change is absolutely necessary because the consequences of not keeping the change are severe; or the other editor/s are not acting in good faith or not allowed to be here. None of these remotely applied here. Rarely even without an exception it's acceptable to make a change more than once but without violating the bright line no more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, even without consensus. But these require good editorial judgment, so especially if you're inexperienced it's better to just discuss.

Note an important point here, an editor being blocked or an article being protected doesn't generally resolve the dispute, it just forces discussion. So even if Andrewpgrout had violated 3RR, while it may be acceptable to report them you'd still need to discuss on the article talk page to resolve the dispute. (If the other editor is never going to be allowed back that's an exception but one with almost no chance of happening here.)

Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Gendalv WP:NOTHERE

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

---

User:Gendalv has been here since 2012 and has edited infrequently, but almost exclusively edited talk pages. It is useful to note that of their three article space edit since 2018, one was revdeled as copyvio (see contributions). They seem to have an axe to grind about Gynocentrism. See here for their callous remark about women in the Rwandan genocide. More gyrontrism complaints here. There are legitimate arguments to be made about balance and the proliferation of literature specifically devoted to women, but this seems to be simply griping. They seem to be treating talk pages like forums offering their general opinions on things, but not really addressing the content (example). This from earlier in the month is not even a content suggestion, just petty gossip. They aren't doing much damage to Wikipedia, but I really think this user is WP:NOTHERE and we should send them on their way. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Gendalv#Indefinite_block. El_C 10:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Carletteyt

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

---

This is concerning a message that Carletteyt left on my talk page. Here are the diffs. [164][165]

This user is trying to make me contact them on another social media platform. While I don't know if they have malice intent or not, I do find it somewhat inappropriate behavior. As far as I'm aware, I have never had any prior interaction with this user. I have had a former interaction with this user and already explained to them that I don't share private information or my identity (see User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers/Archive 2#Some baklava for you!). I'm mainly reporting this because I am 17 (underage), and I'm not sure what prompted this user to leave this on my talk page. I just want some admins to be aware of the situation; I've never experienced anything of this nature and I'm not sure how to deal with it. Thank you. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I´m 17 too and i´m just trying to meet people with same interest about politics, conspiracies etc. Believe me, it´s my date of birth on discussion page...

Thanks dude Carletteyt (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Carletteyt: I will happily work with you to improve Wikipedia, but I do not feel comfortable discussing my personal life or views here or anywhere else, and I will not be contacting you on social media. Thank you. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Okey don´t worry, i understand the reason.

I just pretended make some new friends out my daily life for feeling a bit alone.

Have a nice day and for help you can talk with me :) Carletteyt (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Iamreallygoodatcheckers, if you ever feel unsafe concerning "underage"-related issues you can always consider contacting WMF Trust & Safety if you feel intervention necessary. You are under no obligation to have contact with Wikipedia users outside of Wikipedia. If you not feel comfortable doing so, you are free to ignore the request. Not passing judgement on you Carletteyt, but On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog... -Indy beetle (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'd advocate for a full block as the pblock didn't work and this user doesn't seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia and all of their edits save for maybe 3 have been reverted for the same exact reason. A prime case of WP:CIR and WP:IDHT and it doesn't appear that mentoring has worked. CUPIDICAE💕 11:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

In fact, I and others warned them just yesterday here, which they acknowledged and removed and continued the same exact behavior.[166][167][168][169]. Perhaps a few years to mature and understand the purpose of Wikipedia would do them good, as their reasoning for all errors and continued disruption is "I'm 17" which isn't ever a valid reason. CUPIDICAE💕 11:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Telex80

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

---

Please look into Telex80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They make quite a lot of small edits that look OK, but every single substantive edit they have made, as far as I can see, is nonsensical (representative example). Edit summaries like "Copy paste from web" suggest further significant problems on top of the incomprehensibility. They have also conducted nonsensical "reviews" of good article nominations: I think this article is summarized for unusual points of shaggy and disploted description at the beginning or start-point of this page. Well, it should be pass instead. They have never responded to any message left on their talk page.

I hope you will take whatever action is appropriate stop this editor harming English Wikipedia. 82.132.213.17 (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week: User_talk:Telex80#Block. El_C 10:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Continual unsourced edits

Not sure if this is the right place for this - apologies if not. Ip 2402:6B00:46AD:1200:7D61:4224:6971:941D has been making unsourced edits, possibly original research, to Naporitan. I've messaged them and given warnings, but I'm unsure how to proceed as I think they genuinely don't realise what're they doing wrong (as they added msn after a request for sources, although obviously it's not an applicable one) and it's not quite the definition for vandalism for me to report it on the vandalism noticeboard. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 12:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The user is communicating on their talk page and it looks like they stopped reverting, so admin intervention is not yet needed at this time. El_C 12:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

TomStefano

• TomStefano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Planck units (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TomStefan's first four edits were to an article, Planck length, that was soon redirected to Planck units per discussion at Special:Permalink/1083115831#Do_we_really_need_both_Planck_units_and_Planck_length?. This follows several other Planck units that were redirected starting in 2020, such as Planck time and Planck mass, following agreement that these articles had no nontrivial content that couldn't be covered in one place. See Talk:Planck_units/Archive_4#Individual_articles for background information from around the time Quondum (talk · contribs) redirected most of the articles. Aside from that, the topic attracts fringe edits and original research because it's quantum gravity, and such content has been greatly cleaned up from Planck units over the past two years.

Their only edits since then thus far have been mostly uncivil comments at Talk:Planck units regarding a perceived decline in quality in the article, and that the other articles on specific Planck units have also been redirected. He squarely blames that on XOR'easter (talk · contribs), who is experienced in the topic area of physics, and several other unidentified editors of the article. He cites a mathematical error (no longer in the article) where the Planck length is stated to be equal to the Schwarzschild radius of a Planck-mass black hole, instead of half that. For reference, Special:Permalink/1083085312 is the last revision before JayBeeEll (talk · contribs) redacted several personal attacks and rants. The IP users 178.120.21.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 178.120.71.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are likely the same person — both IPs geocolate to Brest, Belarus and made similar edits at Talk:Planck units.

Here are some snippets from the user's comments, including the suspect IP editors; one quote per paragraph:

• statement is too exact, and hence wrong:
  • You [an IP editor from Lanark Highlands, Ontario] are perfectly right [about the mathematical error]. This is my point, several of the editors working on this page now have too little knowledge of the topic.
  • As it stands now the page is incorrect and is worse than it used to be some years ago.
• Quality down:
  • I believe that deleting the separate article on the Planck length deprives readers of all information about this problem.
  • Regge, Migdal, Hawking, - these are all world-famous physicists. What other sources do you need [for a new version of the Planck length article]?
  • Moron.
  • If a person is not competent in the topic, do not go where you are not asked.
  • Sadly several of the editors working actively on this page clearly do not know the field [of quantum gravity] very well.
  • the page is now dominated by editors doing as they want without requirements for solid documentation
  • Some condom accused me of plagiarism. Who are you to judge? Ignoramus.
• On the Planck length:
  • Looks like [XOR'easter] is here to promote researchers [sic] friends and his own subjective views. Even things mathematical [sic] wrong they will let stand as long as it promote someone in their circle.
  • But I would never bother even touch a sentence written by XOR'easter as it will be quickly overridden.
  • The real expert will never have time to waste loads of time on wikipedia
  • Okay, a quick search only show that on this particular page you promote friends of your wikipedia editorial friends (one that like to block others and accuse other for such, one that has been on this page recently to block others from edit, and yes he is promoted by one of the researchers you here promote papers from.)
  • Several comments also quote XOR'easter's comments verbatim.
• Smaller than a Planck Length?:
  • [Weyl's tile argument about discrete spacetimes] should be linked in to this page perhaps as it is highly relevant in relation to the Planck scale (I missed this discussed here also), but I won't even bother as one so easily get overridden and work deleted by XOR'easter. Actually it seems like XOR'easter is clueless on the Planck units, but is dominating also this page now, and has been deleting lots of pages that gave much more in depth information about many topics that could have evolved even further.
  • The current page has much less depth, and is much more confusing than the old system we had.
• Comments at Smaller than a Planck Length? after the redaction by JayBeeEll:
  • Weyl's tile in relation to the Planck scale is not "every idea on every topic", it is clearly a very central problem related to if the Planck scale is unique.
  • But what can I say, what should be on some wikipedia pages is now totally dominated by a small circle of very active wikipedia editors that back each others, block others, delete others. They abuse the consensus system.
  • "and doesn't make speculations/hypotheses come across as established facts." sorry to say it to you XOR'easter but that you mention "established facts" says a lot about your type of editing. For example this page mention that "spacetime becomes a foam at the Planck scale" is in reality only a speculative hypothesis.
  • It seems like many published papers on a hypothesis and that many researchers think the hypothesis is good seems to be mistaken as facts. Often this are just that the problem is not yet solved and the hypothesis is old and well established.
• Talk:Planck_units#Planck time (after final warning by JayBeeEll (talk · contribs) at Talk:Planck units and the user talk):
  • Also some of the worlds most famous physicists have claimed the Planck time could be one of the most important things in physics to understand, and here instead of extending much more [about the Planck time] in a page one have one have [sic] limited this to 5 lines. Clearly if not cleaned up in and improved then someone should seriously look to fund something better, something more similar to what wikipedia once was. There is a massive problem if a handfull of frequent editors suddenly can remove pages others worked on for years.

