Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yamla (talk | contribs) at 09:54, 3 February 2022 (→‎Racist conspiracy mongering on userpage.: Resolved (community ban, topic ban)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    User:CRS-20 repeatedly changing date formats

    CRS-20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The user CRS-20 has repeatedly been changing the date formats from "mdy" to "dmy", and the associated templates, for articles related to US spaceflight, which goes against the guidance in MOS:DATETIES. This user has been asked multiple times by multiple users to use US date formatting for US-centric articles, but has continued to make these edits.

    Diffs showing changes from "mdy" to "dmy"

    Space Shuttle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Crew Dragon Demo-1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Requests to not change date formats

    -Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    If an admin looks into this, I would request that they also do something (such as a final warning, ideally) about how CRS-20 simply does not communicate. I have been annoyed off-and-on for over a year by how CRS-20 rarely replies on their talk page. A few times they have replied in French (1, 2, 3), so there might be a language barrier. Here's one particularly bad example of them never replying, even though I consider the issue I brought up to be severe. Here's a more recent case with no reply or change of behavior. Sometimes there is a minimal reply, such as these five sections on the talk page (e.g. see here for a minimal reply that doesn't really address the question). Here's the most recent. Here are the unsorted miscellaneous examples with me: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, links copied from here. Just to be fair and present the whole story, a few times, such as here, I have actually gotten an interaction. Leijurv (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU situation; none of CRS-20's contributions are tagged as mobile, so they are choosing not to communicate. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 16:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example just today of (what I perceive to likely be) a language barrier is here, with It's not his function. reading like something translated from another language, and, on top of that, not really demonstrating any understanding of what Balon is saying and why. Leijurv (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Does an admin have a take on this? Report has been open for a while. Curbon7 (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    CRS-20 has received more than enough patient explanations and warnings, and is still editing at a breakneck pace without having addressed the concerns here at all. I am going to go ahead and impose an indefinite block that can be lifted as soon as they've demonstrated a commitment and ability to communicate and cooperate with other editors. signed, Rosguill talk 21:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, CRS-20 has engaged with editors on their talk page following the block, so I've gone ahead and unblocked them. If the date changing disputes cease then I think we're done here. signed, Rosguill talk 14:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Lugnuts and revenge AfDs

    User:Lugnuts has received some attention here and some restrictions, I guess I don't need to rehash this here. He is now disrupting AfD, on the one hand by accusing User:Cbl62 of being a proxy for User:Johnpacklambert at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gösta Grandin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnolds Krūkliņš, and on the other hand by starting revenge AfDs against Johnpacklambert, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conners Creek, Michigan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duboisville, Michigan, on the latter even claiming that it fails WP:V even though it was very easy to confirm its existence and find multiple sources. Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramdasa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. C. Nelson, ...

    Can please something be done to make it clear that taking articles on viable topics to AfD as a revenge for having your own articles at AfD is very poor practice and should stop? Fram (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, not informing JohnpackLambert of these AfDs was a rather poor decision as well, but fits the pattern I guess. Fram (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      • Interestingly I was informed of the 2 later mentione AfDs, and 1 other that is not named above, but the 2 on places that are now part of the city of Detroit I was given no notice on. So it is not that Lugnuts does not know how to inform editors of AfDs, he just chose not to place notice of the 2 on places in Michigan on my talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • For pity's sake, at what point is Lugnuts' manifest and ongoing bad faith going to stop? Quite aside from that it's a horrible look for the Wikipedia champion of creating SIGCOV-less two-sentence sub-stubs sourced only to databases, how many disruptive bites of the apple does this guy get to have? I'd be entirely comfortable with Lugnuts getting an indefinite topic ban from the AfD process (except for commenting in defense of his own article creations), to add to his mounting block and tban tally.

      And the further question is this: at what point will we be forced to conclude that Lugnuts is not here to build an encyclopedia so much as he views Wikipedia as a zero-sum battleground of combats to be won and enemies to be thwarted? Ravenswing 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • He did it again [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff, Michigan]. This may in fact be a valid AfD nomination, but he has again failed to notify me as the article creator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to clarify, "he did it again" could be misconstrued as "he did it again after this ANI report was opened", but it was started at the same time as the other AFDs. So it's more a case of "he did it another place that hasn't previously been mentioned". I was initially confused, so wanted to prevent others from being confused. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Your point is well taken. His failure to post notice on my talk page about these nominations made it harder to keep track of when they were occuring.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. C. Nelson, where Lugnuts took a gratuitous dig at Johnpacklambert's religion, knowing that he is unable to respond. Unseemly. Cullen328 (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have taken the liberty to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duboisville, Michigan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duboisville, Michigan, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. C. Nelson, as Speedy Keeps. These are NAC's done under WP:SKCRIT #2B: nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption. They could also be equally considered to qualify as criterion #2a: obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not just 2 sentence stubs. Most of the articles he created on gymnasts are wrong. He's created hundreds of articles stating that gymnasts competed in multiple events when they didn't make it out of qualifications. It's going to take a very long time to go through them and correct these mistakes. He clearly knows nothing about the subject, yet felt the need to create articles on it. Afheather (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ravenswing's suggestion is a good one. Let's make it a formal proposal.

    Proposal (Lugnuts AfD)

    Lugnuts is banned from the AfD process, except in defence of articles he has created.

    If the last part proves problematical, it can be rescinded. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment/oppose Looking at the most recent AfD noms by JPL, I see that half of the most recent ones (from 5th Jan) have targeted articles I created. Being somewhat vexed by this (and no, that's not an excuse), I picked some of JPL's creations at random. Many of them are fine. The ones I came upon were not/are not in the best shape, and would come under the comment of "SIGCOV-less two-sentence sub-stubs", above, sans the sourcing bit, such as this, this and this, for example. I did look for sourcing for all of these, and then logged the AfDs. I think other editors who found those stubs in those states might have done the same. However, I understand the tit-for-tat aproach this could be viewed as, for which I apologise, and for the spam comment too. Infact - @Johnpacklambert: I apologise for that comment about the spam/CoLDS and any offesene it may have caused.
    My AfD data is pretty good overall (if that counts for anything). Good faith works both ways, and I'm happy to not log AfDs for articles created by JPL that would be viewed by any reasonable editor as a "revenge AfD". As for the bit about not letting the article creator know about the AfD, WP:AFD states "Consider letting the authors know on their talk page" (my emp.) - it's not a requirement. Maybe that needs its own discussion/RfC. The outcome of this proposal may already be a fait accompli, but I've responded, held my hands up, promised not to repeat it and apologised. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: And so here we are, yet again. From another editor, I would credit Lugnuts' professing contrition, but he's done that before. Over, and over, and over again. He promised back at ANI in April that he had learned his lesson, and would stop creating sketchy sub-stubs to bolster his creation count; he broke his word there the next day. His block log is studded with exhortations of good faith going forward, apologies, atonements ... leading right into subsequent blocks. After being tbanned from new stub creation, he's turned his attention to new redirect creation, dozens in the last month. JPL's slowly working through the many thousands of unsourced sub-stubs Lugnuts has created, and so all of a sudden Lugnuts is on the one hand screeching BEFORE! at JPL while taking JPL's own article creations to AfD, with such threadbare evidence and rationales that they're being speedy-kept en masse.

      Enough. Lugnuts has been around a long time now. He has over a MILLION edits, and I don't think it's the slightest bit unreasonable that after all the blocks, after all the ANI threads, after all the edit warring, after all the disruptions, after the bans, we not only expect the civil and collegial behavior that we would out of a newbie with a couple hundred edits, but we hold him as accountable as we would that newbie for willful defiance of those standards, and that he'd have just enough common sense to recognize that he's on very thin ice and ought not go out of his way to lash out at other editors. At some point, to paraphrase Anne of Green Gables, we need to see adherence to civil behavior more than fulsome apologies after the fact. If Lugnuts is incapable by playing by the rules, if after all this time he still doesn't get it, then what the hell, people? Ravenswing 20:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support tban from AFD, except to defend own creations - This is clearly beyond the pale. Between the aspersions of proxying at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gösta Grandin, these (fairly clear) revenge AFDs, and all of the past history with problems in this area, it's clearly time to nip the problem in the bud and stop the disruption in this area. Past attempts to deal with this have not worked, so in order to stop the disruptive behavior, this looks necessary. Hog Farm Talk 20:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commentpersonal attacks and well poisoning removedIt is also clear that Lugnuts' AfD's were, as he admits, a "tit-for-tat." We could just ban all three of them from AfD, but I think it would be more productive for all three of them to simply agree to cease the behavior that got us into this mess in the first place, with sanctions to be involved only if they don't. I would strongly oppose any sanctions that don't address all three users involved in this mess, but frankly don't see the need for anything at all if people just move on and don't repeat the behavior that got us here. If they show an unwillingness to do that, so be it, we'll do what we need to to make it stop. But hopefully cooler heads can prevail. Smartyllama (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Smartyllama Unless you are willing to open a separate thread with direct evidence of proxying I suggest you withdraw the personal attack and well poisoning. Spartaz Humbug! 20:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is possible JPL was just writing for his own convenience and did not actually expect anyone else to do his bidding, I'll concede that, and if that's the case, apologize to JPL for my lack of WP:AGF. However, if that's the case, it was still unwise given his already-in-place sanctions since it could easily be interpreted as such. If he would simply agree to refrain from suggesting pages for deletion on his talk page beyond the extent that he would be able to nominate them at AfD, that would be sufficient in my mind. As for having this conversation in a separate thread, the issues are related so I think it's best to consolidate them all in one place. But I don't particularly care about the formatting one way or the other, so do whatever is more convenient. Smartyllama (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I removed it for you. Don’t restore it, if you have an allegation open a separate thread. Spartaz Humbug! 21:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it is worth I am not trying to work through Lugnuts creations at all. I am working through 1912 births, and have been going backwards through the years from 1927 or so. I have since the end of December in part focused on the state of Olympian articles I come across. The fact that a large percentage of those that do not meet our inclusions criteria that I end up taking to AfD are from one creator is a function of who created what percentage of those articles, not from any actual attempt to target the work of one person on my part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never mentioned either of the articles I was alleged to have been proxying in my post. I mentioned a totally different person. That I have to even point that out is very odd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'm convinced that Lugnuts, unfortunately, has become a net negative at AfD. (t · c) buidhe 21:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commemt — Unfortunately the trio of Fram, Lugnuts and Johnpacklambert are all editors I have high regards for, thus I’d recusing myself from either supporting or opposing this, but I’d make a few statements (off topic) prior addressing anything else. I see that editors time and time again are irate about Lugnuts's article creation to that I’d say they have always created articles that meet/met WP:PSA and satisfy the relevant SNG thus Lugnuts is in the right & if people are left underwhelmed by this then an RFC should be started to that effect as to the bare minimum of paragraphs before an article should be moved to mainspace. Now to the issue on ground, I’d like to state definitively that revenge nom's are tasteless and in the past I have “speedy kept” AFD's I believe were created in bad faith. Infact i speak about this on my Userpage, see; User:Celestina007#True Editor Growth, thus I applaud Eggishorn for doing the needful, In my experience Revenge Noms are disruptive because more often than not they are without merit. Furthermore it is improper to swear at AFD's thus i do not appreciate Lugnuts's choice of words at the AFD. It is also improper to say an editor acts as a proxy without cogent proof & that is seriously an egregious accusation to make if it can’t be corroborated, Having said I appreciate Lugnuts because they are an archetypal example of a “serial article creator” stub or not. it is unfortunate that this has spiraled into this, if there is a possible manner Lugnuts can be warned without any formal community enforced sanctions I’d be happy but as earlier stated I wouldn’t be supporting nor opposing this, I however fully understand the frustration on the part of Fram, JPL, RW & Buidhe. Hopefully this can resolved (amicably) without enforced sanctions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The creator of an article should not have to be contacted, when that article is being nominated for deletion. Such a contact-requirement hints of acknowledging a type of ownership. I wouldn't favour such a requirement. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Contacting the article creator makes sense when the article is new. Perhaps the creator was in the process of adding relevant information regarding notability or knew more about the subject that he/she did not include. The contact will act as a spur to improve the article. Once the article has been around awhile, contacting the creator doesn't seem a necessity. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think it's acknowledging a kind of ownership so much as acknowledging that there's a good chance they have an opinion on whether the article should be retained. Acknowledging ownership would be to give that opinion additional weight because they're the creator, which we don't do. Theknightwho (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notifying the creator of something when it is sent to deletion seems fair IMHO....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      From the WP:AfD page - While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. -Indy beetle (talk)
      Not to mention that it just feels like common-sense and basic courtesy... Begoon 17:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh. What concerns me is counting article creations (95,525, 95,926, 95,545), being tbanned from making articles under 500 words, and then switching to counting category creations (7,871, 7,872, 7,873). This, combined with the "revenge AFDs", makes me question whether Lugnuts sees Wikipedia as a game, with a PvP component, and is trying to hit the high score. But he's apologized for the AFDs and said he won't do it again, so I don't see why we can't just accept that as resolving the issue; I don't see this AFD problem as so longstanding or widespread that we need a sanction to prevent further disruption. Levivich 01:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. An AFD topic ban does not really focus on, or address, the problem identified here; and allowing Lugnuts to participate in discussions involving their own articles (where much of the problematic behaviour seems to occur) seems to undermine the intent. Lugnuts appears to understand why their actions in targeting JPL's creations were unacceptable, even if it should not have needed pointing out to them, so it's probably best to accept their assertion that it will not happen again. Most concerning are the personal attacks and casting aspersions, which absolutely must stop. Given the volume of database entry-type stubs Lugnuts has created, it should have come as no surprise to them that cleanup efforts included a significant proportion of their creations. It would also be helpful if Lugnuts did not hamper such efforts by reverting bold redirects without appropriate rationale or article improvement, resulting in avoidable AFDs. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support at what point do we notice a user disrupting every area they turn to and realize that it's the user that is the problem here, not the specific area they're popping up in? Since there doesn't seem to be much stomach for the simpler solution, sure, let's keep going and adding more restrictions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @David Fuchs: I'll tell you at what point: at the point at which you're ready to make a site ban proposal. Are we there? If so, go ahead and make the proposal, I'll probably !vote for it. But adding one bespoke sanction after another for what are really limited infractions... meh. Go for it all or it's not worth our time. Levivich 17:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think such a proposal would go anywhere, hence I'm not proposing it. If this restriction passes there is the slightly higher chance either Lugnuts figures out maybe being disruptive isn't a good idea and modifies his behavior, or it's another sanction to throw on the case for the inevitable ban discussion. My experience with wiki disputes is you're better off doing something to roll the boulder rather than waiting for it to come back down the hill. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think such a proposal would go anywhere, either, and maybe you're right about doing something. The way I process this is like this: if I'm at the point where I no longer believe that if Lugnuts says "I won't do it again," he won't actually do it again, then I should support (or maybe even propose) a siteban. Personally I'm not at that point. I've made plenty of criticisms of Lugnuts's editing, but breaking promises isn't among them. So I figure he should be treated like anyone else in this situation: you mess up, you say sorry won't happen again, you're given the chance to make good on it. I fear that editors already under sanctions will feel like they can't afford to make a mistake or else they'll get in serious trouble, and that's a tough way to edit, it's tough to expect reform from someone who feels they're under a microscope. I do see your point of view, though. To each their own? Levivich 19:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I rarely frequent AFDs, as I'm not an overly good judge of what article should or shouldn't exist. Just wasn't one to learn many of Wikipedia's alphabet soup article status rules. I figured leaving AFDs in the hands of those who are familiar with that area of the project, was best. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      While I'm sure we're all deeply fascinated by this little excursion, what does your personal relationship with the AfD process have to do with the proposal at hand? AngryHarpy‍talk 18:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm already aware of the deep fascination by my little excursion has created, which adds up to me being Neutral, on whether Lugnuts should be banned or not from AFDs. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for using a bullet point. Levivich 18:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Strong Neutral or Weak Neutral? That could be crucial. Begoon 14:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Bullying never works, it seems... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 17:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - When you look at all the long-term WP:CRIC members who have either driven themselves crazy, gone AWOL, completely raged against the machine, or just given up, it's not really a coincidence. One can name half-a-dozen long-term expanders of the project who have given up over the years. Lugnuts, this isn't just about you, and JPL, this isn't about you, either. Please know, JPL, that I empathize with you over some issues more than anyone here would understand. Use your frustrations that I know you have, to achieve good. Not for raging against the machine. Take a step back just for a while and focus on another area you enjoy. Or just do some Wiki-gnoming, or something that will keep your mind busy.
    At the end of the day, how do you salvage a broken project for the sake of what has become Frankenstein's monster? It's impossible because Frankenstein's monster will come back. Bobo. 18:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So is that a "yes"? Begoon 17:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with a hope this will end the disruptive editing.--Darwinek (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ban as I said last time a restriction came up, the disruption just moves when you restrict Lugnuts in one arena. While I believe he does indeed have the competence, he lacks the temperament to edit collaboratively. It's time to stop with regular time sinks related to this editor. Star Mississippi 02:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from AfD as this user really doesn't know how to handle it in a constructive matter. Also would cite WP:CIR. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Which particular part of WP:CIR do you think applies here? Begoon 17:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose It has stopped already, so a ban would be punitive - no similar problems with the editor's other AFD participation. As for "views Wikipedia as a zero-sum battleground", if that's true, it looks like Lugnuts is not the only one - other editors describe opponents' contributions as spam([1][2][3]). The likely effect of recent changes to guidelines, and two proposals currently at WP:CENT, is that many articles that satisfied what was the consensus interpretation of guidelines for more than 10 years will be deleted; many of those articles were created by Lugnuts. There is even a recently written essay "Wikipedia is not a gazetteer", but there are printed encyclopedias in which the gazetteer section is the longest, and consists almost entirely of what would be called sub-stubs. Unfortunately ban proposals are made at a noticeboard intended for quick response to incidents, so context is usually missing. A865 (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Odd for a new editor with just 17 edits to find this discussion, as well as show familiarity with ANI practice, pick out essays and guidelines, and the like. Ravenswing 19:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The above proposal needs closure, and perhaps someone can also have a word with Lugnuts about his continuing WP:OWN behaviour? This was already raised in the previous discussion about his editing, but simply continues; if someone dares to edit an article Lugnuts has created, he for some reason needs to be on top of the editors list again, even if that means making purely cosmetic, totally unnecessary edits to achieve this. That this needlessly pollutes watchlists and recent changes for other editors seems to be of no importance. All from the last few minutes: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. Fram (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose Lugnuts apologised for what he said/did, with this happening the best part of a week ago with no repeat action. If this thread is anything to go by, they are doing their level best to improve their communication skills. If they create a similar issue in the future, and lets hope that doesn't happen, then think of stricter courses of action. StickyWicket (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - that little qualification, "If the last part proves problematical, it can be rescinded", would convince me, if I needed convincing. I accept that he has not behaved sensibly, and until I started looking at the recent AfD nominations, I thought he was over-reacting. But now I see what looks like a campaign to delete every stub he's ever created, I am concerned at the motivation for it. I think there are far more useful things we could be doing. Just because we've amended the guidelines to say that Olympic competitors aren't automatically notable, that doesn't mean we have to delete all relevant articles immediately. Allow some time for improvement, and I'm sure Lugnuts will try to do this himself. Deb (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mm, well, considering that what, less than one thousandth of one percent of Lugnuts' article creations have been brought to AfD post-revision, I really rather think we're in no danger of a bare fraction of those sub-stubs ever being deleted -- if as many as 25 per day were nominated, it'd take over a decade -- never mind "immediately." As far as improvement goes, I've just looked over every one of the couple dozen pertinent deletion discussions filed over the last several weeks. In not a single one of them has Lugnuts advocated deletion. Your surety appears to be based on magical thinking. Ravenswing 21:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure what point you're trying to make, but you're not making it effectively. It appears to me that several of the nominations have been made without due consideration of the individual circumstances. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Denman, where the best-performing member of a team has been randomly nominated. Deb (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ravenswing's point is coming across to me quite effectively, actually, but yours isn't. In the AFD you mention there is only one keep vote so far (yours, lacking any valid argument) and even Lugnuts agrees it should not be kept. Lennart97 (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ban - Lugnuts is a net-negative to this encyclopaedia. They are not here to build an encyclopaedia. They have shown this again and again.
      Editors above are asking why Lugnuts' articles are being targeted for AFD - the simple answer is they are not, but that Lugnuts has created so many notability-failing articles that you need only click on "random article" a few times and (if you do not come across a mass-created species-stub or geostub article first) you will arrive at a single-sentence, single-source stub about some 19th-century cricketer or pre-war Olympian. If one tries to make a start of cleaning up sports bio stubs the articles you will be dealing with will overwhelmingly be articles created by Lugnuts.
      None of this would be so bad if it weren't for the uncivil behaviour aimed at people who do try to clean these articles up. Last time Lugnuts received a TBAN but they seem not to have learned why they received it, what it was that led to the issue being brought to ANI in the first place, and that was their uncivil behaviour (in that case canvassing on AFDs and making groundless accusations of harassment against editors who AFD'd their articles). Here we see that their behaviour has simply moved on to another kind of uncivil behaviour (revenge AFDs). The constant feature is their inability to act civilly despite having been given so many chances. The object of this uncivil behaviour is to disuade people from dealing with their articles. In the absence of a ban I support the proposal, but in reality the massive number of Lugnuts' articles and the fact that the AFDs they are most likely to be uncivil on are the ones for their own articles, makes this only a very partial solution. FOARP (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Look - if you really think I should be banned for being a a net-negative to WP, then feel free to start that as a new discussion. You've already stuck the knife in with your last complaint against me, where somehow canvassing editors equates to a topic ban on article creation. You even followed that up on my talkpage saying you don't want to gravedance.
    I've already apologised to JPL (in this thread) and to CBL62 too (here) for the comments I directed towards them. Since then, several articles I've started have gone to AfD. Have a look through the comments I've posted in those to see if there's anything amiss. I'll save you some time now and say there isn't. Your comment of "....created so many notability-failing articles..." is incorrect, as at the time of creating any article, they met the notability criteria that existed at the time. There's this rather big RfC relating to sports notability if you wish to have your say on this area.
    I'm not sure what more you want me to say or do, but I feel whatever it is, it won't be right for you. I'm not going to respond further to you here, or bludgeon this thread, in fear that you somehow bait me into saying something I may regret later. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "You've already stuck the knife in with your last complaint against me, where somehow canvassing editors equates to a topic ban on article creation. You even followed that up on my talkpage saying you don't want to gravedance.". I think the closing admin should read this comment and consider whether it shows any progress at all from the previous ANI, or whether Lugnuts simply saw the previous ANI as a bad-faith attack personal attack on them, and in fact that's simply how they see every ANI discussion that is brought about their behaviour. Ultimately, they don't think they ever did anything wrong in any of this. FOARP (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanctions — I initially expressly stated that I’d recuse myself from this discussion but having seen the rationale by Deb, I agree with them, I’d have to oppose this, furthermore, I do not see Lugnuts as a net negative, I find their work in football/soccer topic area to be quite impressive and in general, the entirety of their body of work. Celestina007 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support AfD ban. I had to control-F to make sure I hadn't already participated in this discussion, since it resembles so many of the others Lugnuts has been the subject of. Previous partial sanctions clearly do not/did not work, as he just immediately transfers his large-scale problematic editing behavior to a new arena -- in April 2021 when his autopatrolled right was removed and he was cautioned not to keep mass-creating poor-quality microgeostubs (something he continued doing during the ANI discussion) he just redistributed his efforts into mass-creating (even more) poor-quality athlete microstubs. When this resulted in a ban from writing articles under 500 words he quit editing for 2 weeks altogether before resuming with thousands of pointless cosmetic edits (something he's been blocked for before) and overriding existing Wikidata shortdescs with local shortdescs that have basically the same wording, seemingly to stay at the top of an article's edit history. All while continuing to be uncivil (which he has been blocked for multiple times). Things will not change without bans. JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay: If you look at the diffs of each of those BEFORE I added the short desc, each article DID NOT have a short desc. I've just added one to Paolo Gioli (+55 characters in the edit history) that has the same edit summary with the words "... overriding Wikidata..." But I'm over-ridding nothing, just adding the S/D. Same with the next one. Over-ridding nothing. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would note that he even does that when the Wikidata shortdesc is inappropriate, such as here where the subject being a tennis player is entirely unrelated to his notability.
    While here, I will note for Deb and Celestina007 that when reviewing microstubs of Olympic athletes it is very difficult to find ones that were not created by Lugnuts. This means that a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia by removing microstubs on non-notable Olympic athletes might appear to be a campaign to delete every stub he's ever created, when it is not. BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? From your recent contributions, and the flood on my talkpage, I find that very hard to believe. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I randomly selected ten articles from here and looking at their history. Of the ten, two had more than a couple of lines of text, neither of which were created by you, while of the remaining eight, seven were created by you. Given that of the articles I've recently nominated for deletion (counting only once articles that had their prod challenged and I then took to AFD) about half were by you, I think it is actually very easy to believe. BilledMammal (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you just happened to be looking specificy at Olympic stubs? And it "might appear to be a campaign to delete every stub he's ever created, when it is not". OK. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment that you're responding to begins "when reviewing microstubs of Olympic athletes"!! --JBL (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose AfD ban - on this specific incident I don't see any reason to doubt Lugnuts' apology. On the wider picture the impression is unavoidable, looking at the above, that there are editors waiting hopefully for Lugnuts to screw up so that they can get rid of him. Perhaps that's justified, perhaps not - I don't have a horse in the race but clearly he's seriously annoyed some people - but it leaves a bad taste, much like office politics. In terms of mass stub creation, while I understand the issues it really isn't fair to criticise someone for having done something that was perfectly acceptable for years now that the wind has changed. Ingratis (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I think Lugnuts' apology is genuine, and I really hope he can turn over a new leaf from this point on. I have faith that Lugnuts will once again be regarded as an editor in good-standing, but this is probably the last-chance a lot of us are willing to give. Curbon7 (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't doubt that it's genuine...but I don't think he's able to stop himself from eventually (or, more often, very quickly...) slipping back into the same bad habits. I think FOARP's comment here is relevant regarding all the other "last chances". JoelleJay (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If this closes as a "last warning" then it will have been at least the fourth such "last warning" given to Lugnuts. Some other "last warnings":
    • "Several more serious remedies have been proposed, including mentoring/oversight, a page creation limit, a page creation ban, topic bans, and blocks. As Lugnuts committed late in the discussion to consider the criticisms offered here in good faith, I decline to impose further sanctions at this time." - April 2021
    • "Lugnuts (talk · contribs) blocked, then unblocked, on the proviso that the behaviour leading to the block [i.e.., incivility] does not reoccur." - May 2018
    • Material Scientist:"I did't war with you and have no slightest interest in that. If you promise that you won't do that again (cosmetic edits) then I'll unblock (note that I do not see pings, but I'll try to check manually)."
      Lugnuts:"Yes, I understand and promise that the cosmetic edits are pointless and will stop. Please let me know if you need any more. Thanks." - August 2020
    Whether or not people wish to see Lugnut's apology as genuine is up to them. For myself, I'm sure it was a genuine as all the other apologies and commitments to improve given over the years in response to warnings and blocks by Lugnuts. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong opposition to any sanctions. In my opinion, the campaign against Lugnuts is a witch hunt that breaches WP:HARASS. This is rightly a site policy which begins by pointing out that harassment is repeated behavior intentionally targeting a specific person to intimidate them, to make editing unpleasant for them, and to discourage them from editing. Time and time again, this campaign has arisen at ANI and elsewhere. Always, it involves the same handful of individuals harping on about Lugnuts being a "net negative" who is WP:NOTHERE. The accusations are absurd and rarely relate to any incident that is more than trivial. So, Lugnuts had a disagreement with someone about one of the site's ambiguous rules and guidelines, did he? Hardly surprising, especially if he encountered one of the blockheaded stupidity brigade that blunders about the site. Arguments at AFD are a storm in a teacup and the sort of thing that soon blows over after other people get involved and a consensus is established. Handbags at six paces, it's called in football. Why bring that to ANI? What a waste of time and space. WP:COMMONSENSE, anyone?