That last comment has a legitimate concern about the section being focused on the wrong aspect of the topic, but that is the final straw. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• TomStefano, I have reverted your comments: there is no way we can pull out your comments to put them in their proper place--separately. Do NOT put your comments inside others' comments please. User:JayBeeEll, I'm sorry I had to revert you too. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

As I have commented on above, several of the examples given of what I have said are not me. So it is then lies about what I said. This is actually quite serious when someone claim one said something that another person said. For example it is claimed I said "Moron". I never ever said so. It was another user. Other examples to. Is this really how wikipedia a small circle of established wikipedia editors go ahead to block someone, to pick even saying from other users I do not know who are, have no affiliation with etc. And then in addition cherry picking saying I have and take them out of contest, and in addition deleting some of my sayings so they not are easy to find. Okay so I understand I soon will be blocked, and the methods are documented. It will all be filed. TomStefano (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I moved this to the correct section seeing as TS was unable to do so.CUPIDICAE💕 14:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Tom: It will all be filed. Where and with who will it be filed? — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 14:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• User:LaundryPizza03, there is no technical evidence to connect TS to the 178 IP. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Then I have struck out the quotes from the IP user. However, their conduct is equally unacceptable for the same reason, and under the assumption that they are actually a different user, I will post another ANI notice. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
    • From their writing styles, I presumed they were different people. There was an oddity where the IP user removed some comments and TomStefano restored them, but that might just be due to editing an old page version, and I didn't make much of it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • TS's first edit to Planck length was to restore content that I had removed, invoking the same rationale as the since-blocked SPA who inserted it before. The rationale is odd: journal quality is usually judged journal-by-journal, not publisher-by-publisher, except in the case of known predatory publishers. That SPA, blocked by Drmies, was restoring a blurb that had been removed before (not by me), after it had been added with a misleading edit summary by another SPA. As noted by StarryGrandma, the citations to it have come from the author himself, and no substantial commentary or signs of wider influence exist. The author, incidentally, is Espen Gaarder Haug, who had an article here until it was deleted in 2018, and whose work has been promoted by sockpuppets here before, including the same claim. I have no idea if any of the more recently active accounts are related to the earlier sock farm. Some of the accusations sound similar: People spending lots of time editing on wiki have likely high status among other active wiki editors, backing each other, so yes I think we know how this ends (blocked sock MetricoGeo on Talk:Squaring the circle). Is this how wikipedia work these days? Has it become corrupted with circles of people spending much time here, becoming buddies defending each others editing, rather than trying to get the best out of wikipedia? Just asking, please explain to us non frequent visitors how this now will work? (likewise). And this was not a new page, this was a page that had been on wikipedia for 10 years (likewise). Maybe that's just illustrative of having the same mindset, though. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Oh this definitely is the same person as User:EntropyFormula who was all up in that AfD. --JBL (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Hmm. But clearly it is a few wikipedia editors that think they have monopoly on editing and deleting other editors posting, possibly because they have been here for some years (from User talk:EntropyFormula) does sound familiar. XOR'easter (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
        • XOR'easter, I hear you--this should probably simply be entered in a new SPI. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

          Now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/QuantitativeGeometry for anyone who cares to take a look. --JBL (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

          The person that claimed I said this and this, many false claims had several days to edit and remove things I not have said. But this is not done. For example I also never said this "I believe that deleting the separate article on the Planck length deprives readers of all information about this problem.", That I agree on that this page not should be removed is totally different thing that I must be allowed to hold. It could backfire at some point to lie about what someone have said (with references to exactly what they supposedly have said). Please remove what I not said. Please show decency. Block me if you want, but for what? Have I not been accused for being personal and not on the page task. And what are some editors here doing, coming with many many citations of things they claimed I wrote that I never wrote. It is something in that one not should treat other people worse than one expect other to treat one back? And please stop mistake decent probability of something seems very similar to mean it is the SAME. People from same country are not the same person, that is racism! What have I done? being critical to how some editors are operating. Such as evidently also here, where one accuse someone for having written this and that without even bother to check if it is the same wikipedia user. Other things have been cherry picked out of contest. All is filed !! TomStefano (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

          Assume now for a moment I had come with accusations that for example XOR'easter had said this and that and given quotes of what he wrote and put it for example here. But that he never had written many sentences I claimed he had written. How would that be looked upon? And even after making you all aware that there where multitudes of false claims about what I had written, even then no one bothered investigating those few claims and really correct them. But if one quickly want to block some then naturally one will even Lie to get through with that. Look at yourself in the mirror before judging others to hard. If some editors are so eager to judge others that they come with lies and not even remove those lies even after I have pointed out incorrect putting others words in my mouth, then perhaps one should take some self criticism before judging others. Think now carefully what you do and how you judge others before you do so! TomStefano (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

          Thirdly please check carefully the editing of some of the users you accuse for this or that. See if you see a very serious error, a very unethical "error" done by a senior editor on one of the many pages that have been edited. Look carefully! It has all been filed by the way!! TomStefano (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

          You keep saying this has "been filed," but it's very unclear what you're trying to say. I'm assuming English is not your first language, it would help if you could clarify what you're trying to say. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

"You [an IP editor from Lanark Highlands, Ontario] are perfectly right [about the mathematical error]. This is my point, several of the editors working on this page now have too little knowledge of the topic." And this was correct, there was a mathematical error that XOR'easter removed, or at least improved, considerably. TomStefano (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

User talk:BobNesh impersonates admin to libel, threaten, intimidate

User talk:BobNesh left realistic-looking warning complete with stop symbol and false libelous accusations of policy violations on my talk page threatening I will be "blocked from editing without further notice" if I do not obey. The user is not an admin. I never interacted with user before. BobNesh made his first edit of article he mentions to remove content he personally did not like, then left message appearing to impersonate admin to intimidate me from editing with threats of administrative actions he has no authority to make. Some people might fall for such deceit and be intimidated into silence out of fear of being blocked, when user has no right to engage in such bullying and deceptive threats over any apparent personal content dispute. (To be honest, based on user's past, and due to my edits pertaining to Ukraine/Russia current events—like merely creating the article in question: this seems to fit a recent pattern of being ganged up on and targeted by politically-motivated pro-Putin/Moscow-biased users trying to game system using technicalities to harass and intimidate as part of Kremlin information war to shape message on Wikipedia...) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Inqvisitor (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't yet examined this matter but I can say that one need not be an admin to issue warnings. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I've provided the required notice for you; it appears you placed it on this page by mistake, instead of the editors talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think libel means what you think it means. I recommend the op heed warnings and get a big ol' trout. This is a pointless thread. CUPIDICAE💕 15:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in our guidelines prohibits non-admins from using user warnings, not even the highest level 4 and 4im ones. To paraphrase a comment I made from yesterday time, writing what you don't want to hear ≠ libel. If you really do have any valid complaint of that, you're free to take it to court (since libel is actually criminal); just don't expect to be able to edit Wikipedia if you do. As demonstrated, aspersions such as accusing editors against you of being Kremilin POV-pushing without evidence is incompatible with how we work here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG for Inqvisitor. I've looked into what led the OP to get warned, and discovered the following:

• Between April 11 and 14, Inqvisitor got into a bit of a content dispute at Denys Prokopenko. I haven't looked too much at the content dispute itself, it's the behaviour afterwards that is concerning.
• On April 14, the other editor in the content dispute started a discussion on the talk page about their content dispute with Inqvisitor. In an initial reply, Inqvisitor called the the other editor a "Kremilin POV-pushing" editor, a "biased Russian imperialist", and concluded his reply with "And don't give me orders, I ain't your serf.".
• The other editor raised WP:NPA and said they were politely asking Inqvisitor to strike out their personal attacks. Inqvistitor replied by continuing to infer the other editor was pushing a POV, without addressing the personal attacks.
• It turns out the subject of the article's grandfather fought for Finland Soviet-Finnish Winter War. So over the next few days after the above discussion, Inqvisitor decided to add a very lengthy content about the history of that war even though that has nothing do with the subject of the article.
• BobNesh reverted those edits, noting in the edit summary that it had nothing to do with the subject of the article, and placed the warning on Inqvisitor's talk page.

All in all, not great behaviour from Inqvisitor here. Singularity42 (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Only reason I made edits to add sourced historical details (which I had always thought should just be referenced by links to articles about the subjects, e.g. Winter War) was because it was demanded by other editors disputing the historical events which the article's subject (Denys Prokopenko) alluded to in referenced quote. It's not so widely known history what happened during and after Winter War, and I assumed the critique was made in good faith even though it wouldn't apply in most other cases where history is referenced. It would be like if an article subject who had relatives killed in Nazi Holocaust says in a quote they are angry at what Nazis did to their grandparents—and some editor comes along demanding sources proving what did Nazis do.

But in any event this was not about any article edits—I did even not revert Bob's edit or anything. Bob never said anything to me; we never interacted. Bob just dropped warning on my page of being blocked without further notice, while making false accusations of violations (which Bob did not even explain) broadcast on my talk page. I do not want controversy. I rarely even create pages outside of Wiktionary. I just don't see how Bob's conduct was meritorious—user could have left normal talk message. Other younger editors might get scared away by such ominous warnings dropped out of the blue with no explanation on their talk page by someone with whom they had never even interacted—having a chilling intimidating effect. That's all. Thanks. Inqvisitor (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Inqvisitor, invoking a Think of the children argument does you no favors. To avoid a WP:BOOMERANG I suggest that you withdraw this complaint. Now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Noting also that your deletion of the warning message (plus another editor's helpful comment) with an edit summary that reads, in part, removing deceptive "only warning", further undermines your position. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Just chiming in to clarify something: I believe what Inqvisitor is referring to by other editors disputing the historical events which the article's subject [...] alluded to in referenced quote is when I put a {{fact}} tag on a sentence referring to the Winter War. That seems like an unfair characterization of my actions, given that I actually made sure to specify in my edit summary that I wasn't disputing the historical veracity of the events, and was just putting the maintenance tag on there so that an editor more knowledgeable about the event could patch up the text-source integrity. If I had been less busy, I probably would have found a source myself. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• BobNesh left Template:Uw-biog4im on your page, Inqvisitor. Anyone who feels that a template warning is needed can utilize that template, not just administrators, and I've done it many times with the other templates at WP:WARN and WP:WARN2. So no, there was no 'administrator impersonation', 'Kremlin information warring', or 'libel' from what is a common warning template, and like JJA said, you need to withdraw this complaint, because this is an extreme overreaction to a template warning. Nate • (chatter) 21:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• As mentioned, in the talk page of that article Denys Prokopenko a few days ago, I explained to Inqvisitor why I removed some of their edits. In response they resorted to personal attacks against me and even though I asked them not to do that and very clearly reminded them of WP:NPA, they continued with this. Now I see that this behavior has not changed by still calling other editors politically-motivated pro-Putin/Moscow-biased users who are part of the Kremlin information war... instead on ANI. Mellk (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• I personally think it's better when warnings are issued by someone who isn't actively involved in the dispute with the editor so the fact there was allegedly no previous interactions between Inqvisitor and BobNesh is probably not the bad thing Inqvisitor is making it out to be. As others have said, anyone is free to leave warnings, it's not something restricted to admins. And if an admin is involved in the dispute most of the time they shouldn't block the editor themselves anyway. So warnings should not be taken as a threat to personally block the editor, unless the editor makes it clear this is what they are saying. Even if the are, it's IMO mostly moot. The warning is either justified and the behaviour may lead to a block if continued or it's not, who will do the blocking doesn't matter. I have not looked into the content dispute but BLP is a serious issue and I personally often issue 3im or 4im warnings when people make serious BLP violations. Especially if they've done it more than once but not been warned yet or at least not warned in a clear way. So if Inqvisitor did violate BLP and to be clear I'm not saying they did, they should not be surprised to receive such a strong warning. Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Crusading movement

Help please!

I have had previous WP altercations with Borsoka, in the last of which an admin advised we stay away from each other. I have largely kept to this but he now appears to be stalking me at this article. The behaviour is always the same in that this editor indulges in excessive pedantry and refuses compromise or consensus at the talk page. When he doesn't get his own way uses edit warring, banners and tagging to bully other editors. This editor is admittedly a useful Wikipedian on articles that are uncontentious and where his concentration on chronological detail is of benefit.

Crusading movement is a gnarly subject and there has been widespread debate on the scope of this article and the Crusades. For some time this editor wanted the article deleted or merged with Crusades, when consensus wasn't achieved for that he is now trying to edit this article without consensus into something else, a pseudo-crusades article.

Editors Johnbod, Onceinawhile, Dominic Mayers among others can probably comment usefully on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norfolkbigfish (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a side remark. I do not want to develop "something else, a pseudo-Crusades article". I still respect the consensus about the article's scope. As a matter of fact, I had not edited the article and allowed the main contributor to develop it for several months. Yes, "excessive pedantry" describes me well. I do not like original research, close paraphrasing and original synthesis. If this is a deadly sin, please punish me. I have not been involved in edit warring. I have not used banners and tags to bully other editors but to indicate the problematic sentences. Sincerely, I have never felt bullied when articles that I created or heavily edited were tagged: editors placing tags in those articles have always helped me to improve them. I think this is primarily a WP:OWN issue. Editors who are dedicating their time exclusively to a single article or a specific group of closely related articles tend to think they are that article's or group's exclusive owners. That is why I never edit the same article continuously and attempt to distribute my WP time between editing and reviewing articles of different topics. Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Ragnarvrollo

There is a content dispute regarding the chart of Parisian universities: which one to use (the one before was more detailed and without his inaccuracies, but his only argument is "no need") and where to put it.

Ragnarvrollo has a history of content removal and POV pushing and is doing it again:

1. Worldbruce let him know that he should stop on one page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ragnarvrollo&diff=1076512493&oldid=1071643977

2. ZimZalaBim: let him know that he removed a template: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ragnarvrollo&diff=1071643977&oldid=1068204597

3. defcon5 told him that he removed a template: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ragnarvrollo&diff=1025597596&oldid=1016066604

4. Now he removed a template I put to push for discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris&diff=1083397946&oldid=1083395096

5. AFTER Deepfriedokra asked both of us to stop edit warring in both our talk pages [170] [171], I stopped on both page but he continued on BOTH pages to revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_universities_and_higher_education_institutions_in_the_Paris_region&diff=prev&oldid=1083402769 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris&diff=prev&oldid=1083403954 (My only edit after the messages was to put back the template that the other user removed: [172])

--Ransouk (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I will partial block for the edit warring. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:partial block Ragnarvrollo for gaming the system by edit warring after my warning and then going to talk to demand the other disputant explain themselves. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ransouk: I took the liberty of notifying the other party, as per the instructions at the top of the page. Best. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra: Thank you! Could you also revert his changes on both pages, so that it is not a winning strategy from him to revert anyway?

This user does not seem to understand the rules. Now he argues from French Wikipedia and says "if the former chart wasn't accurate" "it would be removed by administrators long ago", even though it WAS changed one year ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_universities_and_higher_education_institutions_in_the_Paris_region&diff=1083407617&oldid=1083407045

--Ransouk (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I do not involve myself in content disputes. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The second line was more for the other admins. Anyway, ok, I will wait for 24 hours to make any edit and see how the discussion goes and follow the rules. Thanks. --Ransouk (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Mishra18Hex keeps adding unsourced rumored info

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

---

Mishra18Hex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) On their user talk page, there are many warnings regarding unsourced non-GNG article creations. Yet, he keeps creating those articles. But, this is not the main issue. According to their contributions, they keep adding info that is unsourced and rumored on pages such as 2022 NASCAR Xfinity Series and Joe Gibbs Racing. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 02:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• There does appear to be a history of problematic editing here. What is more disturbing is the failure of this user to engage. I don't see a single response on their talk page to any of the numerous messages/warnings/notices posted. That said, it is fairly late here and this user may not even be awake. But they definitely need to come here and give the community some indication that they are aware of its concerns and take them seriously. Otherwise, I fear this is going to end badly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE and potentially WP:RADAR Oz\^InterAct 08:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Prolific sock master? auto generated account?

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

---

Draft:BilCat was created by an IP, I noticed on that page it says (among other things), "User:I'm a sockpuppet of User:BilCat, but you'll never figure that out!" I haven't figured out if he is a sock or not. But in looking at the user logs of BilCat, he has been editing hundreds and hundreds of article and user accounts in a rapid-fire manner. Is this an automated account of some type? — Maile (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Maile66#April 2022 - Message on my talk page from BilCat threatening to block me. — Maile (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

FYI - I left them a talk page message about this discussion here, and they deleted it.— Maile (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Maile66, Someone probably compromised his account. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 04:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

My account hasn't been compromised. I haven't "been editing hundreds and hundreds of article and user accounts in a rapid-fire manner". A hundred edits in a day isn't that much. The OP is making unfounded accusations. I have know idea who created Draft:BilCat, nor what it even said, as it's been deleted. I would be nice if users here would assume some good faith. BilCat (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Hi, sorry, I might be missing something here, but I don't see anything out of the ordinary in Bilcat's user contributions or user logs. BilCat has made 481 edits in the last week, which averages out to about 68.7 edits per day, and 1,794 edits in the last month, which averages out to 59.8 edits per day.[173] Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any rapid-fire edits. What user log are you talking about? _signed, Willondon (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