    Okay, there has been a bit of a row over something at AFD and the anti-Lugnuts crew have come screaming to ANI again. In response, Lugnuts has said: "I've responded, held my hands up, promised not to repeat it and apologised". He isn't Johnson, for crying out loud, so for any reasonable person that would be the end of it.

    To say that Lugnuts is NOTHERE, after he has made over a million contributions and created thousands of articles, is such a contradiction in terms that it deserves ridicule. Even more stupid is the idea that Lugnuts is a net negative. There may be a few items in his debit column but his credit side – all those contributions and the help and guidance he frequently provides – would cause deforestation if WP was a book. Ludicrous accusations like NOTHERE and net negative show that his enemies don't know what they are talking about and (rather like Johnson, actually) are latching onto buzzwords and soundbites. One of the silliest accusations above is "polluting watchlists". How has he done that? Apparently, he had the effrontery to correct "access-date" in several articles by inserting the hyphen. Anyone heard of the WikiGnome? I'm one myself, and I'm always doing minor copyedits just like that so I suppose I should apologise for polluting the watchlists of people who have made mistakes and failed to correct them.

    The best and wisest comment in all the above is, not for the first time, by Celestina007 who says: "Lugnuts' article creation – to that I’d say they have always created articles that meet/met WP:PSA and satisfy the relevant SNG thus Lugnuts is in the right & if people are left underwhelmed by this then an RFC should be started to that effect as to the bare minimum of paragraphs before an article should be moved to mainspace". Quite right. Lugnuts is very good on sourcing and his stubs provide context. As with any stub, there is potential for expansion. Someone complains about him creating stubs for "some 19th-century cricketer or pre-war Olympian". There are plenty of printed sources about both of those subjects and there is every chance that something will eventually be found in a book or newspaper that can be added to the article.

    This thread is a continuation of a witch hunt against one of the site's best and most prolific contributors. It should be terminated immediately and sysops should think long and hard about the motives and activities of those who continue to harrass Lugnuts. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hear, hear! Claiming Lugnuts is a net-negative to Wikipedia when he has created thousands of sourced articles is a bit like saying Shakespeare was a net-negative to the English language. Maybe we should ban his literature too. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotta be brutally frank: there's some weird and wonderful stuff that gets written on Wikipedia, especially perhaps at ANI, but does comparing Lugnuts to, uh, William Shakespeare win a cash prize? *facepalm* SN54129 18:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Shakespeare must've written a lot of short stories. Levivich 18:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Lydia Davis would be a better comparison. JoelleJay (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would have been the exact same short story hundreds of times with only the names and locations changed. Reyk YO!
    Is this a stub I see before me? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To ban or not to ban... Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A source! A source! My kingdom for a source! Reyk YO! 21:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Shakespeare's legacy includes a host of celebrated stubs one-liners, all easily distorted:

    • All the world’s a stub.
    • A stub! a stub! my kingdom for a stub! (or, failing that, a carpark.)
    • Beware the Stubs of March! (and January, February, April......)
    • Once more unto the stub, dear friends, once more.
    • To thine own stub be true.

    Shakespeare probably invented the word stub. Or am I thinking of Upstart Crow, which is nowhere near as ridiculously far-fetched as some of the vindictive codswallop in this thread.

    There is considerable opposition to the proposal here which has been raised and supported by people with long-term antipathy towards Lugnuts. If these people stopped to think about why there are recurring problems with sports articles at AFD (i.e., the cause rather than the effect), it might just occur to them that there is a fundamental issue at WP:N under the section heading of General notability guideline. The so-called GNG is not a policy; it is a guideline only and it is deeply flawed. The best thing that could happen on WP would be its removal.

    The sensible way to judge notability is by an article's compliance with WP:5P, provision of suitable WP:RS and meeting the standards for inclusion set by the relevant SNG(s). WP:NOT, one of the 5P, begins with WP:NOTPAPER and that says: "Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content." (My emphasis.) All this stuff about Lugnuts creating stubs is therefore absolute bullshit by editors who are themselves WP:NOTHERE because, instead of creating and enhancing articles, they spend their time seeking attention by making points and wasting everyone else's time. Besides, as was mentioned earlier, Lugnuts does not create stubs without reliable sources and his work in that area always meets WP:PSA. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Support proposed restriction, suggest making it autoexpire in 1 year. I'm particularly sensitive to the widespread, serious and unresolved problem of conducting warfare via cleverly weaponizing Wikipedia systems. With the caveat that like many respondents I haven't thoroughly analyzed this overall situation but I've reviewed this thread thoroughly. But BTW I don't consider failure to notify the original article creator of an AFD to be a problem. At NPP patrol several times I've had the "first edit" person ("creator") rip me a new one for considering them to be the owner / responsible person for the article and so I no longer do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose Lugnuts does some (very) good work, but yeah, weaponizing AfD isn't the way to go. If it were the only time they'd had behavioral problems, the apology would be more than enough. It's not. I think the proposed restriction isn't ideal--IMO they are very much a net positive at AfD. But one more final warning probably isn't going to cut it either. And the only middle ground I'm seeing here is North8000's, but that too seems overkill. Sorry, I don't see a good solution. IDK, but something that grabs their attention a bit more seems wise. Hobit (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doing nothing is too weak. It leads to an outcome where John Pack Lambert has a throttle on how many contributions he can make to AfD, but Lugnuts hasn't; and to my eyes that's backwards. I think Lugnuts' behaviour is more disruptive to AfD than JPL's. In short, I fully concur with Hobit. We need to do something, but we need to do something that isn't this.—S Marshall T/C 10:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as this going on and on, I'll raise this here too. If I had continued to nominate JPL's articles for deletion while this discussion was ongoing, it would be viewed in pretty bad light (I think that's something everyone can agree on). It would be nothing short of hounding and harassment if that was to happen, it would be dealt with quickly, without recourse. So why does the OP do this? Why would they follow my edits around to do this redirect from out of no-where? Another user has reverted that, which has lead to the OP logging it at AfD. Now if it was the other way round, and I had done that, wouldn't there be a wave of editors crying foul and saying I'm doing "revenge AfDs"? There's past form in doing this type of hounding in a very subtle manor (example). Again, if I was doing this, there would be a lengthy ANI thread, complete with a lengthy block. Is this not "very poor practice and should stop?" Or is it a one-way street? No idea why Fram wants to follow me around, but again, if I was doing this, at best I would be facing an I-ban. @Mjroots: - for info, as you started this discussion. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If I was doing this rapidly on multiple articles with incorrect rationales (which lead to speedy keeps) as obvious revenge for having my articles nominated, then yes, this would be the same. As none of these elements apply though, it's hard to see the parallel you are trying to create. I thought someone who is still making countless cosmetic edits just to be the most recent editor on thousands of articles, would be happy if they had less articles to worry about. Fram (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban - Lugnuts knows the difference between delsort and advertising an AfD on a WikiProject's talk page. So does everyone else. It's canvassing. For the cosmetic edits, which is a repeat issue, I would support a site ban. Enough chances have now been given, but Lugnuts fundamentally treats this website like a game. You can't "win" Wikipedia, not by article count, or edit count, or any other way, but Lugnuts is clearly more concerned with accumulating statistics than actually building an encyclopedia, and costs far more editor time than tolerable. Levivich 15:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible canvassing by Lugnuts

    Following the opening of this AFD, Lugnuts posted on Wikiproject Football's talk page, with the title "International footballer at AfD". This was a post that had already been listed at Wikiproject Footballs "list of association football-related deletions", and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football. Since this was posted, an unusually high number of editors have arrived to !vote, many with arguments along the lines of "these AFDs are becoming a bit ridiculous, I think for international players there should be some protection", referencing the title of his post. As such, I suspect that this post to a partisan audience was a successful attempt to canvass editors to the discussion, and believe it is of relevance to this ongoing discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It's appropriate to post an AfD of a sports article to a Wikiproject interested in editing sports articles. How could we ever have topical Wikiprojects if everybody was going to AN/I accusing them of being partisan towards the articles the project focuses on? MarshallKe (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case the AFD was already posted to Wikiproject Football, so to do it a second time raises canvassing questions, and that is before considering the possible issues with the title given that it appears to have influenced how editors !voted. BilledMammal (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also posted the exact same message at WikiProject Luxembourg. WP:AFD actively encourages the notification of wikiprojects (under the sub-heading "Notifying related WikiProjects") - "If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the AfD". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD is an information page, while CANVASS is a behavioural guideline. The former cannot overrule the latter. However, AFD doesn't justify the notification, as a notification was already issued to Wikiproject Football, and so to issue a second one to a partisan Wikiproject is problematic. I would also note that as a general rule it is a good idea to inform a discussion if you do post notifications to it. BilledMammal (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Per WP:APPNOTE, this complaint is out of order and is an addition to the harrassment of Lugnuts by certain editors including BilledMammal. APPNOTE says:

    An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

    A discussion about an international footballer from Luxembourg is of interest to the football and Luxembourg projects so Lugnuts was not only justified in placing brief, neutral notices there but was actually RIGHT to do so. The contention that he was wrong to inform FOOTY because of a prior placement on the related discussions list is not only false but petty in the extreme. An AFD needs to be communicated and, while some project members might see the list, most will not and there is a better chance of reaching them via the FOOTY talk page. I think BilledMammal should state the motives driving his antagonism towards Lugnuts. I find it strange that someone with over a million edits should be hounded by someone with less than 5,000. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    What something is of interest to theoratically and what the practical effect of these notifications is very different. It is very clear, and it appears most likely that this was done on purpose (and is not therefore an unfortunate incident), that the WP:FOOTY project is a partisan audience (as understood under WP:CANVASS), and Lugnuts, who is surely aware of that (having done such problematic posts previously), should have refrained from posting duplicate notifications (again, there's no valid reason why a routine AfD would need so much notification). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So not letting the article creator know about an AfD is bad. And letting a project know about an AfD is also bad. The footy project have voted for delete in a ton of recent articles, so hardly "a partisan audience". No doubt if this AfD was all snow-deletes, you wouldn't have piped up. "there's no valid reason why a routine AfD would need so much notification" - says who? Can you link me to the policy that forbids notfying relating projects? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lugnuts: it is appropriate to notify a WP of an AfD discussion. The notice should be strictly neutral. I would suggest the form "the [Article name] has been [nominated for deletion]" is appropriate, with the [] representing wikilinks to the article in question and the discussion respectively. The second link can be piped. Mjroots (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers, will do from now on. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NoGreatShaker and personal attacks/aspersions casting

    Oh, and please refrain from using tiresome and tedious expressions like "perma-database-created stubs" which are just too stupid for words. I suggest that you stop trying to make WP:POINTs and, per WP:HERE, create some articles, enhance some articles and expand some articles. [18]

    I think BilledMammal should state the motives driving his antagonism towards Lugnuts. [19]

    All this stuff about Lugnuts creating stubs is therefore absolute bullshit by editors who are themselves WP:NOTHERE because, instead of creating and enhancing articles, they spend their time seeking attention by making points and wasting everyone else's time. [20]

    Time and time again, this campaign has arisen at ANI and elsewhere. Always, it involves the same handful of individuals harping on about Lugnuts being a "net negative" who is WP:NOTHERE. [21]

    Now, I don't know exactly what is behind the above (since I do not pretend to read people's mind, unlike NGS), but this is very clearly (and in just a few posts) accusations that multiple, long-standing editors are on a "campaign to get Lugnuts" and "intentionally disrupting Wikipedia" and "NOTHERE", without much if any supporting evidence (and, on top of that, with some choice and uncivil irony). This is flagrantly in breach in WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the tone of your edits in general and the many altercations at your talk page that you have conveniently removed, I think there may be a WP:BOOMERANG heading your way. I'll bide my time. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I had a dollar for every time someone screamed abuse at people for daring to suggest the encyclopedia shouldn't be populated by autogenerated contentless single-sentence microstubs I could afford to host my own encyclopedia on my own servers. Reyk YO! 23:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, Reyk. That puts this "complaint" into context. You have only to run a quick scan of the OP's edits to see that he really isn't happy whenever anyone corrects or criticises him. I can easily provide examples if anyone is interested. I will be raising a thread of my own below because I haven't been formally advised of this complaint or even unofficially by a ping. I saw it when I checked the sub-section above. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's aggressively missing the point. Reyk YO! 20:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too find the tone of a lot of the criticism directed at people for raising completely on-point criticism of Lugnuts uncivil. That these complaints are on-point is substantiated not least by the fact that they entirely concern behaviour that on multiple occasions Lugnuts has apologised for and promised not to repeat. At this point a simple warning that defending someone's behaviour is not a free-pass to swerve into personal attacks on those making good-faith complaints about it would be welcome. FOARP (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But, of course, FOARP, the tone used by you and your friends towards Lugnuts is entirely civil. Bearing in mind the massive amount of work done by Lugnuts compared with your mere 10k edits (and I'm sure there is some good work amongst them), a comment like Lugnuts is a net-negative to this encyclopaedia. They are not here to build an encyclopaedia. doesn't look very civil to me. Neither does going to Lugnuts' talk page and banging on about grave dancing. Even if your complaints about Lugnuts hold any water, you do not have a free-pass to swerve into personal attacks on him whilst making those complaints. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Neither does going to Lugnuts' talk page and banging on about grave dancing." - Please show me where I have done that.
    Lugnuts' total of 1 million edits, some large percentage of which are the cosmetic edits that they committed to stopping (but has not), do not buy them the right to be uncivil, nor for others to be uncivil on their behalf. Lugnuts being a net-negative is my good-faith assessment based on the amount of time spent on cleaning up their articles and repeatedly dealing with their behaviour at ANI. The "NOTHERE" assessment is based on the same set of facts - facts which stem from behaviour that Lugnuts has repeatedly acknowledged was wrong and committed to stopping, but again, has not stopped.
    Lugnuts can end all of this simply by doing things they have already committed to do, ending behaviour they have already acknowledged was wrong and apologised for - it is that simple. Their failure to do so indicates the degree of sincerity with which those commitments and apologies were made. FOARP (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that NGS's contributions are far from civil. --JBL (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      What, all 53,800-plus of them? Wow! No Great Shaker (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks (I guess) for proving the point that you're behaving very badly in this conversation. You should stop. --JBL (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    About a day after this sub-section started, NGS, for reasons best known to themselves, thought it was a good idea to open Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Breach of due process by RandomCanadian. At some point bad judgement is indistinguishable from trolling. My advice to No Great Shaker would be to absent themselves from the remainder of this discussion before it stops focusing on Lugnuts' conduct and starts focusing on theirs. You've said your piece; nothing you say from this point forward is likely to help anything. Mackensen (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    +1 Levivich 15:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    +2 FOARP (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    +3 Reyk YO! 20:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Lugnuts is following me

    He is following behind me as I fix the mess he's made in gymnastics and editing the pages again. Thankfully, he's not reverting my corrections, but it's unnerving to have someone change every article I've edited soon after I've edited it. Afheather (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not much of a defender of the Lugnuts approach to article creation (as seen in past discussions), but going through someone's edits and then complaining that they're going through your edits that go through their edits seems like kind of a stretch... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, but there’s a difference between having to fix someone’s mistakes and following someone around just to edit the page after they have. Afheather (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is, as has been explained a few times, that Lugnuts always goes back to all pages they created and makes an edit (often cosmetic or otherwise very minor) soon after someone else edited the page, which is extremely WP:OWNish behaviour, where they have to be on top of the editors list for some reason. It's not stalking Afheather (or anyone else) specifically, it's just a very weird habit (and as we can see here, unnerving for other contributors), and explains the majority of his "more than a million contributions" some of his defenders tout as a positive characteristic. Fram (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, couldn't think of a better term.Afheather (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've rewording the section heading to "following", though I'm not sure that it is much better. If an editor is working through some of your problematic creations and you are following around after them making minor, beneficial tweaks then that is acceptable, and some of Lugnut's edits fall into this category, such as when he adds additional external links (although I have seen an argument recently that at least one of those is self published and so shouldn't be used on BLP's, but that is a different topic).
    The issue is the edits that are not beneficial, such as this edit, where he adjusts the white space in some (but not all) of the infobox fields, and this edit, where he changes "accessdate" in a reference field to "access-date". Given that this appears to be a recurring issue that brings no clear benefits to the project, perhaps it would be appropriate to prohibit Lugnuts from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page? BilledMammal (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not being someone that's followed this in great detail, but as someone who deals with copy-editing and revisions on a daily basis between numerous people with competing interests, that kind of behaviour is very commonly a form of dominance. It is essentially saying "thank you for your contribution, but my version of your work is even better". Obviously the nature of the project is incremental improvements, but when it becomes habitual (and, as you've pointed out, lacks any real utility), it's indicative of WP:OWN at best, and can also be used as a form of intimidation. Theknightwho (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Lugnuts was blocked in 2020 for "silly edit warring and making essentially null edits". They were unblocked after stating "Yes, I understand and promise that the cosmetic edits are pointless and will stop. " (see User talk:Lugnuts/Archive 55#Something else). Fram (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And when he does make a significant edit to stay on top, he reverts an improvement made by an IP[22] back to the incorrect version[23], making the article again internally inconsistent and contradicting the source... Fram (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lugnuts made a commitment to stop this, was unblocked because he made that commitment, and has not stopped it - does not this simply speak for itself? FOARP (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It should, but people seem to prefer yet another thread in a month or two, given past timelines and promises to behave. I guess Lugnuts is not technically unblockable given the log, but apparently unstickableblocks. Star Mississippi 18:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an odd, kind of annoying behavior to have to make minor edits to one's own articles after someone else does. It should be noted that my initial response was when this section was accusing Lugnuts of "stalking", and while it's annoying or maybe even WP:OWNy, it's not stalking. I see that's since been changed. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Baxter 329 WP:GREATWRONGS WP:NOTFORUM

    Baxter329 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Baxter329. They’ve been courtesy-warned already but based on their edit history I think that’s WP:AGF one talk page rant too late. I mean, you don’t say “stop robbing convenience stores” after someone already robbed six of them. Dronebogus (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dronebogus: You must notify users if they are brought up on this forum. I'll notify that user now. As for the user's behavior, I'd warned them "one last time". If they continue, I was planning to bring them to WP:AE. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I forgot Dronebogus (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This editor is aware of BLP discretion sanctions. I'm very close to applying them - hoping for a comment here that demonstrates an understanding of what they've been doing wrong, or at least some willingness to learn. Girth Summit (blether) 23:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • They’ve continued to engage in their problematic editing patterns since being warned. I’d give them a short wiki-wide block per WP:NOTHERE Dronebogus (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although they violated WP:FORUM last week, they haven't edited much lately, I'm curious what prompted this report today. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dronebogus, I count 5 or 6 complaints you have brought to ANI in the past day or two. You know, you don't get a barnstar for the most complaints posted to noticeboards. I'd try to be more selective and only bring serious, intractable problems here. You don't want to get a reputation as a drama board regular. Believe me, it can be hard to shake off. Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reminded of an MfD where Dronebogus voted "delete" and tried to rebut every user that voted keep. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 13:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh my. Thanks for the explanation and warning. I will stop doing that kind of thing. Thanks a lot. Baxter329 (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I am requesting a clarification. Was the only problem my comments, or was there also a problem with me posting links to Politifact, Forbes, the Star Tribune, Yahoo news, KTLA, and the BLM website? If the former, I understand. If the latter, please explain what is wrong with those sources. Baxter329 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue I looked at was involved a WP:FORBESCON source being used to support critical content (including assertions about medical conditions) about a living person. It's not an appropriate source to support any assertion of any kind, much less what you were using it for. I haven't looked at the other issues. Girth Summit (blether) 18:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Both. You appear to be trying to add content to support specific political right-wing talking points and to discredit/disparage individuals associated with left-wing politics. You may not conduct WP:SYNTH, i.e., you cannot take an event/person/issue and try to connect it to some other event/person/issue. This can be done iff secondary reliable sources make that connection.
    To illustrate, Neil Young recently told Spotify to remove his music or get rid of Joe Rogan's podcast, which Young said was spreading misinformation about COVID-19. After this, you added (twice; and on this page) and defended adding content to highlight what you claim to be Young's hypocrisy regarding GMOs stating that Young uses insulin. In your defense, you said that because GMOs can save children's lives that somehow makes Young's alleged hypocrisy notable. No reliable source made that connection, only you did. And you did so because of Young's recent news-generating actions.
    Another example is on Black Lives Matter where it appears you wanted to add any material which would try to frame the movement as violent or destructive (e.g., [24], [25], [26], [27]) again with the apparent goal of highlighting "hypocrisy" (e.g., [28]). You also wanted to portray BLM as anti-family saying, "I'd like to this wikipedia article to address why an organization that claims to care about black lives wants to get rid of the nuclear family" and "The out-of-wedlock birth rate for Mormons and Orthodox Jews is extremely low. For blacks, it's more than 70%." (See also [29]). Go even go as far as to say "I think this quote should be included in the article. I think the article should explain why an organization called "Black Lives Matter" supports a policy that has created nothing but death, misery, and famine in every country where it has ever been adopted. Far more black lives have been murdered by Marxist governments than by the police in democratic countries. I'd like the article to address these points."
    The reason I'm assuming good faith with you is that some of your politics-related edits appear to be constructive and helpful (e.g., [30], [31], [32]). I think you just have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources (e.g., [33]) and its purpose (e.g., [34]). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments everyone. I very much appreciate your advice on how I cam become better at editing articles and commenting on article talk pages. Baxter329 (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    LTA sockpuppetry, puffery of Karna of Mahabharata

    Further information: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yashthakurkamail and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kairakairav
    See also: User:DaxServer/Karna disruption

    First discovered in September 2021, the users listed in both of these SPI cases have involved in a long-term abuse by adding puffery elevating Karna of Mahabharata. While the initial attempts back in the earlier days remained relatively low, the current activity is off the shelves with multiple accounts [and IPs] popping up everywhere on a daily basis. The edits involve Karna with:

    • great puffery (all the diffs in the SPIs, some: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39])
    • tactics to throw off the sock smell ([40])
    • editing elsewhere unrelated to the topic (perhaps good contributions [41]) and coming back ([42], [43])
    • misrepresentation of sources ([44]),
    • OR/unsourced with misrepresentation of sources ([45], [46])
    • edit warring between each other ([47], another sock master was also suspected at SPI)
    • one user adds and self-reverts followed by another user reverting it projecting a reinstatement of valid content ([48] next two edits, [49] next 4 edits)
    • some single-purpose accounts with less than 10 edits with all of their edits mirroring a previous sock, or a future sock mirroring them ([50], [51])

    Some users reported in the SPI were blocked as CheckUser confirmed, some by duck, some by disruptive editing, some by behaviour, some open pending [behavioural] investigation, some suspected of meat puppetry. This most probably is a paid editing ([52]). Some pages are semi-protected with very few ECP protected. Note: the diffs I linked here are just a sample among hundreds of edits in the whole racket. Digging thru them is difficult, but if requested, I can provide more. I'll be notifying these non-blocked users of this ANI (from SPI). Some more accounts might also be discovered, post which I'd add and notify them.

    I don't see this activity scaling down and ceasing anytime soon and I suspect, will continue if left unchecked, causing a great deal of cleanup left for us, given that more than half of the articles go unnoticed as they might not be on the watchlists [as they aren't that high on the priority, if not at all, lists of editors]. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 18:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm familiar with this situation. This almost certainly is a gang of sockpuppets and meatpuppets, probably being organized somewhere offline, since they do identical edits but CU to multiple countries. But I’m not so sure about User:Ilyadante being a part of this sock/meat farm. I’ve seen only a few edits from them on the subject of Karna. They do quite a lot of other work, here and especially on the Russian Wiki. (An unrelated issue: they used to have a disclosure on their user page here that they are a paid editor. Their initial disclosure was about Stephie Theodora, and they then created two drafts about her, which were rejected at AFC. They later disclosed several other employers.[53] On January 25 they removed all the disclosures.[54] They recently created an article about Kozlovsky Evgeny Alexandrovich, putting it in mainspace but it was moved to a draft; it makes me wonder if that was paid but not disclosed.) In any case, I do not regard them as part of this gang. The rest almost certainly are. Several, not listed here, have been blocked already. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    DaxServer, just a basic question because I don't have time right now to look at every diff and editor, how many pages are involved here? Is it a focus on one article? A half-dozen? Several dozen? Or more? I'm just trying to get a sense of the scale of disruption here. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz Several dozen. I compiled a short list here: User:DaxServer/Karna disruption (anyone is welcome to expand) This list is from just a few users. I would dig thru some more users to see which pages are affected and update the list when I have time.
    Also, this is a cross-wiki abuse. One user uploads images in Commons [55] (SUL) which are in turn used by other users here [56] [57] [58] and other wikis [59]. There could be other uploads by other accounts.
    I'll be notifying of ANI to these users as well. Some of them seem to be SPA. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 11:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DaxServer: You may also note another kind of disruption that is being done. That is, the sock-puppets are adding citations whose actual content is exactly opposite to what they are adding in the Wiki article. Like in Jaya article here [60]. To explain the background here to the admins, there's a huge offline tussle between Karna fans and Arjuna fans going on since ages (much similar to Shahrukh vs Salmaan, Federer vs Nadal, Achilles vs Hector, etc). There are rabid members in both sides but the former group is much larger in number and more problematic, as we can see already. The popular image of Karna, courtesy televised serials and literature is actually a much more glorified (and inverted) version of what is actually there in the primary sources of Vyasa's Mahabharata. This is the main bone of contention. Added to that is the problem that many fans have heard the names of the primary sources, translators, etc and have probably read them in bits and portions for confirmational bias. And now they are throwing in these names as citations to validate their puffery. - Panchalidraupadi (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Panchalidraupadi Yes, it is a deliberate error, the citation verifies the opposite like you said. I've already put this in my original post as "OR/unsourced with misrepresentation of sources", perhaps I should have worded it as "deliberate errors with sources saying opposite".
    In my further investigation, I see edits going as far as 10 July 2021. During that time, the edits were made by IPs. Some edits were reverted, while some haven't as they articles are relatively unknown, I've reverted them. I keep finding even more accounts/IPs. Here's my now-updated [still-]short compilation User:DaxServer/Karna disruption — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 14:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DaxServer: Thanks for all your efforts. - Panchalidraupadi (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This problem sounds enormous, more than one editor should have to keep track of and monitor. I wonder if there are any kind of sanctions that would be appropriate to seek over this topic area. That's a big undertaking but it sounds like this disruption isn't ebbing but is likely to continue. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's WP:ARBIPA (and proposed amendment) which is broadly construed for India-related topics. I probably want to consult any or more of @RegentsPark, @SpacemanSpiff, @Johnuniq, @Bishonen who are active in ARBIPA areas. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 11:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review this user's edits too. Probably part of the team. Venkat TL (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Venkat. Seems one of them [61] [62] [63] and 3 other edits. More:
    FYI: Pages with high disruption are protected for 3 months Special:Diff/1068854376 — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 13:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Venkat TL Hi, Why am I being suspected as a socketpuppet, I am a new user on Wikipedia making effective contributions. This is like hurting new editors on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArsheyaSagar (talk • contribs) 17:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Steven Crowder YouTube video

    Steven Crowder published a YouTube video today called "EXPOSED: Wikipedia’s Bias Tested and PROVEN!". In the video, they speak about how they used a handful of accounts to "test Wikipedia's bias":

    It's also probably worth keeping an eye on the following pages which they mention having "tested", as I imagine they might see increased vandalism or edit warring as a result:

    GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    1. LandausBatteringRam (talk · contribs)
    2. Kkeeran (talk · contribs)
    3. SDFausta (talk · contribs)
    Using user template for ease of access. BilledMammal (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the heads up. I've added those that have seen recent vandalism to my watchlist. Would it be a case to block the main account (which appears to be Kkeeran, from the snippets of the video I've seen) for WP:POINTy behavior and WP:NOTHERE? Isabelle 🔔 00:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On obvious COI grounds at the very least... Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But have his edits been uber-disruptive? Although I can't see him staying here for long, maybe a warning first would suffice Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't this still qualify for blocking as sockpuppetry? --Orange Mike | Talk 05:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of those account should be blocked as sockpuppets. I could have sworn there was an essay or a rule about not using Wikipedia to do social experiments. But in any case, they should be blocked as the community does not (or at least, I don't) appreciate being treated as lab rats. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 06:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and the project is not a laboratory for experiments on our processes. I see more than enough justification for a block without needing to trot out more links to policy. Let's not spend any more time on this. AlexEng(TALK) 07:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently, this video is an hour long, and it looks boring as hell. On the other hand, it was uploaded today and has almost half a million views. From what I can gather, the general theme is that some guy makes controversial edits on WP:AP2 stuff, waits for someone to revert him, and then concludes we are full of shit because we reverted a sourced edit. Based on the contributions for these accounts, it seems that a lot of them have already been reverted, presumably for being bad edits. Is there a benefit that we would gain from reverting the rest or blocking the accounts? I really don't see the benefit of capriciously removing a bunch of otherwise-acceptable edits, in a way that's extremely visible because our actions regarding these edits are being actively used as evidence that we are capricious.

      I think this needs to be thought over for a second -- it doesn't matter whether you hate the guy, there are a lot of people people curious to see what we do with these accounts, and a lot of them are probably forming their whole opinion of the project based on it. A WP:NOTHERE block makes no sense (their edits are adding a bunch of sourced information; while the edits are crap and they're clearly here for WP:ADVOCACY, it's completely inane to say they are not "trying to build an encyclopedia"). Like, okay, maybe the guy is an asshole, maybe the people who watch his videos are assholes, but do we need to go out of our way to troll them at the expense of following our own rules? I mean, I wouldn't be opposed to the creation of some policy against livestreaming your Wikidrama to half a million people, because it's obviously prone to causing problems... but it should exist before we start enforcing it. jp×g 08:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      • (edit conflict) Even if you assume that these are good faith edits, which they demonstrably are not, one may not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point or edit to right great wrongs looks like I needed to trot out more links after all... ; that's the very essence of WP:NOTHERE. These accounts were created to prove a point, and they don't need to stick around for us to wait for their owner to test boundaries any further. Keeping them unblocked out of sheer defiance of giving the owner the satisfaction, so to speak, is even less likely to be fruitful than simply blocking them and moving on. While we're speculating about potential consequences, how do you know that the absence of a block won't be used in a subsequent video about Wikipedia's alleged editorial incompetence or an alleged inability to police its content and contributors? Fundamentally, there's no use wondering what will appear on or out of YouTube from this obvious block. Also: speaking personally, I frankly don't care that people are forming incorrect opinions on our supposed capriciousness, as I do not edit out of a sense of vanity. AlexEng(TALK) 08:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I find myself sharing this sentiment to a large extent (though from the boxed-off discussion below, I figure I'm in the minority). "Don't feed the trolls" was advice for a different forum in a different time. If somebody makes it their job to act upset, they're going to find something to be upset about, whether they're "fed" or not. "You blocked me! That means you can't handle the truth!" Or, alternatively: "You don't even have the gumption to block me, you bureaucratic betas!" Either outcome is good for generating those outrage-driven clicks. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I honestly don't care about the people who follow him or the impression they gain of Wikipedia based on our actions, if they're watching him, they probably already don't think highly of the project. At any rate, I don't want it to appear as if we are fine with destructive behavior or his trolling. I say we should block all of his socks (and, if I'm honest, community ban him), not to retaliate against him, but because he is not acting in good faith and is damaging our project.-- RockstoneSend me a message! 09:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Edited to add: I don't know if we need such a policy to punish him for livestreaming his wikidrama; it seems like we already prohibit it, and even if none of our rules do, IAR would be appropriate in this case. Still, though, his edits were not made in the interest of the project, but rather in the interest of "one-upping" us. We don't need him, or his drama. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 09:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Checkuser note: I've had a look, so I may as well tell you what I've seen. There's a couple of unused accounts, but User:Lilyahayes can be added with a couple of edits. CU says these accounts are editing from the same place, but doesn't say how many people there are (it's almost certainly fewer than the number of accounts). In the video, Crowder mentions 'members of his team' or similar, which seems plausible to an extent. I've gone ahead and notified Kkeeran of this discussion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I do have another relevant observation. At youtu.be/Iv7s_ydrdHE?t=1306 in the video, and in this edit, reference is made to the Kkeeran account holder being a researcher who is a doctoral candidate. I don't know much about Crowder, but I'm guessing he isn't that PhD student. Considering what what I've seen, and also in light of the comments below, I'm not inclined to block any one of the accounts at this time (though they should be notified about the relevant policy). -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, overall it could be Crowder, a couple PhD students who agree with him, and his friends/associates who are all editing from a shared location (e.g. a university or home/work). Unless they're violating meat puppet restrictions, canvassing, etc, doing anything about this only makes it worse. TBF, the Kieeran account holder could have just, yknow, lied about being a PhD student. :P — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The mere thought that PhD students were editing Stop Asian Hate and were so wrong makes me sad. My god... EvergreenFir (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If Kkeeran is a PhD student whose focus is not in that field, it's possible. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 02:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed community ban