From User:Maile66's accusations and false assumptions, including taking a standard warning as a "threat" and misreading edits logs, I assumed this was an inexperienced user. Then they fully protected their user and talk pages. This is all very strange behavior for an admin. BilCat (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, a uw-npa4 is not a "standard warning", it's a "you will be blocked if you do that again" warning. I suspect it would have been better to write a personalised message on Maile's talkpage along the lines of "what on earth are you talking about?" Black Kite (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's just call it a comedy of errors and let all this go. I checked the IP range, and there doesn't seem to be anything particularly weird going on. No vandals, no sock puppets, etc. The IP editor is already blocked, and the draft is deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It could have been dismissed as a comedy of errors if the OP had simply said "Oops, sorry. I made a mistake", but instead that admin protected their own user page, which nobody else had edited for over five years, for "persistent spamming" and their talk page for "persistent sock puppetry" when nothing of the sort had happened. I'm afraid that that statement just looks like a closing of the ranks by admins. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

For anyone else still confused by this, the draft was an exact copy of BilCat's user page, which (among other things) contains those words, "I'm a sockpuppet of User:BilCat". Do think twice before accusations of sockpuppetry and claims of compromise. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The whole reason I opened a thread here, instead of opening a sock puppet investigation, was to get other opinions of what this was. As I said when I opened this thread, I simply didn't know. If someone on their user page claims to be a sockpuppet, it does raise questions. — Maile (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

BilCat doesn't claim to be a sockpuppet on his userpage; he mentions two silly "options for a new username": User:I registered on Wikipedia, and all I got was this lousy username and User:I'm a sockpuppet of User:BilCat, but you'll never figure that out!. It's an obvious joke.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23 the claim was not on their user page, but on their now-deleted draft above. — Maile (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Which a) wasn't their draft, and b) copied their user page... Fram (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope, as zzuuzz said, the draft is a copy of BilCat's userpage, and the only mention of "sock" on the page is what I noted (I searched). Besides, even if the deleted draft did make a "claim" of sock puppetry, why would you give credence to anything an obviously disruptive IP said? As an admin, the only question in my mind - and I would have not bothered tagging the draft but just deleted it - would be whether to block the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's great that you sought other opinions here rather than blocking anyone (though I still think a second thought about the content would have provided the clue you were looking for). Novel things and confusion can happen. I am frankly more concerned about the first substantive response of "Someone probably compromised his account". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Full protection of an admin talk page?

User:Maile66 has fully protected their user talk page for "Persistent sock puppetry" despite there being no trace of any problematic edits to their talk page, and very shortly after receiving this warning[174]. I thought this kind of apparently self-serving protection wasn't allowed? Or is there a lot of oversighted sock puppetry? (As it is fully protected, I can't notify them of course, nor discuss it with them first...). Fram (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I now see that the above section deals with elements of the same issue, but ignores the admin tool misuse (with false edit summary). I wanted to talk to Maile66 about a DYK incident from friday (haven't been online since), where they were rather pompous and wrong[175][176], but the above issue seems worse. No idea what's going on, but doesn't look to good. Fram (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I've made the notification(since Fram cannot). 331dot (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Per the documentation, I think it's (almost?) unheard of for WP:oversight to be used nowadays, only suppression. And generally, any suppressed edits should be visible in the page history (but not the deletion log). Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyway unless there's something I missing, I have to agree that this seems wrong. Even assuming Maile66's incorrect view Bilcat was a problematic sock was correct, a single templated warning is very unlikely enough to justify full protection or even semi protection (if that were sufficient). I'd note that for a single account, Maile66 should have blocked Bilcat if they were confident enough in their suspicion to justify protection. (In certain cases with persistent sockpuppetry where the editor is known to use a bunch of accounts, it may still be okay to protect the page but it would be exceptionally rare it makes sense to protect the page while not blocking the account.) For clarity, blocking Bilcat would have been a serious mistake but this just further illustrates why the protection was wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Everybody get unexcited now, please. I have been offline since I protected my page. It is now unprotected. As for you, @Fram: the DYK issue involves other DYK editors, and should be discussed on the DYK page, not my user page. — Maile (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Which doesn't explain at all why you protected these two pages in the first place (you gave a reason in your edit summaries, but these were obviously incorrect). Fram (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• As for DYK, it is your admin action of going to WP:ERRORS and there, instead of taking the appropriate action, berating me for being "out of touch" and "over the line" and adding some dubious WP:OWN argument "But leave DYK to the editors and admins who daily work within the project's structure.". Bizarrely, you do nothing about the error, but also do nothing about the page which no longer contains the DYK fact; and 5 minutes after the hook is of the main page, you rapidly remove the Errors discussion which you hadn't the time or guts to reply to earlier[177]. But the next day, you go to WT:DYK where you start explaining why the hook shouldn't have run, with a frankly farfetched reason ("it's promotional"!) instead of the actual reason (it's complete and utter trivia which was only included in the article to make the hook possible, and which has been removed from the article the day after). So at WP:ERRORS you berate the one pointing out the error, but then the next day at WT:DYK you berate the ones that have proposed or promoted the hook, not for the actual reason the hook was an issue, but for something you grasped at to be able to blame both sides apparently. Which, coupled with the above incident, means a lot of very erratic, admin-unworthy behaviour in just a few days time. Fram (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• I vouch for BillCat being a longstanding editor in good standing and one of our top aviation contributors. Like others here, I am mystified by the protection action and... other stuff. El_C 13:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Look, having watched this discussion develop over the last several hours, appears fairly simple. We have two long-standing editors, both of which with a spotless record. We have Maile who got confused, over-reacted, and then self-corrected. BilCat has still done nothing wrong. Unless I have misread the situation, other than an application of WP:TROUT to Maile, I can see no reason to keep this thread open any longer. Anyone else concur? --Jayron32 15:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• No. Maile66 still seems very confused, believes the deleted page is by Bilcat, has not explained why they used completely incorrect edit summaries to support their protections (even if Bilcat had been a sock or compromised, the edit summaries would still have been wrong), they haven't acknowledged anywhere that they falsely accused Bilcat, and their DYK shenanigans are problematic as well. Just closing this because they unprotected one of the two pages as if that somehow removes all concerns is not right. Fram (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• I mean, if they accuse an editor like this "But in looking at the user logs of BilCat, he has been editing hundreds and hundreds of article and user accounts in a rapid-fire manner. Is this an automated account of some type?" based on, well, nothing at all really (the most I found in the last few 100 edits was 3 edits in a minute, which is not a lot when dealing with vandals or other unconstructive edits), then the least they can do is explain their reasoning a bit further and perhaps apologize or at least acknowledge that they were wrong? Just closing this seems, like Phil Bridger says above, too much like admins closing ranks. Fram (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Not going to rest until you have someone's head on a platter, are you? You know, we don't have to make sure people are punished everytime they do something wrong. Sometimes, we can leave them with their dignity. --Jayron32 16:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Or you can keep this open and give them a chance to get some of their dignity back, instead of this? Fram (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Why, to give you a forum for your highly repetitive, WP:TLDR/WP:BLUDGEON demands for satisfaction? You have a strange sense of granting dignity. --Jayron32 16:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• WP:TLDR? Grasping at straws much? Fram (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

A little extra I just noticed; Maile66 opened the above section at 03.55[178], Bilcat posted on their talk page at 04.08, then Maile posts that threat here, and only then posts a notice at Bilcat's user talk[179]. So yet another failure on the part of Maile66. Fram (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's rewrite WP:ADMINACCT then as well. Apparently you can

• Make completely ridiculous accusations at Ani ("prolific" sock master based on one ip edit, not even by this user? "Auto generated account", which makes no sense?) without the need to withdraw them
• Don't need to inform the editor about this thread until after they have already found out
• Protect pages for no actual reason and with made up reasons in the edit summary

...and still be considered to have accounted for all this by simply removing the protection from one of the pages without any explanation whatsoever about the underlying issues. Fram (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I note that User:Maile66 still seems to be protected for "persistent spamming" despite nobody but the user themself editing it for over five years. Can't we at least expect admins to say something remotely defensible? I'm sorry, Girth Summit, but this closure leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. Maile66's initial mistake could easily have been corrected, but wasn't. What has happened since needs a better resolution. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't see an issue that needs fixing here - can you think of a valid reason for anyone to edit Maile66's user page in the next few hours? Or is there something else that needs to happen? Girth Summit _(blether) 20:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Kum Ba Yah. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

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

3G article problems

• Nightwalker-87 (talk · contribs)
• 3G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been dealing with the user Nightwalker-87 on the article 3G; where he is insisting on reverting to an older, somewhat outdated version of a table and making completely incorrect comments about policies/guidelines.

It starts when I attempted to add a table about 3G shutdowns in various countries to 3G; I did not see or know of a table like this that already existed on the page (definitely was my mistake). However, I did put good effort into the table, and it was somewhat more up to date than the previous table (see my table vs. the current table that Nightwalker is pushing).

Another editor then reverts the duplicate table correctly (I thought they were wrong at first), but another IP gave me pointers and told me that I should merge it. So I decided to. (yes, I am the user of the IPv6 range that made these edits; yes, it is allowed, I'm not deceiving others and will happily connect me and my IP range if asked)

While I was working on the merge of the two tables, Nightwalker performed "formatting corrections" on the table that I was about to merge to. I merged the tables, not knowing about what he was doing, and then he immediately reverted saying that I was "messing up the table formatting" and "adding unnecessary descriptions" (not true at all). I figured he may have been confused, so I reverted again and left him a note in the edit summary basically saying that I was merging two tables and also trying to make another edit in the process (changing some original research dates).