    No, Snow closing this- this is generating more heat than light and will continue to generate more heat than light. There remains an open question if the accounts should be blocked and what could/should be done about the edits- but a ban is off the table for now. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 21:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I think it's worth considering simply CBANning him and getting it over with; he should not be welcome to edit after using us as an experiment. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 09:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as nominator. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 09:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per DENY. Just block or warn the accounts and move on, an official ban will only be grist for his "liberal bias" mill and cause further attention and thus disruption. Pinguinn 🐧 11:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems like an overreaction. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't seem like an overreaction to me, but I'm inclined to agree with Pinguinn's reasoning. A no fuss block by an uninvolved administrator would be more than enough. We don't need to devote so much time to this. AlexEng(TALK) 13:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just blocking the main account is sufficient. If they violate the block by creating sockpuppet accounts, we'll block those too; there's no need to formally ban them to do so. --Jayron32 13:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Let me get this straight -- some shock jock (or pundit, or whatever this guy is) has made an account here for the purpose of showing his followers that Wikipedia blocks people for no reason... and that, itself, is the proposed rationale for blocking it? This seems like the goofiest possible reasoning, and it doesn't look to me like the accounts have done a whole lot that would warrant blocking (indeed, they weren't, until it was revealed they were being run by some political talking-head). I understand that it seems like something should be done, and this is certainly something, but I don't think it should be done. jp×g 16:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh, to be clear, there is a difference between a WP:CBAN and a block. It's beginning to look like some people are opposing a block in this section. You can see above that there is opposition to a CBAN with explicit or implicit endorsement of a block. I'm afraid we're getting our wires crossed here by treating them the same. AlexEng(TALK) 16:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think the distinction really matters here; as far as I can tell, the existence of the YouTube video doesn't militate in favor of a ban or a block. jp×g 22:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • How not? He is quite clearly trying to disrupt the project and use us as pawns for his experiments. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 01:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know what being "used as pawns" means. If I write a FA, am I using the reviewers as pawns to improve my writing skills? Are administrators being used by the community as pawns to delete pages and block users? jp×g 22:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the community reaches a consensus to block a user without setting any conditions by which the block can be lifted, then a future community consensus is required to unblock the user. That is what a community ban is. (The third bullet in the section you linked to covers this.) isaacl (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is the concept of a community ban, distinct from a block, no longer understood on Wikipedia? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 01:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            The community can reach a consensus to enact editing restrictions for an editor based on behaviour. As described in Wikipedia:Banning policy § Community bans and restrictions, an editor that has been indefinitely blocked by the community is considered to be banned. isaacl (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            Yes, but the community may also simply vote to skip the indefinite block stage and to outright ban a user; that's how community bans used to be imposed; I guess with the addition of the third bulletpoint, the concepts of a community ban and a community indefinite block are being aliased. Still though, a banned user shows up in the banned Wikipedia users category, which is not the case for a simple block. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 01:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            Whether the words "ban" or "indefinite block" is used by commenters, the end result is the same: the community has reached a consensus to block the user, and the community has to reach a consensus to unblock the user. isaacl (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The only reason why we're having this discussion is because of the YouTube video. When random accounts disrupt Wikipedia in a vain attempt to prove a WP:POINT we warn a few times before blocking. If we're actually trying to uphold our principles here, then we need to treat these accounts in the same way as any other disruptive account. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose both a block and a community ban. Although he indeed has used multiple accounts, is there clear evidence that he has violated WP:ILLEGIT? Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Two of the accounts edited the same page (Texas Heartbeat Act), which is prohibited for undisclosed socks. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The adage “Do not feed the trolls” seems to apply here. And definitely do not over-react to them. The individual edits were not really disruptive, and those that are not up to our standards can be (have been) dealt with through normal editing. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Banning or blocking them for now, as it will only serve to 'prove them right'. "We tried to show Wikipedia's far-left liberal bias but we got banned for doing so, they knew we were right hence why they had to shut us down" (somewhat like the Streisand effect). Issue a formal warning though.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Should respond to on-wiki behavior appropriately and leave it at that. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 01:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The disruption, such as it is, is relatively minor and nowhere near what would rise to the level of a community ban. Let's not give this fellow his preferred cause célèbre. Instead, let's follow the spirit of deny. Normal reverts of inappropriate edits. Normal page blocks or complete blocks of normal length, as called for by the editing going forward. No rewards to trolls. Cullen328 (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: The fellow seems to be an asshole troll, no error. But we've got a lot of jerks on Wikipedia (and I expect a fair lot of folks would number me among them). The question I have for anyone seeking a ban is this: would you propose such a sanction for the edits the guy's made if they came from Some Random Editor, absent that video? Ravenswing 04:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Nothing in Wikipedia policy dictates that someone who edits the site cannot post a video about it; in the case of accounts editing the same page, the proper course of action here is to block the puppet account and warn the puppeteer account (I think it’s rather clear from the video that Crowder lacks enough comprehension of Wikipedia policy to have known using multiple accounts was in itself an issue). WP:DENY is also clearly the best medicine here, as we’re far more likely to encounter broader disruption if we throw gas on the fire with a needless block. WP:POINTy behavior and experimenting with our processes are also not severe enough issues to warrant this type of reaction; if this was a long term pattern of continuous disruption after many warnings my opinion would be different on that. Besides, I rather think we have thick enough skins here to take his misfounded criticisms and show that we do in fact welcome a diversity of ideas here… we just require that our articles are factually based with reliable sources. And to those who are being ever so brazen as to start name calling… can I suggest that you not violate BLP even on ANI? That policy covers the entire site, so let’s please keep our opinions of people to ourselves and focus on the facts of the matter. ​ — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as overkill. Just block any policy-violating socks. At least this does explain something odd that I'd seen; User:Kkeeran came to my attention when they added this to 2021 Boulder shootings, sourced only to a tweet. After I reverted it, another editor User:Styles who hadn't edited for 3 years, twice re-added it. Obviously they'd seen the video and wished to "help". I'll keep an eye on that and protect it if it keeps happening. Black Kite (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support on principle per WP:NOTHERE; specifically, trying to score brownie points outside of Wikipedia and major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention. The argument that we should avoid banning him (as our policies require) because he would claim persecution is meaningless - by that argument we could never ban anyone with a YouTube channel ever. And the argument that we would not block him if it weren't for his off-wiki activities are similarly absurd - those activities overtly state that his intent was not to build an encyclopedia, while their very existence makes it clear that the purpose of his edits was to produce material that could be used to promote his channel. And the argument that he has broken no policy is similar absurd - WP:NOTHERE exists specifically for situations like this. Setting the precedent that a celebrity can use Wikipedia edits to make a rhetorical point on their YouTube channel is a terrible idea in the long term. EDIT: And also, obviously, a severe WP:CANVASS violation by posting the video, whose intent is plainly to direct people to Wikipedia. --Aquillion (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • After having to watch the video in full, as an old friend contacted me to ask my opinion of it… (which is how I came to be aware of this situation) and going through it point by point to explain to my friend what was being misrepresented… I’d say while “trying to score brownie points” seems to fit (as the intention of the video is of course to give content to his viewers) it doesn’t necessarily fit entirely. The reason is this line: without expecting the edit to remain in place or caring if it doesn't. I would say the video is mostly him showing he thinks the edits would remain in place (per his [simplistic] interpretation/misinterpretation of our policies), and he did care that they were removed. As to “major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention”, this also doesn’t fit. I won’t quote the entire paragraph explaining what that’s about, but to summarize: that part of the NOTHERE policy is intended for people who, either intentionally or not, cannot find a way to conduct themselves in a civil enough manner for editors to relax collegially together. The edits in question here don’t come down to an issue of civility, legal threats, or gross disruption… they amount to someone seeing a perceived issue of neutrality and entirely failing to understand the use of talk pages, what consensus means, or any of our core content policies… then making a whole video about it (where they essentially get everything wrong). Laughable? Yes. Blockable? No. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose That is just adding fuel to the fire; Prefer DENY at this point. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'm of the opinion that ultra-conservative pundits won't make Wikipedia a reliable encyclopedia. Simply look at Conservapedia. Additionally, this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I haven't seen anyone bring up the fact that a block is likely to lead Crowder to do a follow-up, at least mentioning the blocks. Meanwhile no block doesn't fit his narrative of a censorious Wikipedia at all and actually dissuades further reporting and therefore further disruption. Therefore I think it best to watch and wait, but don't give him what he wants. He wants to be blocked in a kneejerk reaction. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 03:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose even though this thoroughly irks me, a CBAN will just unnecessarily add more fuel to the fire. It's better to just deny him the attention and let him get back to whatever the faux culture war outrage of the week is. Curbon7 (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose - on the basis of WP:DENY and to prevent WP:PROMO. If it becomes a perennial problem, we can reconsider it. Theknightwho (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per STREISAND. We gain very little by banning him for this, and it will be much better to not give him what he wants. Just put lots of watches on these articles (thank you for bringing them to our attention) and prevent any violation of the WP:PAGs swiftly and judiciously. That is the best just desserts we can give. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repetitive unsubstantiated CoI edits to Open Garden article by an SPA

    Hi. There's a company, called Open Garden. There's someone named Taylor Ongaro, who was probably one of a group of people who founded the company. There's a WP:SPA, "Taylorongaro," who keeps editing the page to add references to Taylor Ongaro as a founder of the company. It's probably true, but, well, just take a look at the edits. This one is typical:

    "All Co-Founders (Micha, Taylor, Stas, Greg) are no longer with the Company, while Taylor Ongaro still owns Founding Shares at the time of this writing in January, 2022 while everyone one else has cashed out."

    That was in the mainspace article, not a talk page. No sources, conversational style. And Taylorongaro just now finally responded, kind of, to one of the people who was trying to help on the talk page:

    "I'll talk with Verizon Ventures and OpenGarden CEO and get you guys to leave me alone and leave history as it truly is. Are you a kid at this point?"

    I have no reason to think that Taylorongaro is editing in bad faith, and the edits may well be true, but they're not helping, and Taylorongaro isn't engaging with people who are trying to help get their edits done in a constructive way. BurritoTunnelMaintenance (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a clarification: I did substantial edits to the article recently, trimming down unsourced claims and things that don't seem to be relevant to the business the company now seems to be in. I looked through the Internet Archive and it seems like the company has pivoted substantially a couple of times, and nearly all the text in the article was dedicated to stuff that happened in one era, with little to no attention to either earlier work or recent work. That may well be appropriate, I don't know, I have no attachment to any of the edits, and would be perfectly happy to see them reverted if someone has a reason and a citation to support it. Also, I realize that I made the assumption that Taylor Ongoro was a "guy," which I actually don't have any reason to think. So, my apologies if I've mis-gendered. I'll edit the above into gender-neutral form. BurritoTunnelMaintenance (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just my POV but the editor hasn't edited since being given the recent COI warnings. I'm not optimistic about their future as a productive Wikipedia editor but I'd like to see how they behave should they return. I think the next step, if they continue to be disruptive, is to receive a partial block from the article page so they can still make use of the talk page to make any suggestions or if they have access to any useful sources. Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be an eminently reasonable solution. I guess we wait and see whether this is the end of it, or if there's another act to this drama. Thanks. BurritoTunnelMaintenance (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Harrasment - asked to stop

    I have been harassed by user User talk:Sportsfan 1234 on my talk page. I asked him to not post messages on my talking page anymore but he still doing it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheGreenGiant23&diff=1068654529&oldid=1068653533). He bullies, constantly reverts edits of many experienced users and accuses others of all sorts of things. He has already been blocked at least once (from my knowledge) for this behavior. I just want him to leave me alone and stop posting on my talk page. Thks for you help. Regards, TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sportsfan 1234, anyone can request that a particular editor does not post to their talk page, and that request should be honoured apart from required messages, which yours was not. User:TheGreenGiant23, those required messages include notification that an editor is being discussed here. I have issued the required message for you. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My last message to the user before they wrote on my talk page was an automated message from TW. I had no idea users can be prevented from writing on other's talk pages. This user has created multiple articles of BLP without sourcing correctly and I have been trying to convey this message to them. I will stop writing on their talk page but someone needs to investigate this user and their articles created for WP:BLP violations, since I cannot comment on their talk page anymore. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, a corollary of not being able to post on a user talk page is that if there is a concern it has to be posted somewhere more public. I think that a lot of people come to regret this application of the law of unintended consequences. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    TheGreenGiant23, the concerns expressed by Sportsfan 1234 about three BLPs that you created were entirely legitimate. Do you understand that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is an extremely important policy and that you must ensure that any BLP draft you write is policy compliant before you move it to main space? Cullen328 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm 100% aware of the BLP issues, and full suppôrting it (edited more than 10000 articles) but is there any concrete evidences to show? A medal update to be sourced is a BLP? Seriously? Do you see any sources/references on medal on any athlete page? If so, tell me, id love to see it. If don't, plz make me an apology for pretending i'm doing BLP copyright violations TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    TheGreenGiant23 needs to learn somehow that adding unsourced claims to BLPs (examples reverted here and here) is not permitted. If they simply revert helpful guidance (which is definitely not harrassment) on their talk page and keep up the same behavior, they will end up blocked. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling my notices "bullying" is also a WP:PERSONALATTACK and needs to be addressed. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    First, I would like to thanks the user Phil Bridger for standing up for me.

    Secondly, I would like that the copyright accusations to be proved, because it is extremely insulting for me to insinuate that I'm disregarding the rules enacted on Wikipedia. Long time ago, when I was a new contributor, i had a problem of copyright but it wasnt a lack of good faith of my part. I corrected rapidly the issues and have edited ten of thousands of articles without any problems since. Users Jonesey95 and Sportsfan 1234 have started a reputation war on me and I won't respond, because lack of time and I know i didnt do anything wrong, that's childish and totally insane. If there is a copyright problem, and I say if, show me the rule with the appropriate Wikipedia page, the problematic citation and simply correct it, which has never been done. It's easy to say someone is infringing copyright but never have a concrete demonstration to prove it. Most ppl in this situation are letting them to be intimidated by these users and dont reply because of lack of time, or just by being stunned/annoyed having to prove their non-guilt/ or have to talk to irrationnal/bad faith people who thinks are owning Wikipedia.

    Third, respect the good faith and experience of the user in question.

    Fourth, when you come on someone's personal talk page and say "I can write on your talk page as needed" and the person has repeatedly warned you not to do it again, that's bullying. Bottom line. It is the kind of irrational and disrespectful behavior that has caused several quality contributors who have made Wikipedia's reputation and credibility to flee from these belligerent users. They are monopolizing their time and insulted them freely, without bothering their remarks with respect and consideration for other users or rationally prove their points. TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is another egregious personal attack by TheGreenGiant23 [64]. Unreal, will something be done here? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing another check of the BLP articles TheGreenGiant23 created, I have discovered another problem. [65] has the same reference they copy pasted into the articles I brought to their attention on their talk page (which was quickly reverted). The #1 reference for this article is from 2011!! When the subject of the article would have been 13 years old and ineligible to compete at a Senior Worlds... yet alone the title of the reference being "Canadians sweep halfpipe titles at freestyle worlds", but MacKay has never won a world title!! I think an audit needs to be done here... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In that edit summary TheGreenGiant23 uses "autistic" as a pejorative. That alone, without all the other stuff mentioned, should lead to a block. There's nothing wrong with being a weirdo either. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone on the autism spectrum, the autism comment is especially egregious to me. TheGreenGiant23 is definitely WP:NOTHERE. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 16:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @TheGreenGiant23: Sportsfan 1234 is right when a user breaks Wikipedia's policy, then Warnings has to be put on a User's Talk page including yours, and mine as well that is the way it works on wikipedia. Chip3004 (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Now that TheGreenGiant23 mentions copyright, the last article they created: [66] is literally a copy paste from a source [67]. THIS has to stop! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a bit confused as to why Sportsfan attempted to speedy delete Draft:Max Moffatt, failing that, moved said draft to User:Thegreengiant23/Max Moffatt, and then created Max Moffatt. – 2.O.Boxing 09:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:STONEWALLING on the Brahma Chellaney article

    There appears to be stonewalling (wp:stonewalling) by User:TrangaBellam in relation to a set of changes I’ve been trying to make to the article in question. Details of the issue (and his stonewalling) can be found here Talk:Brahma Chellaney#Advertisement - in essence it has consisted of the user reverting my edits, me asking the user to justify his edits, the user ignoring my requests for a response and when I carry out my changes (in line with wp:silent) the user reverts my edits on dubious grounds. What is strange is that the user has been co-operative in resolving other but very similar changes that I have proposed but is for some reason adamant in opposing the set of changes in question. Any input or oversight especially from experienced editors would be greatly welcomed especially in light of the inordinate amount off time this dispute has dragged on for Estnot (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Estnot, the editor in question has repeatedly made their opposition to your proposed changes quite clear. WP:SILENT does not apply - the editor's opposition is well documented. That editor is not obligated to reiterate their opposition every time you ping them on the same matter. This is a content dispute and this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. I suggest that you try another form of dispute resolution such as a Request for comment to draw new editors into the discussion. You need to build consensus and you do not have it yet. Cullen328 (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is not that the editor opposes my edits, the issue is how the editor has opposed my edits. He may not have any obligation to reiterate his opposition but he does have an obligation to explain it which the corresponding discussion indicates he has not and which is also necessary for him (or anyone else) to defeat my stonewalling objection (Saying “I personally oppose [content x] as the editor did [68] is not an explanation) This isn’t simply a content issue as it is one of conduct as well and it is why I have brought this dispute to this noticeboardEstnot (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Estnot, are we reading the same conversation? I see TrangaBellam making seven different posts in that discussion, which are not repetitive and which are thoughtful, and it some cases, quite analytical and detailed. That's not stonewalling unless you define stonewalling as "the position of someone who disagrees with me". I see zero behavioral issues here, except for you escalating a content dispute to ANI. Cullen328 (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk:Cullen328 I’m not sure if we are reading the same conversation because of how badly you appear to be misinterpreting what has been written there. The most precise he ever gets to his opposition to the Gupta material is his bare assertion that Gupta is a “high-profile journalists in India with little subject-expertise” [69] while on the second issue of my criticism of his restoration of the criticisms of Chellaney’s opinion on Sri Lanka’s debt trap, he just completely ignores it. These are the types of responses that are far from what I or in my opinion any reasonable editor would describe as “thoughtful, and it some cases, quite analytical and detailed.” Estnot (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this is a content dispute and disagreeing with Estnot is not some sort of sanctionable offense that needs to be reported to ANI. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:Burden is on you, Estnot, not TrangaBellam, as you are the one that wants to add contentious material. TrangaBellam has clearly spelled out their opposition in a policy based way. There is legitimate question on the quality of sources, and there is a question of suitability in an encyclopedia article. These are rational concerns, not behavioral issues. You need to go back and deal with this on the talk page or start an RFC if you must. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As Dennis Brown said, this is yet another ANI thread that could've been an RfC. Let me explain what a WP:RFC is. You start a discussion with a set of clear options, like to choose one wording of a paragraph over another and place the RfC tag at the start of the discussion. Then, you get "input or oversight especially from experienced editors" as a bot posts the RfC to a central list and randomly notifies editors about the RfC. In the future, you should try starting an RfC when you have an intractable dispute with another editor. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and started an RfC on one aspect of the dispute myself. [70] I was going to recommend assuming good faith here that this user may not know what an RfC is (I looked through their contribs to see how experienced they are), but Estnot has created properly formatted RfCs in the past. [71] Since you obviously understand how to start an RfC, you need to start resorting to them once you realize you're in an intractable dispute with another editor. This applies to a lesser extent for TrangaBellam since they could've also have started the RfC which would've avoided this thread. It would've made for an easier ANI thread if Estnot was disregarding a more formal consensus, instead of what is essentially a slow motion editwar. It would've also have saved a lot of time since this dispute has been going on since November of last year. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, withdraw the RfC? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kitchen Knife's utter failure to assume good faith and personal attacks following AWB use

    Kitchen Knife blocked for 72h, AWB access revoked, hopefully that will be the end of it. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Moved from WP:AN A few days ago, on Planet Nine, Kitchen Knife made this edit with AWB, breaking the citation style in the article to link to Shannon Stirone, an article they wrote. I reverted, showing the proper way to add author links in existing citations, but then reverted to the previous version, without links, since none of the other authors are linked, all of them more relevant to planet nine than Stirone.

    A few minutes later, they did the same edit again, clearly as part of an effort to mass link Shannon Stirone's article wherever possible. So I went to their talk page to post this:

    Please don't indiscriminately link authors in citations en masse, and especially don't use WP:AWB to edit war with people (see WP:AWBRULES). Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

    And what do you know, this morning I'm greeted with the following message on my talk page.

    Don't talk down to me you condescending fool, don't accuse me of edit warring when I haven't and dont accuse me of indiscriminate editing.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

    This behaviour is unnacceptable, for rather obvious reasons (pick WP:NPA or WP:AGF), and is grossly incompatible with WP:AWBRULES. I'll let the adminfolks decide what, if any, behavioural sanctions are appropriate here, but AWB access should be revoked. Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I stated clearly what I was doing when I asked for AWB. You assumed bad faith with your message on my talk page and now you are doing it here. I was not notified of this discussion until today. I was unaware of the revert. You might like the style but I do and think all authors with pages should be linked. You quite clearly failed to assume good faith in your rather pompous message. I suggest banning the author completely ASAP.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note the editor's summary style " now revert to previous style, where none of the authors are linked, all of which are insanely more relevant to the topic more than Stirone" what is the word "insanely" doing there. This is very close to WP:BOOMERANG Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kitchen Knife: you really need to cool it. You were informed in 50 seconds of this discussion opening [72] [73]. And you are responsbile for your use of any tools. If you're going to use some tool twice on some page for whatever reason, you need to pay attention to what's going on such that you notice if you're reverted after your first use. Besides that, you need to be willing to discuss your changes, including when you use some tool to make them, no matter your disagreement with the tone someone uses when they approach you. I'd add that whatever your disagreements with their what they said, this doesn't excuse your personal attack. And I don't see what's the problem with you using the word "insanely" for emphasis in that context, unless I'm missing something I don't see why it should cause offence to anyone involved. Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you are missing something the link to mental health but hey why bother with that, it's strange that allusion to mental health problems is fine with you but not the use of fool. Using AWB inevitably means that there is a greater possibility that if the tool is run multiple times, which it often will need to be to develop the correct search strings, then there is a chance that edits may be redone inadvertently if he is so cognisant of the effects of AWB he should have allowed for that, which means his assumption of edit warring is bad faith. The one that needs to cool it is Headbomb. Not all edits need to be discussed beforehand. Headbomb had a chance to discuss before reverting, the change was minor and at most offended his sense of what Wikipedia style should be. I regard being accused of Edit Waring as a personal attack as I would that of "en masse".Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    'Insanely' is routinely used as a synonym for 'extremely', which is very obviously the intended meaning in that edit summary. "You condescending fool", on the other hand, cannot be used in any other way than as a personal attack. I'm not going to yank the AWB perm myself, as I'm not over-familiar with the norms and expectations surrounding its use, but at the very least you owe Headbomb an apology for that comment, which you should make in your next edit. Girth Summit (blether) 15:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He'll get an apology about the same time I get an apology for his accusations of "edit warring" & "indiscriminately link"ing.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When someone reverts the edit you made and you just go ahead and make it again, that is by definition edit warring. Your response was way over the top. You don't need to apologize to admit as much and then everyone can move on. Headbomb, why would you remove the link at the end, btw? Isn't it best practice to link authors of citations whenever we can? If other ones aren't linked, that sounds like a reason to link the others rather than to remove the one that is. But then, we're getting off into content stuff rather than behavioral stuff. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the article does not link to any authors, and linking only Stirone makes it stick out like a sore thumb (plus goes against WP:CITEVAR). Author linking is not 'best practice'. If someone is important enough to be linked, they can be linked in the main text, rather than in the reference section. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. I'd file that under WP:SOFIXIT rather than undo a partially complete task. My sense is it's preferable to link to authors because that allows people to learn more about who wrote the sources cited. It's not a place where Wikipedia editors should be making subjective judgments to decide who is important enough to the subject to link and who should be left unlinked. But again, this is kind of tangential, so I'll leave it there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is your understanding that the WP:NPA policy has a clause that allows you to insult people because you feel that they have insulted or spoken down to you, you are mistaken. Now, was the accusation of edit warring justified? You reinstated your edit after it had been reverted by another user, who provided an explanatory edit summary - that's very, very minor, but it is edit warring. It wouldn't be worthy of administrative attention - but it was a valid complain, and your responding to it with unambiguous insults is not acceptable. So, yeah - you're heading towards a block at this point if you don't step back from that insult: you can't speak to people like that. Girth Summit (blether) 15:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kitchen Knife: Are you saying your mental health is something that is well known and so something that Headbombs may be familiar with? if so, I can understand why you have concerns. If not, I don't understand why you'd come to a conclusion it has anything to do with mental health. As Girth Summit said there's absolutely zero reason to think that. (E.g. it's fairly unlikely either of these are intended as allusions to mental health [74] [75].) Since you're making such a big deal if AGF, why aren't you assuming good faith?

    Also you seem to have misunderstood my point about using the tool multiple times. If you've chosen to use the tool multiple times whether because it didn't work properly the first time or whatever other reason, it is your responsibility to pay attention to what is going on in the article. You cannot say you didn't notice the revert so that makes your edit edit okay. It's your responsibility to notice such things. If you cannot do so when you are using tools, you need to stop using tools. Simple as that.

    Note I'm not saying you reverting them is a big deal. By itself I don't see it's a big deal, but doing so in part because you didn't notice you were reverted was an error on your part, and either way technically edit warring. In other words, it's the sort of thing where it would be fine for you to simply say, "Sorry didn't notice you reverted me, my bad." Simply acknowledging you made a minor mistake. Unlike in your initial replies to this thread where it sounds like you're trying to say you're not at fault because you didn't notice a revert which is simply not how things work.

    Nil Einne (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    May I point out that Planet Nine is a high traffic featured article of top importance. When using automated tools on this article please use extra care. Headbomb and I and some others did a hell of a lot of work to ensure the quality of this article. Jehochman Talk 15:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:OWN--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an inappropriate response. @Jehochman was clearly reiterating what is stated at WP:FAOWN. Theknightwho (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See also WP:STEWARDSHIP and WP:FAOWN. Now, are you going to at least accept that your own actions were out of line and, even if you can't bring yourself to apologise for them, undertake not to repeat them? Or will a block be necessary to prevent you from insulting people?
    (FWIW - on the content - I agree with Rhododendrites that linking authors where possible (using the authorlink field) is useful. Consistency needs to be considered, so it's not clear that adding just one author link is an improvement in an article where none of the others are linked, but the best solution would probably be to link all authors we have articles on. Kitchen Knife's conversion of the piped gamma rays to gamma rays was also an improvement, and should be reinstated.) Girth Summit (blether) 16:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I think by now it's patently evident that Kitchen Knife should not be allowed to have access to AWB, given they refuse to take responsibility for their own edits. Can we please remove their access to it? A civility block may also be in order. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've blocked Kitchen Knife for 72 hours for the personal attack, which they are refusing to step back from or undertake not to repeat (see their talk page, and mine). I will leave the AWB perm for someone else to deal with, as I've said above I am not very familiar with the expectations around the use of AWB. Girth Summit (blether) 17:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I granted the AWB right two days ago. It's only fitting for me to revoke it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      They are using AWB to change the author name format from the preferred version for author names in a ref template to a less-preferred version. Why they are doing that is unclear, but it is a waste of effort. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent AWB edits were mass rollbacked by Muboshgu and I redid the valid AWB part myself. There were a few manual edits at Charles Elachi worth keeping, so I restored those. This can be closed now, although I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up back here in 72 hours. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I saw the edit and it seemed minor, but Kitchen Knife's response(s) seemed incredibly inappropriate. I know this is all said and done now, but I just wanted to add my two cents that it appears sanctions against Kitchen Knife seemed to be warranted. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Racist conspiracy mongering on userpage.

    RESOLVED
    B. M. L. Peters is hereby indefinitely banned by the community, with near universal support. Furthermore, there was near universal support for a topic ban. Therefore, B. M. L. Peters is also topic banned from racial issues, broadly construed. This is understand to include "ethnicity, nationality, colourism, politics, immigration, anthropology, conspiracy theories and so on". If B. M. L. Peters ever successfully contests their community ban, they would still be restricted to subject areas not covered by the topic ban. I will log the restrictions and block the user. --Yamla (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:B._M._L._Peters claims to be “anti-Great Replacement” and “anti-wokeism” (Removed but in history) and also moved White genocide conspiracy theory to “white genocide theory”. Dronebogus (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    In what respect is a Wikipedian describing their ideological viewpoints on their user page "conspiracy mongering", and under what grounds listed at WP:UPNOT did you delete the material in question? Did you follow the advice at WP:USERTALKBLOG to discuss the material you objected to with B. M. L. Peters before you deleted it?
    Are you familiar with WP:BOOMERANG? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great Replacement is a racist conspiracy theory and promoting it falls foul of WP:FRINGE and WP:NONAZIS. Also yes I’m familiar with the dreaded boomerang, don’t drop it in as a knee-jerk threat. Dronebogus (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NORACISTS, I would imagine. Jumping immediately to WP:BOOMERANG over a user pushing well-known racist drivel is a very strong reaction, too. Theknightwho (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    /* Racist conspiracy mongering on userpage. */
    I would just like to clear this up before it gets out of hand, my anti-great replacement and pro-indigenous beliefs are interconnected, I cleared that up tonight in my infobox which the way worded, unintentionally made it seem like like they were separate. Because someone or some group shares a belief in an idea of the same name, does not mean they are think the same or have the same intentions, for example I personally lean to the left, but the great replacement so called "theory" is echoed mostly by right-wing thinkers. My anti-great replacement belief is rooted strictly in pro-indigenous beliefs, not racial ones. Secondly since this has now become a discussion about race, not by my doing, for a person to suggest that my anti-great replacement beliefs are grounded in race, might want to dig a little deeper, because you will find for example, Ireland, statistically the replacing group has been Eastern Europeans, which they themselves are white, so to tie my personal pro-indigenous and anti-great replacement beliefs to race, was a big mistake. So I guess now the question is, when it comes to a continent like the America's where the replacing groups have been Europeans, Africans and Asians, would my pro-American indigenous peoples beliefs also be considered racist blabel? However I follow the rules, and if there is a specific rule stating I cant place my own beliefs, in my own infobox, I will gladly follow it. Finally, my George Floyd article edits were to make it less biased and are not connected to any of my personal beliefs, the article left out important details while placing seemingly unimportant ones in it, for example the fact that the rioting and looting was left out of the intro, while the color of George Floyd himself was placed inside the intro, showed to me that perhaps there could be potential bias in the article from people claiming his killing was based on his race, while purposely leaving out the looting and rioting that followed because of that belief. But I think I know what's going on here, I have seen 1 editor state there support of me, while 4 state there belief against it, so the side opposing me is louder, however if the 4 editors speaking out against my beliefs, are doing so based on personal political opinions, and not on Wikipedia's specific rules relating to this issue, than that would not be right in any sense and I would have to deteste. I can back up all my great replacement claims with statistics, I am an evidence based thinker. But again, If someone can point me to a specific rule stating I can't have my own personal beliefs in my own personal infobox, then I will remove such infractions effective immediately. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great replacement is the idea that not-white people as a group are somehow illegitimately taking Europe/the West away from whites as a group simply by moving and living there, not one ethnic group invading and stealing the land from another. Dronebogus (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think this is a case where people who are for a change may have muddied the waters. You have groups of people who have been longtime residents of an area. They generally like the way things are. They see new comers as a threat to what they like about the area. It's not always clear this is racism. Some states in the US are seeing a large influx of people from areas like California and New York. Those people are now seeing things like increases in traffic, a shift from red to blue voting etc. They don't like it. A common refrain is that the blue voters ruined their own states and now they are going to ruin their new adoptive states. Additionally, at the national level Democrats may be happy to promote migration that would take a previously solid red state and turn it into a swing state or a swing state and turn it blue. None of that is inherently based on race. That doesn't mean racism can't be part of the motivation and it certainly is useful for those on the left to present it as such to discredit those who are concerned about the change. In my area we have something similar but in the other direction. We have areas that have been low income for many decades but are now being gentrified. Sadly this often displaces the original residents rather than helps them up to a higher economic level. Those residents also complain about the parks that used to be used by almost exclusive one demographic now being used by those with different skin tone and more wealth. The point to this is we need to be careful to distinguish something that might be motivated by racism with something that is motivated by a resistance to change from status quo. By our definition "Great replacement" includes both. That doesn't mean someone who believes something similar is motivated by both. Springee (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • This has basically nothing to do with George Floyd or the subsequent protests and riots that occurred, but in any case I’m not trusting someone with ethno-centric fringe beliefs to be neutral on the issue of racism in the US. NPOV is not golden mean fallacy. Dronebogus (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • B. M. L. Peters: With regards to your user page, I hope you understand how problematic it is to say you are pro a movement that has "The Great Replacement [...] also known as the replacement theory, is a white nationalist conspiracy theory..." as its opening sentence. Aside from that, my worries regarding your edits to mainspace have not been dissuaded, specially with the diffs presented below by FDW777. While I agree that most of your edits are fine, as they are in great part just adding short descriptions or removing unsourced content, the issue appears to be when you decide to add "neutrality" to an article. I see a pattern that shows you do not fully understand our policies and guidelines on neutral point of view, for example here, where you change "a minority" to "an opposing", giving more weight to a view that is seen as WP:FRINGE (see also this, this, plus all the pages linked by me above). I hope you can understand why they fail our WP:NPOV policies. Isabelle 🔔 13:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Edit: Striking the first sentence as I might've misread the userpage and is superfluous to the main issue as I see it. Isabelle 🔔 15:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to chime in as a bit of a character witness for BML Peters. I've worked with BML on a variety of political articles over the past year. I would like to strongly oppose the use of the word "Nazi" to describe him. I don't agree with his views on this topic, but he is most certainly not a Nazi or anything close to that. Perhaps he should remove the conspiracy from his user page as this isn't the place for it, but I can see this discussion being used as a vehicle to block him, which I believe would be wrong. I've had editorial disagreements with him frequently in the past (to the point where I felt the need to clarify why I kept reverting him), so believe me when I say that I take him to be a good faith editor. — Czello 08:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d support topic banning him from issues related to racism— he’s clearly not neutral about this and possibly interested in righting great wrongs over it —but most of his edits are seemingly constructive at a glance. Dronebogus (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    B. M. L. Peters has been a long-time problematic editor in the AP area, were I not in the middle of an appeal at AE I'd file an enfrocement request myself. You only have to look at last night's edits to George Floyd protests. Adds claim that the racism was "alleged" and without any explanation whatsoever removes the fact that George Floyd was African American when the whole point is that is was another Black men killed by police.

    At Antifa (United States) they have been sporadically editing against consensus for over a year. They attempted to add "far-left" on 8 September 2020, being swiftly reverted with a clear edit summary (refers to the well-attended Rfc at Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 20#Lead. They tried again on 27 September 2020, and were informed in no uncertain terms the edit was against consensus. That made no difference, since they tried again on 19 December 2020, then added it to the short description on 11 August 2021, before inexpicably changing the short description from from "Anti-fascist political activist movement" to "Movement" on 31 October 2021. They've never posted to the talk page of that article. FDW777 (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • (ec)Clearly, there seems to be evidence of POV editing on articles, and a report should be filed on that with the aim of putting a topic ban put in place, but I'm just not seeing the "conspiracy mongering" in an editor expressing their own personal political beliefs on their talk page. If anything, it helps to alert us to potential problems in their editing. Editors are given a fair amount of leeway on their user pages, so unless it rises to the level of violating WP:POLEMIC, I don't think a sanction is in order for the initial terms of this report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Expressing support for a conspiracy theory is itself conspiracy-mongering. It's not complicated. Theknightwho (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculously reductive argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It isn't. Talking about a conspiracy is fine. Expressing support for that theory is conspiracy-mongering by the very definition of what it means, particularly when it is done uncritically and without acknowledgement that it is a conspiracy theory. It lends it a level of legitimacy that it simply does not deserve, and even by the most charitable possible interpretation is misleading. Theknightwho (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see a reasonable editor trying to make those changes in good faith. Antifa very much has elements that can be viewed as far-left and it has been described as such in main stream media. While most Floyd related protests were non-violent, that is not true of all and certainly violence/riots were a hallmark of the news in 2020. My personal view is the violence was likely due to opportunist vs people who cared about the cause but the one created the environment for the other. This is looking like going after a good faith if outspoken editor for wrong think. Note: I'm not sure I have ever interacted with BML Peters. Springee (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see a reasonable editor making the first change to antifa in good faith, that's no problem it itself. But, as demonstrated, after being reverted and informed of the Rfc and that the change was against consensus, they returned to try the same change on multiple occasions and have made no effort to engage on the article's talk page. An edit summary search for "framing" also brings up these (all of which were reverted)
    Had I the time and energy to investigate beyond the edits containing "framing" in the edit summary I have little doubt there would be more of the same. FDW777 (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At Murder of Ahmaud Arbery we have "Lets remove race from the equation, not everything is a racial issue. Especially if the media deems it as such. It's best to refrain from using racial language unless a court proves it was racially motivated which in this case they did not". FDW777 (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest that the edit-summary to this page move is actually a WP:CIR issue. If you haven't got a clue about the subject, editing it is probably a bad idea, and moving it to another name definitely is. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link to Great Replacement in "anti-Great Replacement" removes all doubt as to intent or interpretation. Levivich 22:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the diffs provided by FDW777, it looks like a topic ban might be a good way to go. Maybe even just a 6 month ban to let the editor work on other things then see if they can be more constructive in the future. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I came across aditional edits which on their own may not seem too problematic, but in the context of the above examples I think show POV pushing. These two edits were immediately reverted: Removing the Bengali spelling of Brick Lane [81], inserting European into the short description of Barbary slave trade [82]. This edit [83] on the DR Congo introduction removes references to colonialism and exploitation with an OR explanation (which seems to run contrary to the books I've read on the DRC) and no sourcing. I'll have to put AGF aside as I am not going to feign naivety and pretend not to know the political bent these kind of edits are pushing especially looking at FDW777's comments. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to comment on the DRC edit, I have some familiarity with that topic. Peters "Fail[ure] to see how historical colonialism can influence a countries modern placement" sounds like a personal problem. The DRC has indeed been greatly mismanaged by its own rulers since independence, but scholarly sources support the notion that colonialism had quite a bit to do with its problems. Especially when you consider that the former colonial power was involved in a bunch of shenanigans to kill the country's first prime minister and financially supported the secession of the country's most wealthy province after independence. The former colonial power then helped prop up the country's most thieving dictator for almost 30 years. Peters clearly doesn't know what they're doing here. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I completely agree (Van Reybrouck’s book is excellent) but the statement in the intro doesn’t even give a cause & effect. It just stated DRC has experienced colonial extraction and exploitation. Even the most revisionist historian would not dispute this basic historic fact. I worry about this kind of POV editing especially when it goes unnoticed. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to thank FDW777 for the helpful links in this post. They're very worrying links, indicating as they do, and as FDW777 points out a little later that even after being informed of the RfC and its consensus, B. M. L. Peters returned to try the same anti-consensus change on multiple occasions, while never engaging on the talkpage. This kind of thing concerns me more than anything on their userpage, and sounds like such stuff as topic bans are made of. Not all by itself, of course, but I'll take a closer look tomorrow. It's sleeping time in my timezone. Bishonen | tålk 23:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    • Looking at the Brick Lane example, I like to know whether B. M. L. Peters's definition of "indigenous" would exclude relatively recent arrivals to that area, such as the Anglo-Saxons? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • B. M. L Peters definitely has some CIR issues, they keep getting involved in areas they clearly know nothing about. And that's fine, but they continue to push on this. Almost every edit they make on Ireland related topics for instance, they don't seem to understand that Northern Ireland is a separate entity and that there is no unified Ireland, and they don't seem to improve. Most edits they make in this area get reverted, and it's not a few it's a theme. That being said, I don't look into their edits outside that area much and I've not come across anything that would be described as overt racist in my dealings with them. A strange American romanticised view of what an ideal Ireland should be and a lack of competence yes, racism not that I've come across (but I don't follow all their edits.) Canterbury Tail talk 14:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Had another look and found some more strange POV edits:
    Calling Black British people "non-indigenous" [84]
    Changed description of Great Replacement to "Theory of the replacement of indigenous Europeans peoples, with non-native ones" [85]
    Making an edit based on the US not being systematically racist since 1947 (someone should have told Martin Luther King Jr this) [86]
    Another strange POV rationale for an edit to do with anti-racism [87]
    Beginning to think a community ban may be the way to go. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    cite sources describing America as still systemically racist, when in actuality, it has not been since 1947 when the last systemically racist law was repealed - oh... oh dear. Well that doesn't inspire confidence in the ability to distinguish reliable sources from /pol/ copypasta, but I still weakly support seeing how a tban goes, in the hope the issue is limited to politics... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: topic ban on racial issues

    In light of the above, I would like to propose that B. M. L. Peters be issued with a topic ban on racial issues, broadly construed. This is likely (in many cases) to intersect with topics relating to ethnicity, nationality, colourism, politics, immigration, anthropology, conspiracy theories and so on, but given the serious issues with competency when it comes to race, I don't think that is a bad thing. Theknightwho (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Support - as proposer. I don't feel confident that B. M. L. Peters is contributing in bad faith, and the primary aim here should be mitigating further harm to the project in the least punitive way. Theknightwho (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I’ve changed my mind, and would now prefer an indef. Theknightwho (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support However, I do not accept that anyone making the edits they have made, in particular but not limited to the page move of White genocide conspiracy theory, is solely because of a competence issue. It is clear when looking at their edits there is a persistent promotion of fringe racist viewpoints. I would not be opposed to a complete ban either, since if there are really competence issues we'll only be moving the problems elsewhere. FDW777 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I've been monitoring this discussion silently for a little while, and I've come to the conclusion that BML Peters is not capable of editing constructively in matters of race and ethnicity. A topic ban seems a wise course of action here. --Jayron32 16:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support At absolute best, their edits are extremely contentious. Their DRC comment above shows a lack of critical thinking (and actually reading about the Congo altogether). I'd give em a pass for it once or twice, but this seems to be a pattern. Also, why bother labeling yourself "anti-Great Replacement" (a very race-conscious thing) if you seek to "remove race from the equation" in articles like the Arbery murder? There's only one reason I can think of, and it's one that lends itself to promoting an ideological point of view that belongs on The Daily Stormer, not Wikipedia. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support temporarily, oppose permanently I understand why some users see my edits as problematic, and even though most of my edits are in good faith, I have been liberal with my edits on pages relating to issues which I care about. Although I disagree with a permanent ban on racial issues, as I see it as a way to shut it down opposition to a specific viewpoints consensus, which is not logically healthy for a debate on an issue, I support some form of punishment for my actions which have been deemed unconstructive, due to bringing closure to an issue which has been brought up, followed by a personal pledge not to edit without consensus anymore, as well as restricting my edits to helpful ones such as removing unsourced content, or spelling and grammar. This seems like the most fair way to go about this issue to all sides. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You can generally appeal topic bans after 6 months, so if this does get imposed I would suggest you do that then. Theknightwho (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support at a minimum This is simple racism. "Indigenous" - really? The Saxons, the Vikings, the Danes, the Normans? Oh aye, they were all white, of course. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per everyone above, although like FWD777, I did consider an indef.♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 20:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Consistently violating WP:NPOV. — rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Gamaliel (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support, with a preference for a community ban as stated below. Firefangledfeathers 21:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban as widely construed as possible including areas of race, nationality and politics. This is mainly because the diffs I provided above are not from pages specifically about race but racialised POV has been inserted into them. I'm not impressed by Peters' explanation above which shows no understanding of the issue with his edits and characterise it as shutting down "opposition to a specific viewpoints consensus". There are also wider concerns about competency. We may yet end up back here calling for a community ban. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, and appealable as usual after 6 months, based on the diffs provided. Seems clear their interests are affecting their editing in this area. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • support indefinite topic ban, either on its own or on top of community ban depending on consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per Rhododendrites BilledMammal (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as an absolute minimum but a community ban (below) seems like the wiser option. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support at minimum a topic ban, but please read my below support for a community ban as the preferable option. AlexEng(TALK) 09:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support but prefer community ban. Doug Weller talk 09:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Because of the general evidence given above, but not because of their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (but see mine and Beyond My Ken's comments on the CBan section for full context). —AFreshStart (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: indefinite community ban