He then reverts it again, saying that he was "updating several countries", the thing is that he reinstated the original version of the table.

I decide to leave him a talk page comment after this, about what I felt was wrong with the original table and why he should have not reinstated it, including that some of the dates were based on outdated information and not newer sources that had different, more up-to-date information (ex. in the Lithuania part of the table, it originally said December 31, 2022, which was cited to an older source, but a newer source from February of this year says by Christmas 2022 instead) and that the South Korea part of the section was actually about 2G and not 3G.

He then moves my talk page comment to Talk:3G and states that me telling him about some problems I have with his reversions is "misuse" of his user talk page. I do not know of any policy or guideline that states this.

He then posts a response, which I feel is underwhelming and wrong in many ways because:

• "Has there been an intervention from the administrative side" - There was no administrative action taken at all at that point
• "The two recent reverts I've been notified about seem to have vanished" - None of my reverts have vanished, they are still in the page history of the 3G article
• "All points can be verified ..." - Some points indeed could not be verified, were incorrect, or had no source, like the South Korean part of the table (which was about the 2G shutdowns there and said nothing about 3G shutting down) or how one shutdown date in Taiwan (Asia Pacific Telecom) had no source at all.
• "... and therefore were present in the list for a long time without any second guess by anyone though several contributors interacted in the meanwhile" - Sometimes incorrect or out-of-date information stays on WP even though edits were made in the meantime. It's a normal thing, and not a reason to reinstate said incorrect or out-of-date information.

I responded this time logged-in, addressing his points. I figured that it must be a mistake, but he responded saying that it was not, I felt as if this was wrong again because:

• "It is a matter of fact that a whole bunch of information vanished without any reason since 06 Mar 2022 in a sequence of obviously unorganised an chaotic edits - and that is definitely not in common interest" - Nothing vanished... I was merging two tables together, and removing some things that I found to be wrong or inaccurate. The purpose of my original talk page messages was to explain most of what I removed and why.
• "So against this background I clearly request to quit any further destructive approaches ..." - Nothing was destructive! I was simply merging my duplicate table with an existing one.

I'm lost as to what to do here; I'm unsure if this is just a weird language barrier issue, intentional bad faith, or WP:OWN behavior, but it's gotten past a point where I could use another opinion or some help; WP:3RR has probably been broken by this point at the main article already and I don't wish to cause more conflict.

wizzito | say hello! 08:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Wizzito, Your interpretation of WP:LOGOUT is plain wrong. You edited the article interchangeably as yourself & your IP for over a month. That is WP:LOUTSOCK sockpuppetry. You took no steps to contact an oversighter. Cabayi (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  I count 35 pages in which both you and your IP have edited, including four in which you have reverted the changes of another editor to the revision made by your IP. Three days is a customary first block for this level of sockpuppetry. Cabayi (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Not an admin, but just to comment, I don't see this as an ANI issue. It is a content dispute that should be handled in other ways. The poster's inadvertent outing of themselves as a possible WP:LOUTSOCK notwithstanding, the content dispute could do with attention from outside the current active editors of the page, and I've started having a look at it. Of course, to get this attention the issue should have been posted elsewhere. SamBC(talk) 15:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Block of Wizzito

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

---

@Cabayi: Why did you block Wizzito without giving him a chance to respond? Yes, he misinterpreted the policy. But we have an enormously productive editor, 1000x WP:HERE, who made a single mistake. I truly doubt he intended to engage in deliberate deception. This seems WP:PUNITIVE, and a complete failure to WP:AGF. Or have WP:LOUTSOCK issues been discussed with Wizzito before? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirded. Especially if there's no evidence of the user trying to act as if their logged out self was a separate individual (such as gaming 3RR that way or pretending to be separate people in a discussion). Silverseren^C 23:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Fourthed. In the discussion at that talk page they link themselves with the IP; while I can understand the concern that they might have been unintentionally misleading, as they have not tried to deceive other editors good faith should be been assumed and the issue explained to Wizzito rather than jumping straight to a block - they should be unblocked with a note stating that the previous block was in error.

I'm also not convinced they have breached LOUTSOCK; the closest they come to doing so is with the rule on Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts, but there is an exception for clearly linked, legitimate, alternative accounts and given they disclosed on the talk page that they were the IP I believe that exception applies - although it is generally inadvisable and would suggest that Wizzito avoid doing so in the future.

As a side note, whoever redacted the IP address in 3G may want to do the same on the talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

72 hours for an editor with no previous blocks and no warning on their talk page is out of line. IMO this is punitive rather than preventative. Please explain yourself @Cabayi:. MarnetteD|Talk 00:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Since Cabayi has on their user page a notice saying "Feel free to revert any of my admin actions without consulting me (we're all trying to enforce the same policies)", any other admin should feel free to unblock Wizzito. And I think there's enough of a consensus here for any admin to do so. Silverseren^C 01:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this one looks kinda questionable to me. I dropped a line on Cabayi's talk page asking them to either take another look or offer a more detailed explanation that addresses some of the above concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Per Cabayi above: "I count 35 pages in which both you and your IP have edited, including four in which you have reverted the changes of another editor to the revision made by your IP." If this wasn't a prolific editor, this would have been an indef, and nobody would have thought twice about it. A 72-hour block is being pretty nice about it. It's a pretty clearcut violation of LOUTSOCK, and is precisely the problem that LOUTSOCK is intended to address. There were zero contacts to oversighters from Wizzito about accidental log-out, although we have plenty of evidence that they know how to reach out to us. Risker (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Why would he contact oversight when he is open about the connection with the IP? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

What is this block preventing? We could just ask the editor not to edit logged out... Levivich 05:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Wizzito asserted above "yes, it is allowed, I'm not deceiving others" and linked to the policy on sockpupptry.

The policy's 6th example is "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts:" Wizzito did that on 35 occasions.

The policy's 1st example is "Creating an illusion of support" which Wizzito did on the 4 instances where he reverted another user's edits to restore the revision of his IP, with an interval of just one minute for one of those. That was neither accidental or casual.

The policy's most lenient outcome is a block. Three days is a standard block for a an account's first socking case.

I self-reported both the oversighting and the block to the oversighters' mailing list for review as soon as I was done. Cabayi (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

For the sixth example, there is an exception for clearly linked, legitimate, alternative accounts. As Wizzito has clearly disclosed the IP as his, I believe the exception applies. In general, though I haven't seen specific examples outside of the 3G article, I believe based on this request that most of their edits as an IP are by mistake, such as forgetting to log in, either in general or when switching machines. BilledMammal (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• This looks like a simple misunderstanding of the rules on Wizzito's part, followed by a punitive block due to an overzealous application of a rule which probably shouldn't apply in a case like this.  Tewdar  09:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• (Crocodile Dundee voice) That's not a sockpuppeteer! This is a sockpuppeteer!!!  Tewdar  09:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• The IPs have been OS'd (an action I'm not sure I agree with, for what it's worth), so I'm not sure how productive a block review by non-OSers will be, since we can only speculate about whether or not abuse occurred, and if yes, to what extent. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I believe the diffs can still be linked (such as this one) BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Cabayi can you please explain what you meant by The policy's most lenient outcome is a block. Three days is a standard block for a an account's first socking case.? Cuz WP:NOTPUNITIVE, etc. We don't do mandatory minimum sentences here, surely you're not suggesting otherwise. What is this block preventing? Levivich 13:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I've posted a note on Wizzito's talkpage with the hope of helping to resolve this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Cabayi: for the avoidance of accidentally getting myself hauled in front of ArbCom: this is not a Checkuser or Oversight block of any kind, right? It doesn't say it is anywhere I can see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Well, it looks like Cabayi isn't around right now, I've re-read this thread and Wizzito's talk page and they don't seem to be calling it a Checkuser block anywhere, they say on their talk page it's OK to undo their admin actions, and there's a very clear consensus in this thread to undo the block. So I'm going to unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Let me join the chorus of other editors who note that the block is not within policy here. Wizzito serves no continuing threat to the encyclopedia, there is nothing the block is preventing, WP:AGF should have been applied regarding accidental logged out editing, and Wizzito has been publicly owning the IPs they used. This block needs to be undone, if not by Cabayi, then by consensus demonstrated in this discussion here. --Jayron32 15:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• @Cabayi: Seriously, this was plain insensitive, and not at all "genuine". You blocked a kid, who has been a frequent target of some disgusting harassment, who has been a member of this community for a third of his life, for doing something he thought was right, without a hint of warning. And the next step is for you to sneer at his utterly understandable reaction to this by dismissively calling it a "ragequit". Have you lost sight of the fact that there is a human being at the end of every connection? I feel sick. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Unblock I appreciate Cabayi's work as an admin and I'm painfully conscious that we all make mistakes now and then. So this is not an indictment. Wizzito's editing was in fact dancing a bit close to being inappropriate. But there are several things that cause me to believe this block was too hasty.
  • I see no clear evidence of bad faith in their actions.
  • They made no effort at all to disguise their identity. Quite the contrary, they were totally open about it.
  • No warnings were given and this does not strike me as rising to the level of a no warning block.
  • There is no evidence that this block serves any preventative purpose. Wizzito is not a threat to the project and I have a high degree of confidence that they will be extremely careful about this sort of thing going forward.