    • Support as proposer. "Anti-Great Replacement" is racist. BML put it on his user page, restored it when it was removed, and defended it here at ANI. While he has posted a non-apology above, the racism is still on display at his user page. We have evidence that BML's views are affecting his edits. And the diffs included above show that this is true even in areas that would not be included in "racial issues", broadly construed (see, in particular, diffs provided by Vladimir.copic). The community should not take on the burden of crafting or enforcing a remedy complex enough to cover the width of BML's fringe worldview, and the editors in the community should not be expected to participate in collaborative work with those who publicly support and defend racism. Firefangledfeathers 21:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC) partial strike at 23:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. No need to keep racists around. See WP:No Nazis. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 22:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Thought about this for a bit, and yeah. B. M. L. Peters has too many problematic edits that can't be explained away in my opinion. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 22:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per nom, the mainspace edits, and the user page. Levivich 22:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per nom and per BML's responses here, which show they do not understand why the issue was raised in the first place and how serious it is. Isabelle 🔔 22:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose - but this would change to a support on any violation of the topic ban. Theknightwho (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - in light of mounting evidence, I have changed my vote. It is clear that B. M. L. Peters is either:
      1. Wilfully deceptive, and therefore WP:NOTHERE,
      2. So far into WP:FRINGE that they lack the self-awareness to mitigate their own bias so as to not fall foul of WP:NOTHERE, or
      3. Lacking the basic competency required by WP:CIR.
    —Theknightwho (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose - BML removed the content about an hour and a half before this opened. That's a good sign. While the Great Replacement stuff is reprehensible (if depressingly mainstream) and I agree with the tban as per above, this seems like a bit much for now. In the AP2 arena, we have plenty of people who are plenty more active and who regularly defend this kind of stuff, but indirectly, with more knowledge of playing the Wiki Game of Policies. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for mentioning the timing. I realized part of my comment was inaccurate and struck it. Firefangledfeathers 23:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considered striking my "weak oppose" because I got something very wrong: I was looking at someone else's xtools report when I said that, and that someone else had a primary editing area outside of politics. It looks like BML's primary area of activity is politics, reducing the extent to which I want to extend good faith about improving other areas. That said, I also think it's usually a good idea to try out a tban first when it has a nonzero chance of succeeding, so leaving it be (not that it looks like consensus is headed that way). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per my comments earlier in the conversation. I think the topic ban is more constructive here, as BML is generally a good faith editor. I do not believe him to be racist, though he may have fallen for some conspiracy theories. The topic ban is the better choice here. — Czello 23:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per this edit. Despite the fact that there's an ongoing discussion here, this editor changes Free health care for all citizens in Ireland to Universal and free health care for all Irish people. Apart from the lack of accuracy, given the history of their user page and edits, this smacks of the kind of anti-immigrant nativism that's the problem being addressed here. If they can't even keep themselves in check while their fate is under discussion at ANI, I have very little faith that they can do better. Guettarda (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And again this is part of their complete lack of competency in editing Ireland related topics as I mentioned above. Canterbury Tail talk 00:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • strong support whatever generally minor good contributions he’s made are outweighed by his casual racism, nativism, grossly ignorant incompetence, and lack of empathy towards users who are justifiably offended by those things. I mean, if you (an American) think systemic racism in America magically stopped in 1947(?!), or that the killing of George Floyd wasn’t connected to police racism, then why should we trust you to get anything else right? Dronebogus (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose, again per Rhododendrites BilledMammal (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support, similar to Theknightwho, and particularly in light of Calidum's evidence. BilledMammal (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • support per nom and developments. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support WP:NONAZIS WP:NOTHERE. The case seems unambiguous to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong neutral. I think it's hypocritical that we don't ban avowed Stalinists since they're apologists for an ideology that promoted mass murder. On more pragmatic grounds though, the Great Replacement in a mainstream political ideology in many English speaking countries. If we start banning people for mainstream political opinions we start losing public credibility far faster than we otherwise would. Let's say Éric Zemmour wins the French presidential election. Do we ban his supporters? What if someone has a userbox that they're a fan of Tucker Carlson? Once we start blocking people who are actually in the mainstream we'll become something like Rationalwiki that enforces an ideological purity test on prospective contributors. I also think it's ludicrous that someone can't say they're "anti-woke" on Wikipedia anymore. Likewise, some of the rationales other users have mentioned that this user should be banned because they don't believe systemic racism is a problem in the US or that George Floyd wasn't killed because of his race is also concerning.
    On the other hand, this editor is also decently disruptive in multiple topic areas. So I'm not going to go out and oppose. Would probably prefer some kind of 6-12 month cban or whatever. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was going to say "Grammar correction" probably didn't refer to that removal, since that's the summary for the final edit and the diff is actually for three consecutive edits. However, the actual removal of "African American" occurred with the edit summary of "Spelling corrections!", which is probably worse. FDW777 (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I !voted "strong neutral". On one hand I think I strongly feel it's bullshit that editors are justifying this ban because of mainstream political opinions (this WILL backfire) but on the other hand this editor probably deserve some sort of time-out for their legitimately disruptive behaviour. I'm sort of split on whether an indef is necessitated because of that though, since maybe a narrower sanction would prevent the discussion or they'd stop being disruptive after a year. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”Strong neutral” is a meaningless vote. Either you support it or you don’t, or otherwise you don’t participate. Your argument is basically “would normally support but I oppose solely because WP:OTHERSTUFF and we can’t hurt the feelings of fringe nuts and extremists or they’ll smear us” (uh, yeah, been there done that, we’re all still here far as I can tell)Dronebogus — Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly I wouldn't really know what to do otherwise. Maybe a 6-12 month cban, I dunno and that's why I'm neutral since I haven't examined much of this. But I think that when you go out and say we should ban people that disagree with the semi-official narrative (was the racial motivation proven in any of the criminal cases?) on George Floyd then that undermines the argument you're making for an indef. Likewise because you criticized their "anti-wokeism". You didn't really start this ANI thread with much actual evidence of disruption but you threw it together because you didn't like their userpage. It seems like most of the real evidence was dug up by other people. Since the evidence is actually pretty damning I won't oppose but I think a lot of the arguments being made here are bs. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Let's not beat around the bush here: claiming to be “anti-Great Replacement” is a white nationalist viewpoint, while moving White genocide conspiracy theory to “white genocide theory” is an overt attempt to legitimise another white nationalist view. This has nothing to do with "anti-wokeism", and you are trivialising the problem by describing it as that. It is also trivialising the issue to say that “editors are justifying this ban because of mainstream political opinions”, as though their disruptive behaviour and extreme political viewpoint are somehow completely separate things. If I WP:AGF I would say that you are being extremely naive. Theknightwho (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The userpage is disruptive. Disruptive userpages are banned. Being racist is also banned under the WP:UCOC. QED. The “anti-woke” thing you’re hung up about is because my WP:AFD had run out and I thought it was fair to assume the user was using it for trolling/dog whistle purposes. I don’t care if you say you’re “anti-woke” even though I think it’s a stupid fake controversy. Dronebogus (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn’t about banning someone because they disagree with the George Floyd thing. It’s because they were promoting racist fringe theory on their userpage. Dronebogus (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per diff provided by Guettarda. Even during this discussion this editor is continuing to damage articles due to their racism or incompetence. FDW777 (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hesitant Support I can't envision a situation wherein an editor who has publicly professed and acted on these beliefs to the detriment of the encyclopedia on multiple occasions should be allowed to continue to damage the project. A community ban in this case is absolutely a preventative action. My support is hesitant, because we cannot take such measures lightly, and it should only be done for the right reasons. This is not, as Chess suggested above, a ban based merely on political opinions. Phrasing it as such implies that these are fair or even respectable opinions to have. They are not. Any belief system that relies, in its essence, on the degradation of human dignity is incompatible with the Wikimedia Foundation's Code of conduct policy as well as numerous policies, guidelines, and folkways on en-wiki. We are not required to entertain and tacitly promulgate hateful beliefs, regardless of their prevalence in various parts of the world. An indefinite ban is justified. There remains a sliver of hope that this person will change and someday return as a productive contributor following a successful appeal. If they do not, well, that is still a net positive. AlexEng(TALK) 09:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. Chess just seems to be venting about the wiki-thought police or whatever and not looking at why this user is being brought to task. Dronebogus (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: There's expressing such views. There's arguing such views. And then there's rather subtlety inserting such views into articles, again and again and again. Who's up for continuously monitoring BML's edits, when pushing this POV is something he demonstrably does? Ravenswing 09:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I agree that we should not take such measures likely, but I view an indefinite ban as appropriate in this case and echo the views just above. Enough is enough. Doug Weller talk 09:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support Their issues are not confined to one topic area. Repeated GANs of articles that they barely had edited and were nowhere close to meeting the GA criteria showed WP:CIR issues and WP:IDHT (although they got the message eventually, I believe). (t · c) buidhe 11:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yes, I forgot about the GA nominations. After having various GA nominations instantly failed, they made this edit at Leon Trotsky removing significant amounts of unreferenced content, before nominating it as a GA less than five minutes later. This was their only significant edit to the article, and while obviously unreferenced content can be removed at any time there was so much removed it does tend to make you wonder whether GA criterion "Broad in its coverage" was being sacrificed to avoid an instant WP:GAFAIL. There was apparently no effort to see what content needed to be retained and properly referenced, it was a scorched earth approach. FDW777 (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the racist comments are a real concern, and they don't seem to get that there's any issues with it. However there's also the massive WP:CIR issues, that have been amply shown even after these threads have started, and don't seem to be showing any means of improving. They just don't seem to learn from the competence issues, and even have a habit of thanking users who fix their edits and then go ahead and continue the same pattern. Their bad short descriptions, their unsourced alterations to political stances based on their own beliefs, and their inability to learn anything about Ireland but still heavily edit in there. So many of their edits have been reverted over the years, and the pattern just continues without any sign of improvement and no willingness to learn or improve. Canterbury Tail talk 13:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Guettarda and Canterbury Tail. Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support as second option; I still think a topic ban would be sufficient, but the topic ban may be a functional site ban given their focus on racial matters anyways. --Jayron32 15:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but with Standard Offer + Topic Ban on race-related topics. They deserve a second chance to come back after thinking about what they've done, and barring a change in attitude, at least their disruption will be minimal. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Within the past month, this user moved "White genocide conspiracy theory" to "White genocide theory" [88], changed the short description of Great Replacement from conspiracy theory to theory [89], made this edit differentiating between indigenous and non-indigenous white Britains [90], and made the previously referenced edits to the George Floyd protests article [91]. My personal favorite edit, and the one that really shows that the topic ban proposed above would not go far enough, is changing the short description for facism to "socio-economic model" [92]. Calidum 17:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That last change is quite on brand for fascism, if I'm honest. Emphasis on the last bulletpoint of the first list. Theknightwho (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah. That last one really gives me pause. Dumuzid (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The paradox of intolerance is no paradox when one considers that the claims of those who are intolerable in civil society are the logical fallacy of false equivalence made manifest. We have no obligation to give time to such wastes of oxygen. oknazevad (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per WP:NOPLATFORM discrimination shouldn't be there; equality is important. ... २ तकरपेप्सी talk 18:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I was hesitant, but I've just seen those links by Calidum. Good grief. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support WP:NOTHERE Willfully deceptive. — rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Here's a few more diffs to chew through [93] [94] [95]. I genuinely am struggling to tell whether they're editing here to push a certain POV or whether they are just completely clueless about the topics they're writing about, a lot of the discussion above lends credence to the former, but when you come across edits like this [96] it does give me pause to think that this is a WP:CIR problem. Either way the absolute last thing our political articles need is a clueless conspiracy theorist running around putting bizarre/racist content into them. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In absolute fairness to them, that Proud Boys one is okay. People forget that the Short Description is only for a disambiguator or indication of the article's field to help identify the correct article and isn't supposed to be a summary or Cliff Notes of the article. As a result just Organization actually works fine as the disambiguator for that article title. Can't explain the others though. Canterbury Tail talk 21:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, we know exactly why the edit was made. And the edit-summary for their next edit on that article ("If the New York Times is considered a reliable source then the New York Post must be too") is impressively incompetent. Black Kite (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)@Canterbury Tail: Fair enough, how about this edit then [97]? Apparently the claim that they're a far-right neo-nazi organisation is "dubious" because top quality mainstream news and academic books are "left-wing", again I can't tell whether this is POV pushing or CIR. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even assuming good faith, it's an extremely obvious case of the middle ground fallacy. Theknightwho (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh not defending it, we know why it was made. Just saying in isolation it’s an okay edit. Taken with everything else, not so much. Canterbury Tail talk 21:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Upgrading from my topic ban vote above. The subtle POV pushers are the worst kind, because in enough time they do the same damage as overt pushers but are harder to get rid of. Additional diffs has shown a long term strategy by this user to nationalize/racialize certain things (Irish healthcare example) when it suits their preferences (not what the sources say) but curiously remove references to racism and colonialism or act incredibly skeptical of it (Congo lede, police violence topics) and attempt to water-down the article text. Doing so under misleading edit summaries like "spelling correction" is not acceptable. For those who are saying that we tolerate radical communists here (I hope not), please keep in mind that this is not only about professed ideology separate from editing, this has to do with promoting an ideology through editing articles, which is disruptive to the encyclopedia, and misleading editors in edit summaries. At this point, I don't see why someone who seems so apparently focused on adding racism-lite to the encyclopedia should be given a chance to improve articles elsewhere, when all they do is edit politics. Peters may not realize they're doing anything wrong, but I think the community certainly has. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - at this time, pending proof of disruption in other areas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I've now seen the edits below, and agree that the editor is a net negative to the project and should be shown the door. I recommend that the topic ban be put in place as well, so that if some time down the line they request to be re-instated, the CBan can be lifted but the topic ban can stand, and there won't be the need for another TB discussion Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support based on the evidence given; a topic ban would not go far enough. I'd also support a topic ban to be put in place too per Beyond My Ken's reasoning, to avoid spilling excess digital ink on the issue. —AFreshStart (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Further concerns with recent edits

    I have just spotted that B. M. L. Peters has been through several country articles (and others) stripping out unsourced statements. While this is allowed in the general sense, it's obviously not a sensible topic choice given the above concerns. Worse, it appears to be more of the "scorched earth" approach that FDW777 mentions above, where he's making no effort to check whether content should be retained and a decent source located. Some actually stand out to me as extremely well-established facts that probably don't need inline sources due to blue links anyway. Diffs:

    He is undoubtedly a net-negative to the project. Theknightwho (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean for the Google edit it took me all of 30 seconds to find an RS confirming this. Massive WP:CIR issues. Might be good for an admin to step in sooner rather than later - especially given the near uniformity of votes above. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if there's not consensus yet for a community ban, surely a block is reasonable? It also is incredibly annoying that Peter has essentially decided that the proper response to this is to ignore us. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 06:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest the edit to Recusancy is looked at, as it demonstrates that B. M. L. Peters doesn't have the competence required to edit. The original passage read;
    • The 1750 revision is still printed today.{{citation needed|date=September 2013}} Until the prompting for "new translations from the original languages" in [[Pope Pius XII]]'s 1942 [[Papal encyclical]] ''[[Divino afflante Spiritu]]'', and by the [[Second Vatican Council]], it was the translation used by most Catholics.{{citation needed|date=November 2016}}
    It now reads;
    That's a nonsensical sentence. Why remove only half the sentence? FDW777 (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for admin to temporarily block B. M. L. Peters while CBAN discussion continues

    Given the concern of B. M. L. Peters' edits, can an admin temporarily block him until a CBAN conclusion (at least) has been reached? Thanks! -- RockstoneSend me a message! 07:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    /33 rangeblock

    Could someone put a stop to this nonsense for a short bit? Yes, other users are surely on this range, but a maybe in a few hours this person will get bored. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked for 12 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I responded to the original request and ended up blocking 2001:FD8::/32. If someone wants to adjust that, please do. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you were so quick that you blocked before I could fix that. There doesn't seem to be huge amount of activity on the other half, so I'm not sure it matters given such a short block. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BrownHairedGirl contributing to harassment of minor

    It's clear there is not going to be consensus for the requested block, nor a boomerang. Editor age and systemic bias are indeed fair topics for discussion, but in both, caution is merited to avoid personalizing the issue. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:BrownHairedGirl, who is subject to several editing restrictions related to personal attacks, has now made ageist personal attacks against a minor (User:Wizzito) who has been the victim of an on- and off-wiki harassment campaign that was the focus of a special report in today's Signpost.

    Multiple times in the comments under the story, BHG casts aspersions regarding Wizzhito's age. In a reply to a comment by Wizzito themself, BHG calls it "thoroughly wrong for someone as young as 15 to be taking the lead on removing content from an encyclopedia." BHG does not question the integrity or experience of any of the other delete voters at the AfD in question, but specifically singles out Wizzito for their age. Wizzito has over 7600 edits to Wikipedia and they have demonstrated a great understanding of Wikipedia's processes. They have remained extraordinarily calm and collected in explaining Wikipedia policies (including WP:VERIFY to a PhD who really ought to know a lot better). If there is anyone in this situation that lacks maturity, its not Wizzito. BHG further denies that any of the past vicious comments directed at Wizzito even rose to the level of "harassment".

    BHG is certainly free to her beliefs about what happened, but the Wiki Education Foundation staff have unequivocally labeled what happened to Wizzito as harassment. I would argue that BHG's comments have the same intent as the Twitter harassment campaign, and at any rate, ageist insults are prohibited by the Universal Code of Conduct. Request 12-hour block per WP:RESTRICT. Schierbecker (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    At a glance, it seems to me that you violated BLP in that discussion when you described Clark as an instigator of harassment and Lianna as defending an instigator of harassment - saying that someone "instigated" it implies intent and is an extremely serious accusation for which you seem to have provided no evidence whatsoever. The underlying situation is complex, but starting the conversation with a dubious fusillade against two specific living people like that clearly puts you at least as much as fault as anyone else. I disagree with BHG's comments but I don't find them nearly as serious as yours (Wikipedia has no minimum age-to-edit, but the concept is a valid thing to discuss and, unlike the aspersions raised in your comments, Wizzito's age is at least factual and was raised in as far as I can see a mostly civil manner; likewise, if simply disputing whether someone was harassed was itself harassment then we could never reasonably discuss these situations ever.) I would suggest a WP:BOOMERANG. --Aquillion (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We may have different definitions of "instigator." Regardless, that prof not only instigated the harassment campaign, they appeared to endorse and contribute to it by "liking" some of the harassing messages. A minimum age to edit is a valid area of inquiry. However, until the day there is in fact a policy to such effect, calling on a specific user to cease editing for no reason other than their age is absolutely harassment. Schierbecker (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The age of the participants is irrelevant to me and I don't know why BHG thought it important to mention the age several times. I understand the view that it's hard to see how a fifteen-year-old would have sufficient life experience to know when and where it is appropriate to explain notability procedures but all that needs to be said in this case is that it would have been better if the explainer had not engaged. I have not seen Black Women Radicals but have no doubt that it would be hard for that topic to meet WP:N—that's due to how Wikipedia has to work. Nevertheless, anyone nominating that article for deletion should understand that those affected will be upset, and that there are a large number of historical reasons why deletion would be keenly felt. Explaining why life is unfair at Twitter and doing so soon after deletion was bound to end badly. BHG has not harassed anyone but should stop referring to the age factor. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh for crying out loud. Just having wasted a few minutes of my life going over the linked discussion, the OP could use some lessons in calibration. Our cultures have such pervasive views over the maturity of children to handle difficult decisions that they all have numerous legal restrictions concerning the same. A 15-year-old in the United States cannot legally (absent extraordinary circumstances) vote, drink, drive, gamble, marry, serve in the military, smoke, drop out of school, own property, sign most enforceable contracts, pose in the nude, work in many professions, sue in their own right, consent to medical treatment, enjoy unlimited free speech ... it's a huge list. Suggesting that a 15-year-old might not have the experience to handle a difficult topic area is not only far from outrageous, our society generally agrees.

      Beyond that, while we're on the subject, part of maturity is having a skin of a minimum thickness. As the original author of one of the notability standards BrownHairedGirl references as having "been rigged by that dominant demographic," I could choose myself to feel insulted, which indeed I have been -- I reject contemptuously the asinine premise that any standard on NSPORTS was created with malicious intent to do down an amorphous "Not Us." But meh, I'm just not inclined to invite BHG to tea. It would never occur to me to take her to ANI over such a petty thing, or to claim I was being "harassed." The OP's been around Wikipedia quite long enough to know better. This is wasting our time. Ravenswing 07:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      • I am compelled to pedantically point out that under the mature minor doctrine, a fifteen-year-old may well be able to consent to medical treatment in many U.S. states. BD2412 T 07:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
        • Heh. I am likewise pedantically impelled to rebut that fewer than half the states allow some minors to agree to some medical treatments, and in almost every case the medical personnel get a veto. Louisiana's the only state that places no limitation on age, maturity, type of procedure or based upon the approval of medical personnel. Ravenswing 11:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
    • For context:Wizzito has been the subject of a number of bizarre posts by IPs at this noticeboard in recent days. It sure as hell looked like a harassment campaign, I just didn't know what it was about until now. I don't think that anyone should be questioning whether this user has been the subject of harassment, and we should be doing what we can to protect them from that. Girth Summit (blether) 07:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's some kind of weird harassment from some guy in Denver who got mad that I reverted him vandalizing the AIV page. @Girth Summit: wizzito | say hello! 14:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? It didn't occur to me that you might be being subjected to two separate harassment campaigns. I'm sorry that's happening to you. Girth Summit (blether) 15:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm largely going to echo what I said at the signpost discussion; comments accusing a harassed editor of determined offence-taking and trying to make the white guys the victims are entirely inappropriate; at the very least these violate WP:AGF. BilledMammal (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Skdb: Boy, you sure were right about it being important to get the wording right in that article. jp×g 08:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having now read the linked discussion and associated links, I'm not seeing the personal attacks alleged in this report. Unrelated Twitter harassment notwithstanding, there is no reasonable justification for a punitive block on BHG, nor is there sufficient justification for boomerang sanctions on Schierbecker. Distribute WP:trouts as needed and move on. We have bigger fish to fry heh AlexEng(TALK) 09:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Media often plays the outrage card to boost views. The significant error in this affair was the person who summoned a mob on Twitter, which predictably lead to harassment. Further publicizing these events only prolongs the harm. I suggest closing this thread. Jehochman Talk 12:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not great from BHG. The editor's judgment was upheld at AfD and they have coped some unpleasant harassment for it, so bringing up their age comes off as passive-aggressive. I don't think it's ban worthy, but it isn't appropriate behaviour either. I'm also rather unimpressed by Aquillion's call for a BOOMERANG, that was a serious overreaction. --RaiderAspect (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean, I felt her comments were disrespectful, yes, (there's many productive editors I know who are young and dabble in Wikipedia just fine) but is she deserving of a block? Hell to the no. wizzito | say hello! 14:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having read through the story, the surrounding discussions, and the talkpage posts, I would echo the consensus above that the comments were unpleasant, but not "contributing to harassment". For those concerned about the discussion of an editor's age in such a manner (as I am), I would suggest the raising of the age in yet another forum is not ideal, and would agree with the above suggestion of quickly closing this thread. CMD (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Response by BHG

    Most of what I see here looks to me like an attempt to shut down expression of a dissenting view. I do not intend to waste my time getting sucked into yet another layer of drama upon drama, so I will just make one post noting a few points, mostly about how @Schierbecker's complaint is based on a series of gross misrepresentations of me which are so severe that they could be regarded as fabrication:

    1. @Schierbecker's opening post asserts BHG further denies that any of the past vicious comments directed at Wizzito even rose to the level of "harassment".
      The link in that quote points to a post by me whose full text is @Wizzito: as far as I can see, you were subjected to some criticism. Why do you call that "harassment"?.
      Note that I did not "deny" anything: I asked a question.
      In other words, @Schierbecker's complaint is based in part on a flagrant misrepresentation of me ... and for that alone, @Schierbecker's complaint should have been summarily dismissed.
    2. @Schierbecker says they would argue that BHG's comments have the same intent as the Twitter harassment campaign.
      There is no basis whatsoever for this argument, and I note that on this point Schierbecker doesn't even try to offer any evidence. Far from having any such intent, the substance of my comments on the Signpost article was consistently to point to a number of structural failings which underpin this episode. Schierbecker's comment is an assumption of bad faith which not only lacks supporting evidence, but runs completely counter to what I actually wrote. Again, for that fabriction alone, @Schierbecker's complaint should have been summarily dismissed
    3. I stand by my view that it is "thoroughly wrong for someone as young as 15 to be taking the lead on removing content from an encyclopedia". As both @Ravenswing and Aquillion note, it is a legitimate subject of discussion. Feel free to disagree with me on that, but remember that freedom to disagree on a policy issue is essential to building consensus. Schierbecker wants to sanction me just for taking a different view.
    4. The current guidelines place absolutely no restriction on any actions by younger editor, so I make no suggestion or claim that wizzito breached any guideline or policy in doing so. Here is my comment on that, in full, as the third point in a 3-point post[98]:

      It seems to me to be very unlikely that a 15yo is suitably experienced to be able to assess the significance and availability of sources related to a politically-contentious topic which is not well-covered in mainstream media. I intend no criticism of the individual concerned, who I assume is diligent and well-intentioned ... but the ideal choice of person to assess such matters would be someone with a lot more experience. That is a structural problem arising from wp's fundamental policies relating to editors


      Schierbecker attempts to portray that as not just a personal attack, but as intent to harass ... which is such a grotesque inversion of what I wrote.
    5. In a later post here at ANI, Schierbecker wrote[99] calling on a specific user to cease editing for no reason other than their age is absolutely harassment.
      At no point in the Signpost discussion did I make anything which could be remotely construed as such a call. Schierbecker's assertion is utterly false.

    I also want to comment on Ravenswing's statement notability standards BrownHairedGirl references as having "been rigged by that dominant demographic," I could choose myself to feel insulted, which indeed I have been -- I reject contemptuously the asinine premise that any standard on NSPORTS was created with malicious intent to do down an amorphous "Not Us."

    This is another misrepresentation. I did not suggest or imply malicious intent. I simply noted the effect: that Wikipedia's dominant demographic has created a situation where the topics which interest that dominant demographic get a free pass at AFD. Here is my comment[100] in full: I contrast the pile-on to delete this article with the outcomes at AFD for the sports topics which attract the young white males who dominate wikipedia. The notability rules have been rigged by that dominant demographic to give an automatic free pass at AFD to hundreds of thousands of sports biogs which fail GNG, while subjecting topics such as African American women's activism to a much higher standard. This has gotten so extreme that my research found a few month ago that bout half of all biographies of people born since the 1930s were of sportspeople. That is a massive, systemic imbalance.

    In other words, I pointed out how a systemic imbalance in the demographics of en.wp editors has led to a widely-observed systemic imbalance in deletion policy and practice, with a consequent systemic imbalance in content. That is not an allegation of malice; it is a description of how one imbalance leads to another, until we get to a situation where the rules are effectively rigged in favour of some topics. I see no conspiracy behind this, but I do see the hugely damaging effects of a lack of diversity.

    This whole saga seems to me to show Wikipedia at its very worst. I tried at WT:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-01-30/Special report to make the case for everyone to calm down a bit, to move beyond offence-taking to look at the systemic and structural problems behind this saga, and to try to find inclusive solutions.

    I deeply wish that I could be more surprised that my appeal for less heat, less taking of offence at different perspectives, and more reflection on the context has led to an attempt to sanction me on the basis of a pile of fabrications, misrepresentations and assumptions of bad faith. I will not desist from trying to make the case for calmer assessments, but this episode is yet another milestone in my growing concern about the community's ability to create an environment in which we can actually build an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Since you're addressing it, I'll return serve. "The notability rules have been rigged by that dominant demographic to give an automatic free pass at AFD to hundreds of thousands of sports biogs which fail GNG, while subjecting topics such as African American women's activism to a much higher standard" is absolutely an allegation of intent, the more so in that all NSPORTS criteria are underpinned by the GNG, which is entirely neutral in language and holds everyone to identical standards. (If you want to allege that society itself, in that which it chooses to notice in both print sources and the media, has differing standards for different groups, be my guest, but changing society's POV is outside of Wikipedia's scope.) If you didn't actually mean it, change your language. Ravenswing 16:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ravenswing: Please do to try to actually read what I wrote.
      I described the effect of these rules. I did not make any assertion about intent, let alone ascribe malice.
      The sports fans have rigged the rules for the positive reason of furthering their own area of interest. Even if they are entirely free of any judgement about the merits of other topics, the special exemption for their favoured topic creates a systemic imbalance.
      Yes, in theory NSPORTS criteria are underpinned by the GNG ... but in practice the NSPORTS presumptions have led to a situation where we have many many thousands of biographical articles on sportspeople which show no evidence of meeting GNG, and where it is much harder to delete those articles at AFD than to delete articles on other topics. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If I may make a humble suggestion, I think the controversy here largely boils down to the word 'rigged.' Perhaps we could say that Wikipedia exhibits a systemic bias based on its skewed user base instead? Dumuzid (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Why? Its a nothingburger 'controversy'. The only intent in the statement to start with is to deliberately devalue the other person's right to have an opinion (eg, they belong to a certain demographic). Much like making comments on editor's ages, its a targeted approach at the editor themselves rather than their contributions. And short of a restriction on BHG preventing her from making any comment related to other editors that isnt directly related to their contributions (or pontificating at large on the editor demographics on-wiki, there are plenty of places off-wiki) BHG is not going to stop. So its either deal with the sophistry as it comes up, or put an editing restriction in place on BHG. Since there is almost zero chance of the latter, this entire discussion is a waste of time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a subject that interests me, and I value precision. That's why. Apologies if you find that troublesome. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Only in death is correct on one point, and one point only: that I will not desist in commenting on the well-documented problem of the highly-skewed demographic of en.wp's editors.
      This problem has been the subject of numerous scholarly studies, and I remain firmly of the view both that this massive imbalance and its consequences are central to our efforts to uphold WP:NPOV, and that as such they are legitimate and vital topics for discussion .
      It is very sad, but thoroughly unsurprising, to find yet again that discussion of a well-documented systemic problem is disparaged, this time as "sophistry". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, in fact, I read what you wrote. It is unfortunate that you conflate failure to agree with your POV with failure to comprehend your POV, but you're no more likely to hear any voices outside your echo chamber than Schierbecker. In any event, neither POV is a matter for ANI. Ravenswing 17:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ravenswing. Sigh. My objection is to the repeated to efforts to misrepresent my POV, which is what you and Schierbecker have both done. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Cross-wiki harassment from 93.143.73.189

    Block evasion by 93.143.73.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was blocked for harassment towards another user (see 93.143.83.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 93.143.81.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). They had also operated under 93.142.139.21, 93.142.155.169, 93.143.70.241. Following their block, they have sent me these two messages, on simple.wiki and commons (note: MYS is the previously-mentioned harassed user). Ideally, a cross-wiki IP-range block should be done. Nehme1499 17:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Update... Nehme1499 17:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update pt.2 Nehme1499 17:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to help admins; their ranges are 93.143.64.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 93.142.128.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) wizzito | say hello! 19:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They are back with IPs outside the range (93.137.10.199, 93.137.14.176‎). 14:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

    stop unsourced stalking, everyone will see vandalism you are making on 3 lebanese clubs against legitimate sources, dead links and more errors reverted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.14.176 (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive reverting and incorrect warnings by anonymous user on IP range

    2806:108e:18:1e1b::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

    I noticed an anonymous user on this IP range making poor reverts on random articles and placing only warnings for vandalism on some affected anons. While I do notice a few good faith reverts on this range, I do believe a majority of these reverts are bad and action may need to be taken, even if only a warning. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, Jalen Folf, but don't worry. I'll revert all the damage I've done to that IP user you're referring to. 2806:108E:18:1E1B:DD9F:9C35:3BA9:363E (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to let you know, Jalen Folf and all admins seeing this that I've already reverted all the damage I've made and I apologize for doing so. 2806:108E:18:1E1B:DD9F:9C35:3BA9:363E (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 62.98.130.202

    62.98.130.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Aggressive and uncooperative IP adding demonstrably false information on chart placings to articles on blues musicians John Lee Hooker and Muddy Waters. Some sort of action needed, if possible. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) First off, Ghmyrtle, you forgot to remind the IP about a report on WP:ANI. I have done that for you. Second off, the IP is already blocked. Third, maybe an administrator may have to revoke the TPA for the IP. Severestorm28 22:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP block came after I raised it here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need to revoke talk page access just yet. PhilKnight (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    However, on the IP's talk page it reads "I'm bored...you are a dumb", and "you bad bad bad stoooop". Oh well... Severestorm28 00:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Depending on how they respond to the short block for edit warring, it may be necessary to take further action. As Ghmyrtle noted, the IP is making false claims about certain details which are not found in the sources they cite. This is a serious concern and, if it continues, should be dealt with accordingly. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    ICookie is back


    Indeffed user ICookie who claimed to be the above IP in at least one edit has returned to edit Luckin Coffee from their IP. They were blocked initially for UPE and it was extended for NOTHERE. Information about the case can be found at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_182#Luckin_Coffee and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#ICookie.
    Now, I know we don't like to indef IPs which may be shared but can we block this IP from editing Luckin Coffee? Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked 84.211.19.226 for self-admitting block evasion. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    31 hours? Seems very little for a user who has the patience to wait months before returning to make COI edits on the very same page again. I am not asking for a site-wide block of any duration, only for a P-block for the particular article of Luckin Coffee, the latter of which I hope to be indefinite. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rusted AutoParts

    I don't any good coming from this thread. The edit war was resolved by BrickMaster's self-revert. Rusted AutoParts should have let it go at ANEW. Brickmaster's report about Rusted AutoParts at AIV was abusive, and coming here and demanding an indefinite block absurd. Everyone should go find more constructive things to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I wrongfully reverted his edits on Template:Paramount+, and later reinstated them. Now, he's complaining about me and reporting me over the edits and comments I regret making. BrickMaster02 (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) BrickMaster02, is this a problem with Rusted AutoParts that an admin needs to take care of? Rusted AutoParts reported you, and now you are reporting Rusted AutoParts. Also, when and how did he complain? Severestorm28 04:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page, multiple times. He did it an hour ago, and I demand an indefinite ban for him. BrickMaster02 (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Linking the now admin addressed issue raised at edit warring. The issue was over two shows that didn't have pages being included in the network programming template. I had explained that since the shows failed current standards for having independent mainspace articles they can't be added into it. They had been reverting edits and removing my attempts to discuss the issue with them, but I consider the issue dead as the edits were restored and they have expressed to me regret over the conflict. Rusted AutoParts 04:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it's not put past us? this is the comment they left before deleting the discussion on their talk page. Rusted AutoParts 04:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And now there's this. What happened to sincerely apologizing?. The editor even snuck back to the template and readded the shows. Rusted AutoParts 05:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor in general seems to have a very volatile approach to how they act on the site, there's a thread on their talk page posted by @Bcschneider53: who linked edit summaries such as this and this. Rusted AutoParts 05:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits are reinstated, with no intention of going back to them. I’m finally ready to put this to rest. BrickMaster02 (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Cunard merging during AfD

    User:Cunard has been occasionally merging articles while they are listed at WP:Articles for deletion. This creates attribution dependencies that interfere with deletion due to WP:Copying within Wikipedia (copyright guideline, shortcut WP:CWW). WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion (how-to guide, shortcut WP:EDITATAFD) has discouraged this since WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 58#Merging during live AfD (August–December 2009). (Disclosure: I made a small change to WP:EDITATAFD recently, but the article/page distinction is not relevant here.)

    Cunard has cited WP:CWW frequently, and he should be well aware that merging during AfD is discouraged. There was a lengthy sequence of discussions from mid-February through the end of March 2021 sparked by Cunard's merging Squad (app) into List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter during WP:Articles for deletion/Squad (app).

    This report is because I noticed this merge from two days ago. I remembered the DRV, and I found an extended pattern after a little research.

    Cunard and I participated in a dispute involving merging an article that had been deleted at AfD. I think it is only somewhat related, but I am including links to it for completeness.

    I anticipate that some editors will agree with the outcome of Cunard's merges and thus dismiss my concerns. WP:Consensus and the processes established to reach it should be respected.

    I believe that Wikipedia's licensing requirements must not be abused as a tactic against deletion. I request that Cunard be given a final warning. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Notification diff. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Flatscan: have you discussed it with Cunard (more recently than 6 years ago)? This feels like a discussion that needs polite discourse prior to an ANI thread Nosebagbear (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm a huge fan of much of Cunard's work in general, but this does seem problematic. But I agree with NBB that discussion is probably the next step before coming here. If that doesn't resolve the problem then you're stuck coming back here... Hobit (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you both for your comments. A direct conversation can educate, persuade, and maybe negotiate undoing the contested action. All of those were unlikely: Cunard has demonstrated knowledge of WP:CWW and proficiency with merging, four experienced editors had objected directly at the Squad DRV (diffs above and below), and the merges cannot be undone with anything short of WP:Revision deletion. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, but then we'd have his response. And his response is appropriate--the link you gave to a how-to guide probably isn't controlling here. That said, the discussion that got that link had fairly strong consensus. I don't he should be chided for not treating a how-to guide as a guideline when the thing says "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting". That said, the consensus was clear and that "varying level of consensus" is pretty high and should be respected most of the time (the discussion was clear it shouldn't be a "never") IMO. I'd say his proposed process for dealing with the merge is okay, but I'd prefer he A) only do this rarely (which frankly seems to be the case) and B) he also copy the names of the contributors into a note where it was merged as that appears to be enough to meet our licencing requirements (otherwise if the draft gets deleted we have problems). The "copy the names of the contributors" thing means that in the rare case where this does happen, we are fine on licensing. He could even wait until the article was deleted I suppose (and probably should if the deleted article has a ton of contributors). Hobit (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at your last 50 contributions, and we last interacted six years ago when you were last active. Why did you not discuss this with me on my talk page? I thought that this merge of two sentences about a Macedonian-American newspaper to Macedonian Americans#Media would be uncontroversial. All three subsequent participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makedonski Glas have endorsed the merge. I did not expect it to trigger an ANI report that included a list of all merges I have done in the last six years and a "dispute" from November 2015.

      When I merge an article, my intention is to improve Wikipedia. I do it immediately because I would otherwise forget or not have time. My actions are based on Wikipedia:Be bold and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, which makes no mention of forbidding merges during AfDs. I encourage editors who would like to forbid merging during AfD to modify Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging to add that language. If merging during an AfD should be forbidden and editors sanctioned for that action, the relevant policy should say this. The policy currently says nothing about merging during AfDs. I do not view the merges I've done as being against the current policy, but in view of Flatscan's concern, I will hold off on doing any merges during AfDs for the next few months until the policy is clarified. I had not read the paragraph in Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, a how-to guide.

      When I do a merge, my intention is not to "abuse" Wikipedia's licensing requirements "as a tactic against deletion". Furthermore, there is no need for any editor to conduct a merge "as a tactic against deletion". Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion says, "This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere." WP:REFUND can always be used to request that an article's history be restored to draft or userspace to be "used elsewhere" such as in a merge. As I wrote here, to avoid contentious discussions like Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app), whenever I want to conduct a merge of a deleted article, I will do this now instead of opening a deletion review:

      1. After Squad (app) was deleted by the AfD, I would have requested that Squad (app) be draftified to Draft:Squad (app).
      2. After draftication, I would have completed the merge and redirected Draft:Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad.
      3. I would redirect Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad with an edit summary noting that the history is now at Draft:Squad (app) and that a merge has been completed.
      Cunard (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have repeatedly demonstrated an understanding of WP:CWW and its implications, and your merge edit summaries follow recommended practices. I expected you to understand and respect the objections you received at the Squad DRV. (DRV diffs previously provided above)
      • Whether AfD participants agree with the merge is irrelevant to this discussion. The problem is that merging removes delete as an option.
      • Thank you for pledging a temporary self-restriction. A mention seems like it could fit in WP:Deletion policy#Merging, but the prohibition was determined by consensus. WP:Consensus can change in 12 years, but no such changes appear in the history of WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. It was stable 2009–2013, had a minor rewrite, then was stable again until I tweaked it a few days ago (diff above, not relevant).
      • I object to your proposed process, as I consider it to be a backdoor method of overturning a delete consensus. Avoiding a contentious DRV discussion avoids DRV. SportingFlyer responded with a caution to your original proposal at AN. I am concerned that you do not see its issues. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have observed other editors doing merges during AfDs without any concerns being raised. If you would like merges to be disallowed during AfD and to sanction editors who do such merges, then Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging needs to be updated to say this. Saying this in a how-to guide is insufficient as it does not have the visibility and weight of the policy.

          I object to your proposed process, as I consider it to be a backdoor method of overturning a delete consensus. Avoiding a contentious DRV discussion avoids DRV. SportingFlyer responded with a caution to your original proposal at AN. I am concerned that you do not see its issues. – another editor saw no issue with the restoring to draftspace approach to doing a merge after the AfD. It is very common practice for admins to restore articles deleted at AfD to draftspace or userspace for improvement or for use in other Wikipedia articles. Restoration to draftspace is usually denied only when the article history has copyright violations or BLP violations. If the AfD closer is fine with restoring a deleted article to draftspace (or says they do not object to WP:REFUND doing so), I see no problems at all with doing this. Even the how-to guide you are citing says this is fine; from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion, "Even if the article is ultimately deleted, you can ask the closing administrator for a copy of the material to reuse, and the administrator can also advise you on any further steps that you may need to perform in order to reuse the content." Cunard (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think this is a super big issue in the grand scheme of things, but don't you think it would be better to leave it to the administrators to merge to do since the guidelines says the administrators will deal with it? If nothing else it would at least eliminate any perceptions that your trying to use merges to get around content being deleted. There's no reason content needs to be merged in the middle of an AfD either. In fact, it might be better to wait until people have improved the article through the AfD process first before merging any content from it into another article. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be surprised if the guidelines say administrators should do the merge since I rarely see closing administrators do a merge after an AfD is closed as a merge/redirect. In many cases, a merge doesn't happen after the article is redirected because no one remembers or has the time and inclination to do so. This is why when I have time, I do a merge when it will improve the encyclopedia. In a case like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makedonski Glas, merging during an AfD is useful to show participants how the content would fit in the target article. I don't consider merging during an AfD to be getting around deleting content. To reuse deleted content that has no BLP or copyright violations, any editor can ask the closing admin to draftify and follow the merge/redirect approach I described above. Cunard (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be surprised if the guidelines say an administrator "should" do the merge to. Although that wasn't what I said. What I did say is that the guideline says administrators "will" do the merge. Which from what I've seen happens most of the time. Even if it means someone asking them to do it. In the meantime, what the guideline doesn't say is "anyone can merge whatever content they want, whenever they feel like." I don't see how the guideline would be implying that either when it specifically says "administrators" multiple times and goes out of it's way to say the user can ask an administrator what their options are after the AfD is closed. Why wouldn't it just say "you can merge content at anytime during the AfD process" if that's what we can do? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had thought that there was a large {{Afd-merge to}} backlog, but it has relatively few transclusions. Good to know! Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I did say is that the guideline says administrators "will" do the merge. – I am not aware of a guideline that says this. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The guideline says a user can ask an administrator what the options are if an article is deleted and that the administrator can provide them a copy of the material to reuse. Do you have any evidence of an admin refusing to do a merge when someone asked them to do one or not allowing someone to do it themselves? If it's something that never happens then there's zero reason not to just ask an admin for the content of the article after the AfD is closed. Otherwise, it seems like your trying to subvert the process. FYI, I don't think you are, but I can understand why people would interpret it that way. Personally, I don't see why you would care either way. It literally makes zero difference. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Copying the article's prose with a little trimming to a Media sub-section in Macedonian Americans#Culture" conveys the proposal nearly as well, as the article is only three sentences. You could make a note on- or off-wiki or review your contributions page to jog your memory. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That could work. I don't like adding to my long todo list and having to reacquaint myself with a topic when it can be done at the time. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't patrol AfD, so I am not generally aware of merging happening at AfD. A few days ago, I recommended warning a user who had been making Draft: copies of articles at AfD. If merging/copying is widespread, I agree that changes should be made to increase visibility. I will note that the Guide to deletion is linked from every AfD in {{AFD help}}.
    I don't know the distribution of closing admins, but refusing to restore is also common. REFUND's standard response template {{UND}} has an afd parameter for AfD declines, such as this one from yesterday. (For transparency, the AfD's closing admin would have been willing to restore to Draft space if not for it having two AfDs.) A minor point about the mention of providing a copy in EDITATAFD: it also covers off-Wikipedia use such as a personal collection or on a compatibly-licensed wiki like Fandom (website). Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Other editors have done merges at AfD without any concerns being raised. If you would like to disallow merging during AfD and sanction editors for doing so, this wording needs to be added to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging. It is my view that the current policy does not disallow merges during AfD. Closing admins have restored articles to draftspace when I have asked them. If a closing admin refused to restore an article to draftspace and refused to allow WP:REFUND to do so, then and only then would I ask WP:DRV to restore the article to draftspace. Thank you for providing that example about a denial of restoration. I think the request to restore is reasonable and will improve the encyclopedia. I have asked the community to restore the article to draftspace at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 3#Pathan (film). Cunard (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Account on a mission (moved from COI)

    We recently reported and discussed a rather strange case of disruptive editor with an obvious long-term goal at the "Conflict of Interes" noticeboard, with the result to move it to another board, such as ANI. This specific user is Hunan201p (talk · contribs).