I recommend they be unblocked with a notation in the block log to the effect that the block was overturned on review at ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Unblocked already since I may have buried this information when I noted it further up in the thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• No, Floquenbeam, it wasn't a CU or OS block.
• No, Jayron32, it wasn't "accidental logged out editing". 800+ logged out edits, with 35 overlaps over several months is in no way accidental. Using both account & IP on a page within a minute is not an accident.
• "Fuck it. I'm leaving this website" reads like a ragequit to me, Suffusion of Yellow. No sneering, just a straight reading of the edit summary. Cabayi (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Interesting perspective Cabayi. How's that going for you? --Jayron32 16:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Good unblock, thanks Floq. I hope Cabayi and anyone else on the OS team who thought this was a good block takes away that no policy's most lenient outcome is a block and there is no such thing as a starting block, because blocking is WP:NOTPUNITIVE. Except in extreme circumstances (and this was not an extreme circumstances), blocks shouldn't be issued unless a warning was first issued, because, and it's worth saying again, blocks are WP:NOTPUNITIVE. That means if you can get someone to stop doing something by asking them to stop doing it, you should do that, and not block the person. Until and unless you've talked to the person, you have almost no reason to use admin tools; this is especially true when there is already an ongoing discussion with the person about the conduct at issue. There are no minimum blocks, no starting blocks, no mandatory blocks, and a block is never the most lenient outcome of any policy. Everyone on the OS team who thought otherwise should read this discussion and take it on board. Levivich 16:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Role account

Bobo.03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two years ago this account was changed to a role account.

I'm not sure what we're supposed to do in such circumstances, but it does seem to go against WP:ROLE. What are we supposed to do in such circumstances?

jps (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It hasn't edited for a while, but I'd suggest soft blocking it, and putting a polite notice inviting any individuals involved to create their own account, with a suggestion that they create usernames that indicate their involvement with the project (e.g. Joe@CMUHCI). Girth Summit _(blether) 12:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I realize this is tilting at windmills, but every time I see a report like this somewhere, I feel irresistibly compelled to point out that, while technically against The Rules, there is no rational basis for preventing this kind of account. IMHO, the correct response to "What are we supposed to do in such circumstances" is: Meh. Nothing. Don't worry about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair. However, then we should modify WP:ROLE. I don't know why that rule exists; maybe it shouldn't. jps (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Isn't there a CC copyright attribution issue with role accounts? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. CC requires attribution to the creator of the work, or attribution in accordance with the Licensor's wishes, and there is no reason the Licensor and/or creator couldn't be an organization rather than an individual. The CC Wiki says: Sometimes, the licensor may want you to give credit to some other entity, like a company or pseudonym. In rare cases, the licensor may not want to be attributed at all. In all of these cases, just do what they request. I don't see why a role account would be a problem from a CC standpoint.

I think a bigger challenge is verifying a role account. If there was a "User:Acme, Inc.", we'd have to somehow get some kind of verification that Acme, Inc. authorized the user account to be its official account (and to create copyrighted works in the name of the company, and to license them under our license, etc.). We'd have to have a "verified" status much like other social media, and then we'd have to have someone (volunteers? WMF?) to process verification requests.

Without verification, I'm not sure how we can rely on the license. I suspect that's the reason behind disallowing role accounts. Levivich 15:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this is an argument for making sure that attribution is to the username only and not any external identity be it individual or group! If an account is declared to be a "role" account and the account chooses a name against WP:UNAME policy, then that's one thing. But if it is a role account and has a username like Bobo.03, I don't see the problem being one of "verification". jps (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict, it appears I'm repeating much of what Levivich wrote) That's what people say. But I've never heard a good explanation of why that would be true, BUT it isn't a CC violation when a role account explicitly approved by WMF makes an edit (remember CC violations are legal, not local policy, so if it actually is a violation, WMF can't say "it's OK because it's us"). Also, that would presumably preclude IP edits, too, but no one is preventing those. If someone makes an edit from a shared IP, why is that OK, but not when they make an edit from a shared account? I really think the copyright issue is not true.

The only actual rational reason to prevent role accounts is, if we give one to Coca Cola Co., then we have to start policing them to make sure it isn't someone from the social media dept of Pepsi Co. having a troll. Or a disgruntled Coke employee changing the password and email and now Coke doesn't have an account anymore. We don't want to get into that large scale, I suspect. But this is not a concern for the current situation, hence my suggestion we simply chose to not worry about it. As long as everyone involved with a role account is behaving themselves, and understands that the role account will be blocked if any one of them acts up, it isn't an actual problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: dewiki does exactly that, see de:Kategorie:Benutzer:Verifiziert (most of these users are role accounts, many of them paid). I always weep when I see one of these accounts that have gone through the hoops of verification via VRT (see de:Wikipedia:Support-Team) blocked on enwiki. We have SUL, but behaviour that is encouraged on dewiki (editing from an authenticated role account) earns an instant block on enwiki. —Kusma (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This is an excellent argument for trashing the rule. We can discourage role accounts, but to eliminate them entirely seems like a rule that is causing more problems than it likely solves. jps (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I am writing an OER textbook right now and am pretty aware that a CC license does not care whether the author is an individual or a group. That this argument forms part of the WP:SOCK policy might indicate that it was a result of concern over weird gaming of the sort where people with individual accounts sockpuppet with role accounts? I could see this as a concern over someone perhaps trying to skirt around a block/ban... but that would be an illegitimate use of an account in any case and does not seem a justification for simply banning all role accounts. jps (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I have started a VP thread on this matter. Feel free to comment there: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Role_accounts. jps (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I see from the comments above that my initial suggestion seems a little out of step with the way me learnèd colleagues are leaning. I've always assumed that the policy enjoyed strong community support because, well, it was policy, and I've enforced it as such. If none of us can remember why it's policy, and we're happy to ignore it, then a move to change it is the way to go. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive unsourced editams/edit warring to Tutsi by IP.

An IP editor (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2404:3C00:903F:F800:253A:9493:9DA1:2DE2) is making unsourced edits to Tutsi, intially removing a large amount of sourced material and replacing it with material sourced to a non-peer-reviewed blog. I reverted them here [[180]], first explaining the issues with their edits. They then reinstated material derived from the conclusion of the blog (in contradiction to the reliable sources) without explanation here [[181]]. They were reverted by User:Melecie here [[182]] who also left a template message on their Talk page regarding reliable sourcing.

They ignored Melecie and reintroduced their edit again here [[183]] without explanation again with another unsourced edit, and I reverted them a second time here [[184]] with a warning that they would be reported if it continued. They reinstated their edit again (with no explanation) here [[185]] (along with four other unsourced edits)

The user seems intent on edit warring, to push their POV regardless of sources, policies and explanations and and to show no willingness to engage.

Here is the page's edit history for reference:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Tutsi Skllagyook (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

:Skllagyook, for future reference, you must notify an editor on their talk page when you start an ANI discussion about them. I've done this for you. Quid Est Squid (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't realize you had already notified the IP. Quid Est Squid (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

/64 blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

TPA of 109.185.107.64

109.185.107.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) misused their talk page after blocked, TPA revoke seemed needed.PAVLOV (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Widr revoked it a few minutes after you posted here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! PAVLOV (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Undue harrassment from User:Praxidicae on my talk page

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

---

I'm reaching out to request assistance with a problem I'm having with another user on my talk page. I feel that Praxidicae is unfairly targeting me and my publishing to a degree that makes me feel unsafe continuing to act as an editor on Wikipedia, and has caused me distress offline as well. I do take editing BLPs serious, as evidenced by my many well-cited contributions to figure skating related pages, but I now feel as though I am being stalked by this user for editing in a way that many other users in the figure skating editing community subgroup edit and have not been targeted for. Please advise. Clemkr (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

First, a courtesy ping to Drmies. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

You were warned by other users for your editing and use of unreliable sources. This is not harassment, just unpleasant. You should not feel unsafe though as no one is threatening you. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Nevetheless, I do. I would very much like to be left alone and not have every single one of my edits moving forward scrutinized. This happened today, and I am extremely uncomfortable. Clemkr (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Clemkr Is this about the discussion at User_talk:Clemkr#April_2022, or is there more to it than that (if so, please provide diffs). On the face of it, I see Praxidicae and Drmies giving you some advice about not editing BLPs without citing sources; you continuing to edit BLPs without citing sources; and then them reminding you about those earlier warnings. The solution to this is always to cite a source when editing a BLP, not to complain about people scrutinising your work. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is. They began immediately by threatening to block me, then proceeded approach me in what I feel is an unnecessarily aggressive manner. If there is an issue, I would appreciate being addressed in a collegial and educational manner, and to not continue to be monitored by another user who has no authority to do so. I am citing my sources. Is there truly nothing that can be done to prevent further contact with this user? Clemkr (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Every edit by anyone can be scrutinized. If there is an issue with your editing, it makes sense that others would go through and check your edits to see if the problem is widespread. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It does look like they were reverting rather quickly, not giving you time to find sources and fix the issues. However, verifiability is one of the core tenets of Wikipedia, and the burden is on the person adding information to provide reliable sources. Once unsourced information is removed it should not be readded without a source. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

ONUnicorn contrary to your statement, I was not "going too fast" - Clemkr first created a biography was largely unsourced, I edited said biography a full 24 hours after they had even touched it, four minutes after my removal - not a revert Clemkr reverted my cleanup of unsourced BLP content without so much as a single explanation as to why, nor a single source. The second BLP I edited, much the same as the first, was 24 hours later. If that is defined as "too quick", well that's not congruent with our WP:BLP policy or WP:V. clemkr isn't a new user, their desire to be left alone is also irrelevant if they aren't going to abide by Wikipedia's core tenets and the bare minimum of sourcing. CUPIDICAE💕 17:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I did not say you were "going too fast". I said you were "reverting rather quickly, not giving [Clemkr] time to . . . fix the issues". What I was referring to there was this edit. At 10:16 you removed some unsourced text Clemkr added to Anastasia Golubeva. Clemkr reverted your removal at 10:17, and you reverted Clemkr at 10:18. That did not give them a chance to do anything to fix the unsourced issue. Admittedly, they should not have readded it without fixing the issue, but personally I would have waited at least a few minutes to see if it got fixed in a subsequent edit. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. The problem that I take issue with is the fact that they continue to badger me without giving me any chance to find sources. I do not want to continue to be a part of this community if I'm going to constantly have to answer to this one person who is looking over my shoulder and waiting for an opportunity to pounce within moments at any move. Clemkr (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't add statements to a BLP unless you have the sources to back them. It's that simple. Favonian (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you would need time to find sources. Presumably, if you are making a change to an article, you have already found the sources? Simply cite your sources at the same time as changing content, and you won't have any further problems. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, it does look like they were moving rather quickly. Perhaps it would be better for them to slow down a little. That said, you should make sure everything you add is appropriately sourced going forward. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

You were edit warring over an unverified BLP. How you get "unsafe" out of that is not clear to me. That Praxidicae is looking over your shoulder constantly is a ridiculous claim. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's is the bottom line, Clemkr. Adding unreferenced biographies of living people is contrary to policy, namely Verifiability. You are not allowed to add unreferenced content and then maybe sometime later, add the references. No. You are not being harassed. Add the references as you add the content. The warnings you received were proper, and if you continue adding unreferenced content, you will surely be blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

As I told you before, I was not edit warring. I wanted to be able to access my content so I could add sources. Simple as that. Please do not tell me how to feel in a situation that does not involve you. This is the second day in a row that Praxidicae has monitored my edits and behaved aggressively toward me. Clemkr (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

If you needed to see the removed content in order to add sources, you could do that without reverting/readding the unsourced content using the preview button. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

or even going into the history and clicking on the old id to see the page as it was. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) The purpose of Wikipedia editing is to create an encyclopedia. Anything else we try to do, such as not hurting anyone's feelings, is subordinate to that. Some experienced users have simply given you some advice. If good advice makes you feel uncomfortable then just stop editing Wikipedia, as that makes you unsuitable for the task. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead and block me. If I can't at least be given the benefit of the doubt in this community, I don't want to be here anymore. Fucking years of producing quality work and this is how it ends. Whatever. Clemkr (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• I have (some) sympathies for the OP - reverts like this are in breach of established policy. Fwiw, I did not evaluate Prax's reverts. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This is an undo in twinkle which can be done by anyone who has twinkle installed, it is not a revert in the sense of rollback and thus not against any policy. The user who undid their edit was entirely correct. CUPIDICAE💕 17:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I know about Twinkle. So, it is your claim that we cannot source statements of retirement from social media profiles? Wow. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Another useless revert from Prax. The source was already in the body; Ref 3. Clemkr did add nothing except putting the table to text, and only the last line (factoid about third Australian pair team) was unsourced. Inline citations are only a requirement for controversial (or likely-to-be-challenged) statements in BLP. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• I feel like this could be resolved amicably if everyone gave the dispute some breathing room. But that doesn't seem to be happening, and I feel like I know where this is headed without any way of stopping it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC) added and after reading posts made since I started composing this... I was right. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) WP:HA#NOT would be a good read for the OP, as I don't see anything to indicate that what Praxidicae is doing is harassment. Reversions of policy violations, especially BLP violations, is perfectly within policy and does not constitute harassment. If Praxidicae were hounding the OP and constantly following the OP from page to page, that would be harassment, but simply cleaning up after someone not editing within policy (especially when it comes to BLP's) does not constitute harassment and accussations of harassment of that sort can in itself constitute harassment. As WP:NPA#WHATIS itself states "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.", for which the OP has insofar failed to provide any diffs that prove or suggest that what Praxidicae is doing is harassment.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  With all due respect, they have followed me from page to page. I do not edit WP frequently, but after writing on my page yesterday, they followed the two edits that I made today, one on 2021-22 figure skating season, and one on Nicole Della Monica, which was relevant because of the previous edit I'd made, which was cited. I believe that my edit of Nicole Della Monica was proper, and yet they left another talkspace message demanding to know what'd done. Clemkr (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Please note that Praxidicae did NOT edit Nicole Della Monica that was me I reverted your edit because Instagram is not usually considered a reliable source, but I reverted myself here [186] because the content (her retirement) is not contentious. User:Praxidicae has not edited 2021–22 figure skating season either? Theroadislong (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The edits weren't "unsourced". They were almost entirely sourced to the ISU website. There was a couple lines that weren't sourced, but were very easily verifiable. Also, the sources weren't unreliable. The ISU website is a reliable source for skater statistics. What Clemkr did was build a BLP based on primary sources, and that's not great, but it's not the same thing as being unsourced or unreliably sourced. Meanwhile, Prax's first interaction with Clem, AFAICT, was to place a level 4 BLP warning. Drmies did in fact threaten to block. Both of them did "follow" Clem to other articles and also removed "unsourced" info that was actually sourced. Both handled this poorly IMO, and now Clem has retired. That's too bad. A better way to have handled this would have been to leave a non-template message about not using only primary sources for BLPs. No template warnings or threats to block were needed here, nor was the removal of content (no inline cite, but a reliable primary source at the bottom of the article). Clemkr, sorry you were treated this way, hope you return. Levivich 20:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich Nicely put. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. - WP:BLP - you don't get to be the sole determiner of "challenged" and further, the op even admitted to not sourcing content. Until and unless our BLP policy changes, unsourced, undersourced and poorly sourced content will continue to be removed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If you wanna put me on the chopping block for that, be my guest.CUPIDICAE💕 21:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Malicious compliance etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not malicious. I, like others have a more conservative approach to WP:BLP and it is supported by policy. Some people have a more conservative approach toward, say, deleting G11s and the like. If you'd like to show me diffs proving I'm being malicious about my approach to be BLP, I'm all ears, or in this case, eyes. Thanks. CUPIDICAE💕 21:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @TrangaBellam I would urge you to strike that comment. "Malicious" or "malice" implies specific, nefarious intent, and I would interpret that as a personal attack. Singularity42 (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I can assume that you are unfamiliar with the usage of the part. word in different contexts? EBC, Encyc. of Arbitration Law, 2018: Mal. compl. has also been used, outside civil law, to characterize executive actions effected in the most literal way without caring about the conformance of outcome to the intended goals of the legislation. [..]

Our BLP policies were not meant to screen out content, which was already sourced in a table, from being reproduced as text in a section, just above. Neither were they meant to prohibit usage of self-declarations about retirement in social media profiles from being used as a source about retirement in our articles. Prax defends both.

Nobody is calling for Prax to be put on the chopping block (except OP; I, Lev and ONU merely claimed that they should have had handled the situation better with some of the reverts being unnecessary) but she ought be receptive to feedback. Her continuing to insist that the reverts are technically covered under a literal reading of the policy while choosing to remain unaware about how her actions compelled a well-meaning editor to retire is sub-optimal.

Once again, I am calling for nobody's head or accusing that they acted in bad-faith. That's the last from me in this thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Saying that it was malicious compliance is indeed implying that there was malice which would require bad-faith. But this is pointless. Our BLP policy is very clear. CUPIDICAE💕 22:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

OK let's do the diff timeline thing:

• April 18 14:14 and 14:14 #2 were not unsourced at all; they were sourced by Reference #1; though there was no inline citation, one is not required, and the lack of one is no reason to remove the content
• 14:14 #3, edit summary entirely unsourced, and 14:16 were only partially unsourced (and uncontroversial, and verifiable)
• The first post on Clem's talk page, 14:17, thread entitled BLP warning, with a DS warning (you know, the one that says "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.", emphases in the original), followed by the note As a note you must source all statements in a BLP, continued failure to do so will result in a block., was extremely unfriendly and uncalled for
• 14:18, level 4 template warning, was also over the top and uncalled for
• 14:19 was partly unsourced. The first part was sourced to Reference #1. The second part was sourced to an unreliable source (but was nevertheless uncontroversial and easily verifiable).
• Drmies threats to block at 14:20 and April 18 14:20 #2 were similarly over the top and uncalled for, even though Clem had reverted Prax, given the rapid timing of these edits.
• At 14:21, Clem asks, Will you all please back off? I can't add references if you keep deleting the information. Prax's response: No, BLP and sourcing is a core tenet. You should be adding sources as you make the edit, not after. It went further downhill from there.

This is an example of the toxic atmosphere on Wikipedia. The project is not benefitted when editors act like "BLP cops" who are "busting" "BLP criminals". This was a ridiculously heavy-handed approach to a minor issue about inline citations and primary sources. I would also feel harassed if I were Clem, and I feel ashamed of our community's collective response here. Levivich 22:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Legal Threats made by Editor DenverCoder19

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

---

User DenverCoder19 made subtle legal threats on 2 different occasions on the talk page for Amy Wax:

[[187]] "Per BLP, this introduces legal issues. "racist", or any other "-ist" or "-ism" that could introduce legal issues at a public-funded university."

[[188]] "Any accusation that could be grounds for legal action (at a university that accepts public funding) introduces a lot of complications, per BLP."Moses Blomstein (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I would say these are less threats and more inelegant attempts to make BLP objections, which are founded, if not necessarily persuasive. I don't know if you have notified the editor, but they should indeed be phrasing things a different way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

DenverCoder19 is right, even if he could have worded it better. Any biographical claim that involves potentially libelous claims or allegations of criminality must be kept out of Wikipedia absent VERY strong sourcing. These aren't legal threats. Not even close. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I've taken to the user's talk page in an attempt to explain Wikipedia vernacular, and they seem receptive. As such, I don't think anything else needs to be done here. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to note here for wider audiences, there are very much BLP concerns here under WP policies, but there is precisely zero legal exposure. A statement of opinion based on disclosed facts can never be defamation in the US. Just in case anyone was actually worried about being sued. I know we hold ourselves to a higher standard, and rightly so, but our handwringing should be about BLP policy and not court action. --50.234.188.27 (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Hemanttantia1966

Hemanttantia1966 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hemant Tantia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The above user is edit-warring to add unsourced promotional content to his biography, after being informed of WP:CoI guidelines etc. Frankly, I'm surprised that the article has existed on Wikipedia for so long, but even in the unlikely chance that the subject is found to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, it clearly isn't appropriate to have it written by the subject himself. At minimum, a partial block would seem necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the user from that specific page for 48 hours. Let's see if that gets his attention. Oz\^InterAct 11:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

As for the article itself, if it's in doubt whether the person is notable, it should be nominated for deletion. Oz\^InterAct 11:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Inter: it has been nominated for deletion. 晚安 (トークページ) 11:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyrighted lyrics in sandbox

this is the full lyrics to 99 Red Balloons and is a WP:COPYVIO. Policy didn't say where to report copyvios in the edit history so I'm reporting here. 184.170.97.79 (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

According to the sandbox's deletion log, WP:RD1 has been used before. I believe that this is the relevant history range, with a clean revision on each side. Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Deleted. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

In the future, {{copyvio-revdel}} can be used to request RD1 redactions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Need a new rangeblock on LTA Dolby–Blob–Cars

• 2607:FEA8:BD61:2500:0:0:0:0/50 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dolby–Blob–Cars vandal

Two IPs involved in recent disruption related to the case Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dolby–Blob–Cars vandal, the two being Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:BD61:2500:E0DB:E3E:3971:713D and Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:BD61:2500:8DBA:C236:F169:65A4. Looking back to November, the disruption widens to a /50 range.

Whatever range seems appropriate, this persistent vandalism needs to be rangeblocked. It's been going on for 15 years. Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Note that two months ago, Black Kite blocked the range Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:BD46:6400:0:0:0:0/64. The person has hopped to nearby numbers. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done x 6 months. Nothing but reverted edits in that range. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Binksternet (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Seeking a second rangeblock for Mauritius film fan and music maven

• 102.163.30.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 105.235.158.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone on the island of Mauritius has a longstanding passion for film topics—actors, actresses, film awards—and a keen interest in music topics. The issue is that they keep causing problems with their edits, and they don't ever communicate. They were rangeblocked for one year as Special:Contributions/102.163.30.0/24, after which they switched back to Special:Contributions/105.235.158.0/24, which has been blocked three times. Blocking admins include Ponyo, NinjaRobotPirate and Scottywong.

Today at Jane Fonda, they changed the birth name to be wrong. Sometimes they get into genre warring.[189] They introduce many grammar errors, poor English, and they often show incomplete comprehension of the topic. The person has competence problems, yet they are prolific. Binksternet (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Range blocked for a year this time. Almost certainly the same person as the CU blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Threat of violence

An edit-warring IP editor is making threats of violence at Greeks for the Fatherland: [190]. Can we please have the revisions deleted, and the page temporarily semi-protected? Storchy (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for making threats. Not sure we need to revdel and protect the page. Lets see where it goes. Canterbury Tail talk 14:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This is block evasion by Αθλητικά/Derzki. I'm not giving away any CU results there - I can't remember their IPs off the top of my head - but from the editing style and the choice of articles, it's pretty ducky. Feel free to report future occurences to SPI (or AIV when it's this obvious). Girth Summit _(blether) 16:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Cordless Larry +1

Cordless Larry +1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have been set up to impersonate me. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• I have blocked them. --Jayron32 15:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• To upvote you, surely? Or help you out at the last minute for a friend's wedding? Or just to demonstrate Peano's axioms? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  This is no way to treat your wedding date, Larry, just because they want to edit Wikipedia... Levivich 17:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Frediemie

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

This is an editor who replaces WP:DEADREFs with working URLs, where any given day of edits from them has several neutral replacements of dead references, and one or two terrible affiliate-link blogs about household appliances, mostly air purifiers or dehumidifiers. They received a level 4 warning for spamming last July. Draft:Air Purifier CADR Determination was an article they created in October that got moved to draft space, and where five of its eight references point to affiliate-link blog entries on cleanairdeliveryrate.com. This is either a persistent spammer promoting the same few blog domains, or a well-meaning affiliate blog fan doing as much damage as one. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, are they replacing the entire source or only the URL? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes just the URL, sometimes the website field as well. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, they are clearly are not attempting to fix these dead links before replacing them, since I quickly found this for the second diff, and they need to change the entire citation when making those changes, not just the URL; e.g. this edit fundamentally changed whatever resource was being pointed to. I think it will probably be necessary to rollback all of their edits, but I'm not immediately convinced a block is necessary; has anyone tried to explain to them why what they are doing is problematic? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

To some extent. There's a discussion at User_talk:Longhair#Reply_To_Reverted_Article from last July, immediately after they received a level 4 warning, where they're asked to be more careful about what links they add, and told that commercial links are generally not welcome. --Lord Belbury (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

BoMadsen88

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mfikriansori

on Republic of Artsakh: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1083792110

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1083791916

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1083777382

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1083771809

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1083722596

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1083611848

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1076808447

on Dimdim Castle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimdim_Castle&oldid=1083784705

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimdim_Castle&oldid=1083788546

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimdim_Castle&oldid=1083789022

Mfikriansori is conducting pro Azerbaycan edits, putting Azeri name to Kurdish castles in Iran, and doing own research on Armenain separarist region in Caucasus.

He is now banned for all deleting of edits, but i want to make the others aware of his actions thank you.

Əfşar Əliyev (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked both editors for 24 hours for both violating 3RR. Some of their back and forth on talk pages also crosses the line into personal attacks. I'm hoping that the 24 hour block will allow for a cool off and will be enough to remind the editors in question that we take edit warring and personal attacks seriously, but if there's further disruption this can be revisited. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

TPA of StripedOkapi

StripedOkapi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user created various of invalid unblock requests and attacked me using his talk page. A TPA revoke seemed needed.PAVLOV (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pavlov - please don't take this the wrong way, but why are you engaging with someone like that on their talk? A couple of essays I recommend to people are WP:DENY and WP:RBI. Don't feed them... Girth Summit _(blether) 20:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Oklahoma City bombing

Hi - I'm about to log out, but it might be useful for an uninvolved admin to look at Oklahoma City bombing, and the recent spate of edits there by Anamelesseditor, which seem to me to be removing sourced content in a somewhat POV manner. I've reverted a couple of times, so am not taking action there myself to avoid any accusations of WP:INVOLVED, but I believe they have already blown past 3RR, despite my (non-templated) messages on their talk, and discretionary sanctions notifications. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

User reverted and warned - and I will block if they remove anything from there again. GiantSnowman 20:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

....and they've done it again so they've been indeffed. GiantSnowman 20:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)