    Please see the discussion at COI, which was closed because of wrong location:[1], but includes crucial information and opinions of other users, such as Drmies (talk · contribs), who proposed a topic ban on topics related to ethnography and genetics (archaeogenetics)[2]. In my opinion, the user does not appear to be here to build up an encyclopedia, but rather to push his personal views, as such I request a carefull analysis of his edit, as well as looking at his talk page disputes. According to WP:NOTHERE, it is a rather clear case in my eyes, looking at the sheer number of disputes, blockes, and disruptive personal views.

    To present some more examples and explanation: User Hunan201p had a long history of disruptive edits and discussions with other users. His talk page is full of warnings and disputes with other editors.

    But much more concerning is the racialist and kind of white supremacist agenda coming out of this user, with a highly educated/knowledge about Wikipedia rules and policies (already at the beginning of his edit carrier), which is not impossible, but unusual. There is an increasing problem with notorious LTA's operating in topics related to human genetics and racialist theories, and adding their 19th century babbling. Hunan201p seems to remove content in conflict with his personal agenda (or POV), often citing essays such as WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS. However he was including similar primary and secondary genetic studies, in accordance with his agenda. He mostly got reverted, warned, and even blocked several times in 2020 to early 2021. Than 2021 was rather low activity, now in early 2022, he seems to try to propagate changes to Wikipedia policies to come closer to his long-term goal again, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Official_policy_regarding_genetics_sources. He obviously now tries to remove the unpleasant content per policy changes.

    Hunan201p seems to have a clear preference to edit topics related to genetics and ethnography, with a special connection to Indo-Europeans, various ancient Eurasian Steppe cultures, Turkic peoples, and blonde hair, but was also active on editing racialist articles such as Caucasoid and Mongoloid. In many topics, he removed large amounts of content linking historical people to East Asians, while he tried to include misleading claims of Indo-European connections, such as linking haplogroup Q to Indo-European expansion, or making various ancient people "blonde haired, blue eyed warriors" . He is mostly focused on ethnography and genetic topics and is intensely concerned by pushing a "white supremacist" agenda, such as trying to prove Ghenghis Khan was blonde and blue eyed[3][4], ancient Mongolians were blone and blue eyed, haplogroup Q is Indo-European, various edits about blonde and red hair (simply look at the edit history of blonde hair [last 500 edits] and search Hunan) and its association with a "lost European tribe in Siberia"[5][6][7], as well as controversial edits on historical racialist classifications, such as "Alpine race"[8]. This also includes heavy disputes with other editors regarding genetics and references/sources, even personally attacking experts such as Damgaard (geneticist and historian)[9][10][11], and trying to overrule WP:SCIRS and MEDRS[12][13]. Simply take a look through his edits:[14].

    This all is not very encyclopedia friendly in my eyes. Now, as he did not succeed with pushing his agenda, he tries to get into Wikipedia policies and rules, to finally be able to remove the content he was trying to delete earlier! In my opinion this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Taking into account that he also seems to be active on reddit (as mentioned by another person), this is not a simple conflict of interest. I want to notify some editors which already know Hunan201p's agenda: Krakkos (talk · contribs), Qiushufang (talk · contribs), Steve Quinn (talk · contribs), Drmies (talk · contribs), Jingiby (talk · contribs). I probably forgot to mention some more users, but you can see on his talk page that he had multiple disputes and problems with various users, always related to genetics and ethnography. I renew my observation that this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and "Account On A Mission".

    I think we must be very careful these days, multiple sock farms and groups of people sharing interest in similar topics try to influence various topics, mostly associated with ethno-nationalist and racialist topics. Hunan201p is clearly part of such kind. He is obviously in clear opposition of another LTA (WorldCreaterFighter (talk · contribs), or the notorious Tirgil34 (talk · contribs), but they all share a common interest in genetics and racialist topics. A special link between Hunan201p and Tirgil34 is the obsession with blonde hair among Turks, Mongols and Ghenghis Khan, but currently no other behavior evidence suggests a connection between them. I am not sure what to do with these kind of people, but they become an increasing problem for Wikipedia. Hunan201p is probable only one of such kind, operating on Wikipedia to spread their 19th century babbling.

    Looking at Hunan201p's talk page and the many disputes there with various users, always about topics concerning ethnic identity, genetics, and racialist characteristics, such as blonde hair, as well as the edit warring and block history, is enough to block a user of such kind without discussion. The argument that he was less disruptive in the last month is simply because he made only few edits, mostly on talk pages. He is simply waiting for it to strike again! Which constructive user is in such way obsessed with the topics of genetics and phenotypes or policies related to biomedicine, and has such kind of edit/conflict history? Observing the behavior, there is clearly a long-term goal. Multiple users have pointed that out, even questioning his motivation or calling him a white supremacist.[15][16] I can only repeat that any kind of such persons are WP:NOTHERE. For the sake of Wikipedia, such people will only cause disruption and troubles, and we already have enough from that.

    By taking all these disruptive and POV edits into account, Hunan201p disqualifed himself from editing in this areas, see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Principles.

    I am really shocked that such kind of user is allowed to create so much trouble, without WP:NOTHERE, or at least a topic ban, as proposed by several users, was not enforced. Users have been blocked for less, and the fact that this all is probably related to white supremacism or a kind of racialist bias, is more shocking. Such people are damaging the reputation of Wikipedia, and if not stopped, will cause much trouble in the future. Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs) proposed Hunan201p should simply stop editing these topics at all.[17]

    I really hope someone will carefully take a look at his edits and talk page, and prevent future damage to Wikipedia by people inclined to racialism and ethno-nationalism. Wikipedia must not be a play and fight ground for racialist and opposing ethno-nationalist groupings, clearly referring to other LTA's editing the same topics.103.153.254.189 (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Probable_conflict_of_interest_(Account_on_mission?)
    2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=1068878013&oldid=1068876052
    3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genghis_Khan/Archive_10#Physical_appearance
    4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blond&type=revision&diff=950834685&oldid=950755259
    5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hunan201p/Archive_1#Ancient_North_Eurasian
    6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_hair&diff=956931757&oldid=956807223
    7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blond&type=revision&diff=1004172922&oldid=1002313242
    8. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hunan201p/Archive_1#Alpine_race
    9. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hunan201p#Biased_POV_by_a_dude_with_the_last_name_%22Damgaard%22?
    10. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hunan201p#There_is_not_a_consensus
    11. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hunan201p#Disruptive_editing
    12. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hunan201p/Archive_1#Please_form_a_consensus_among_users_before_making_drastic_changes_to_an_article
    13. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hunan201p#WP:MEDRS_and_WP:OR
    14. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Hunan201p&offset=&limit=500&target=Hunan201p
    15. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Austronesier#Hunan201p
    16. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AXiongnu&type=revision&diff=1062334356&oldid=1062310485
    17. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=1069015792&oldid=1069015275
    IP 103.153.254.189, that's a very long post. Would you please summarise the most important points in, say, three sentences? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Passerby information Administrator note: I proxyblocked OP's IP. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:HOUND. OP failed to demonstrate anywhere in his COI case that I am a racist and one editor testified to OP putting words in to his mouth. My thoughts are summarized at the COI case. Would also like to note that I was not notified at my talk page about this post. Hunan201p (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with Hunan's edit history but the thread at RSN appears to express a concern that contradicts the IP user, since it's about increasing the sourcing quality for genetics based claims about peoples. It seems to argue against the use of primary sources. However, the "Respect primary sources" subtitle can probably be improved, as the section is basically a warning about their caveats. The full text is at WP:SCIRS. —PaleoNeonate – 14:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding Special:Contributions/2A01:E0A:D9:AD0::/64 for scrutiny, may be the same as the VN-proxy IP. —PaleoNeonate – 16:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And possibly a familiar LTA (that the IPv6 above rightfully reverted). Special:Contributions/80.243.173.100 —PaleoNeonate – 16:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PaleoNeonate: I greatly appreciate your vigilance. I suspect that this is a rather sloppy joe job attempt, looking at their edit history, and their IP location (associated with the notoruous LTA, WorldCreaterFighter (talk · contribs)).
    I do find it interesting that this individual is so desperate to frame me. Hunan201p (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone do a SPI check and investigate on Hunan and the austrian IP 80.243.173.100 as well as the other austrian IPs that seems interested in those kind of topics? There seems to be a long history linking those two. I think Hunan is playing an elaborate sockpuppet operation with the austrian IP, spamming the topics he frequents (genetics and history) with the opposing views and getting banned so he can link anyone with the opposing views and get them banned as well, see his obsession with WCF[1] and the austrian IP[2]. There seems to be a close resemblance in their hatred of certain research papers and researchers, especially the 2020 paper by P. Hallast one[3][4][5]. In everyone of these instances, he seems to be bent on removing any reference concerning East Asia or East Asians and that seems to be the only reason he edits on Wikipedia. 2A01:E0A:D9:AD0:6992:4140:B230:7EA (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another piece of evidence, look how curiously the austrian IP comes back to life just to post and delete on Hunan's post[6] and for Hunan to reference the incident[7], even more curious all my (rightful according to Paleo) reverts were undone once he posted my IP containing my contributions on this thread, why is the austrian IP suddenly aware of my edits and of this thread relating to Hunan? Pinging Drmies (talk · contribs), he seems to know the situation. 2A01:E0A:D9:AD0:6992:4140:B230:7EA (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is clearly an IP joe job against me, and not the first time I've been a victim of one, concurrent with my interactions with WorldCreaterFighter. See this case. I am not responsible for any of the IP edits. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See also this case, in which a user made nearly identical IP edits using an interesting static IP. This too was a joe iob. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These are unrelated, we are talking here about the obsession of the user Hunan about socketpuppets (see his current push to change WP policies around that[8]) and his other obsession about austrian IPs[9] and his efforts to link them to various banned users (WCF, Tirgil)[10][11]. It is obvious that there is something very fishy going on here and it must be investigated. 2A01:E0A:D9:AD0:6992:4140:B230:7EA (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, says the IP editor who showed up on this day out of nowhere using the same allegations as the other IPs. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to document Hunan's recurrent behaviour of accusing every IP user to be a SP or WCF[12][13] 2A01:E0A:D9:AD0:6992:4140:B230:7EA (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another point of interest for admins, the user is obviously active on reddit and monitoring different subreddits for his preferred topics, so it seems likely he might be coordinating with people his activities on Wikipedia.[14] 2A01:E0A:D9:AD0:6992:4140:B230:7EA (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you can provide evidence for off-wiki coordination you should be blocked. Please ensure any evidence you have doesn't violate WP:OUTING. If it does, then you need to email arbcom about it and really should not be talking about it on wiki Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that he was coordinating off-wiki, I just suspect that he might be as he's active on other platforms and his activities there are related to wikipedia. The link to reddit is evidence enough to back what I stated. But the main point isn't about off-wiki activities, it was just a point of interest. All the other issues still need investigating. 2A01:E0A:D9:AD0:6992:4140:B230:7EA (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What link to Reddit? The only link remotely related that I've seen is [101]. But while Hunan201p did provide a link to reddit (sort of), there's no indication that Hunan201p is any of the people involved in that thread, indeed they weren't even the first person to link to that thread, some other editor was. If you have something linking Hunan201p to Reddit which complies with WP:OUTING and which shows some sort of inappropriate activity then please provide it. If you have nothing that complies with OUTING then take it to arbcom and shut up about it here. In any case, if you don't have evidence that you can talk about on wiki. then withdraw your claim. Casting aspertions is not acceptable. Note that you need to not only demonstrate Hunan201p is active on Reddit in a way which complies with OUTING, which so far you haven't done, but also there is some sort of inappropriate coordination going on. Plenty of editors have lives outside Wikipedia. It's irrelevant unless there is evidence they are actually coordinating offsite. It is unlikely anyone is going to take the time to investigate any of your claims when it's clear at least some of your claims are backed by zero evidence, even more so if you refuse to withdraw these completely unsupported claims. And that's putting aside the fact you appear to be a sock. Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is literally a link to reddit[15], and the indication that he is active there enough that he knows the name of deleted posters (meaning that he was monitoring the subreddit and didn't just find the thread after being linked). But if that's your biggest problem with the case, I am withdrawing it, I was just raising a point of interest. 2A01:E0A:D9:AD0:345A:7E56:EF22:4260 (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not active on any platforms besides Wikipedia, and not coordinating with anyone. Note that a similar IP editor posted, and promptly deleted, similar content on my talk page, talking about off-wiki forum content, and pretending they're not WorldCreaterFighter when other users are pretty sure that they are, etc. It should be pretty clear by now that this is a case of WP:HOUND, unless you really believe a bunch of non-registered Wikipedia users in France and Vietnam woke up one day and decided they knew me better than I do. -- Hunan201p (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Hunan201 should be topic banned. And if that doesn't work they should be banned from Wikipedia. They are definitely NOTHERE. This editor shows repeatedly that they are unable to collaborate with other editors. Also, Hunan tries to WP:OWN Wikipedia pages to promote their agenda. Another one of their tricks is to accuse other editors of being sock puppets. This is incredibly disruptive behavior. Also, such accusations might be a ploy to OWN topics and pages. To the person who wrote the initial complaint - you should keep the complaint as short as possible. Otherwise, editors tend to ignore large blocks of text. I recommend≥ shortening the complaint but keep the same number of links as evidence. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WorldCreaterFighter&diff=prev&oldid=1062289863
    2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xiongnu&diff=prev&oldid=1062310696
    3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kyrgyz_people&diff=1039597914&oldid=1035515434
    4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_K2b_(Y-DNA)&diff=prev&oldid=1066841179
    5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_R_(Y-DNA)&diff=prev&oldid=1069310465
    6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1069312480
    7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1069317536
    8. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)&diff=prev&oldid=1069075893
    9. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xiongnu&diff=prev&oldid=1062310696
    10. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WorldCreaterFighter&diff=prev&oldid=1062289863
    11. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WorldCreaterFighter&offset=&limit=500&action=history
    12. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Y%C3%B6r%C3%BCks&diff=prev&oldid=1029724879
    13. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xiongnu&diff=1062286406&oldid=1062285996
    14. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hunan201p&diff=951934794&oldid=951872756
    15. ^ https://old.reddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/fxncnk/help_on_wkipedia_articles_dealing_with_white/

    09:00:48, 31 January 2022 review of draft by Arunudoy | Requesting re-scan

    This is not an urgent incident or intractable problem. Be patient. (non-admin closure) --JBL (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    A former Director General level Police Officer, with the charge of the Chief of a state's Intelligence branch, Mr. Bhattacharyya definitely has enough citations to pass WP:GNG. Kindly help me to expand/edit the page. This Police officer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyanendra_Pratap_Singh is too junior than Pallab Bhattacharyya is listed well and none complains. Police officers are usually listed in Wiki as per their TOP rankings, instead of interview sources. (Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Allan_(police_officer)) I would be happy if 2 or 3 Editors peform a thorough look. -- Arunudoy (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Arunudoy. The number of citations is a poor measure. It takes only three to demonstrate notability, but there needs to be significant coverage of Bhattacharyya. Examining 10% of the references at random, all are primary sources, and none of them address him in detail:
    • "Pallab Bhattacharyya also addressed the gathering and said that the selected Home Guards personnel would be entrusted with work very soon."
    • "The other members include ... Pallav Bhattacharya ..."
    • "Assam’s Additional Director General of Police (Special Branch) Pallab Bhattacharya had a week ago warned of a bid by Islamist organisations such as Hizb-ul-Mujahideen to strike during the festive season."
    • "said Pallab Bhattacharya, Assam Police additional DG (special branch)."
    Citation bombing the draft with worthless brief mentions like these is toxic to the draft's chance of acceptance. Eliminate all such references to make the better ones (if any) stand out.
    Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it should exist. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. When discussing whether a draft is acceptable for publication, it's safer to argue from policies and guidelines. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Worldbruce I have made major edits to the Draft. Can you check now please? Can you guide me in checking Draft whether I am going/doing it in the proper way or not? --Arunudoy (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I would like to ask more senior Editors and Admins to attend. Regards --Arunudoy (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Please block 220.76.183.4

    SOUNDS GOOD ALL AROUND
    IP blocked for six months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This IP appears to be stable. It has exhibited the same biased editing for months (click contribs and look at any random three edits to see). It was blocked for a month on Jan 1 by Drmies, and has promptly returned to the same behavior.[102][103] How about a longer block? Jehochman Talk 15:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    How about 6 months? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. Thank you very much. Jehochman Talk 15:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me. Thank you both. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Constantly reverting AfD tags from pages

    SAMAR FIRDOS ASHRAF (ASHRAF ALAM) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been contantly removing AfD tags from pages (See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5—1, 2) despite being warned several times (See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Some action, per the discretion of any administrator, would be appreciated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There's five removals from 2026 Kerala Legislative Assembly election in the past day, so I've given them a 24-hour timeout for the 3RR breach. We can look into a longer one if they continue after that. —Cryptic 16:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    SAMAR FIRDOS ASHRAF (ASHRAF ALAM) permanently blocked for sockpuppetry.— rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 02:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Olrac625 minor issues

    The user received many warnings about not providing reliable sources. Still no response from him since 2018 of user created his account. I think there is enough action to be made into this user. –Ctrlwiki (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Olrac625 was previously reported at ANI last October. No action was taken then. I've informed the editor about this complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Swoods72

    Swoods72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Tendentious editing at Rose City Antifa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which never seens any constructive edits from IPs or new accounts in the periods when it's not semi-protected. FDW777 (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked as NOTHERE after seeing their talk page and adding false claims to an article after warnings. Doug Weller talk 09:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Add a dollop of WP:CIR, to taste. Kleuske (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin blocked an editor after a single edit which was not vandalism

    Attention has been drawn, feedback has been given. Closing this as a favor to Skyerise, who might seriously be looking at a boomerang sanction of some kind otherwise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'd like to draw attention to this block by User:Black Kite of new user Manual of Markdown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) after one edit. It's actually a constructive edit, conforming the article to the manual of style. It happens to be a revert to my last edit, but I don't sock. Free free to checkuser me.

    I believe this to be an unwarranted block which discourages newcomers per WP:DONTBITE. I see User:Black Kite isn't an admin open to recall, so I'll leave it to the admin community to determine what's appropriate here. Skyerise (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please elaborate why you brought it here without even attempting to discuss with Black Kite? (No comment yet about the merits of the block).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Black Kite has developed a dislike for me and it's not my place to try to school an admin. This is an admin issue and I'm not, nor do I want to be, an admin. Skyerise (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So rather than AGF or attempt a low-key resolution, you decided to start a discussion at ANI. It is deeply mysterious why someone might develop negative feelings about you. --JBL (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) And now concerning the merits of the block: Manual of Markdown is an obvious sock who showed up to continue reverting after Skyerise has been partially blocked from the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever it is, it wasn't me. I've been here for over 15 years and have no desire to lose my editing privileges. I'd try checking against User:Beyond My Ken if I were a checkuser. I'd file a report, but it would just be dismissed as harassment. As for the block, I'd already taken the article off my watchlist and wasn't planning on editing it again, since other editors are now involved on the talk page. Skyerise (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd strike this comment unless you are standing by the allegation made. Hypotheticals don't fly.Slywriter (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, a "new" editor that reverted the article to your preferred version, in spite of Black Kite warning you that your edits were WP:POINT-y? I'm sorry, but color me unconvinced. You really need to drop the stick on this issue Skyerise. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 22:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's your right to be unconvinced, but please remember this is classic joe-job stuff, and there are several LTAs who regularly do that to other people. As far as checkuser goes, I doubt there'll be anything fruitful, so let's please keep allegations in check. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Well, odds are reasonable it's just some joe-job troll. But indeed really deeply clueless to start an ANI thread in support of a joe-job troll, instead of letting it go. --JBL (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good points JBL and zzuzz. It could be a Joe-Job. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 22:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't imagine why a sock puppet got blocked after only one pointy edit.Slywriter (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Is the blocked editor a sock of Skyerise, as suggested above? Is the blocked editor a false-flag ploy by BMK, as suggested by Skyerise? Either way, the blocked editor should stay blocked. The blocked editor sure isn't making any requests to be unblocked. I would suggest this be left alone. Singularity42 (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification, Severestorm28. Singularity42 (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Singularity42, I think the blocked user's TPA is revoked, that's why the user can't make a unblock request. Also, a user editing under a user that was blocked from the page Irvington, New York may be a sock. Severestorm28 22:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With apologies to John Collins Bossidy:
    Good old Wikipedia,
    land of the bullet and list;
    where newbies get blocked after a single edit
    and frivolous ANI filings exist
    Dumuzid (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I did not suggest that the blocked editor is a sock of Skyerise. I am sure they are a sock, but I do not know which one.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) I don't see a problem with the block. It's obvious the blocked editor has more than passing familiarity with how the wiki works, which makes them somewhat suspicious give the edit history on that article. I don't know if it warrants a checkuser, but I do find it interesting that the OP is practically begging for one to be done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As this was closed before I saw it, I blocked the editor as an obvious joe-job sock (probably Architect134, if I had to guess). I didn't think that Skyerise would sock in such an obviously stupid manner, but then I wouldn't have thought that they'd have started such a nonsensical ANI filing either, so more fool me. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just want to note, since my name was mentioned above, that I've crossed paths with Architect134 before, and that I never thought that the blocked editor was Skyerise socking. (Nor was it me, for that matter.) Whatever our disagreements, I have seen absolutely no indications that Skyerise would do that kind of thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Bbb23

    Floquenbeam is guilty, Bbb23 is innocent, WP:DNFTT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User:Bbb23 has a protected user talk page. This is clearly against community consensus and is a misuse of Admin abilities. I am coming here since XRV is not an active page yet, but this is ridiculous. Consensus can clearly be seen against such action at meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Anti-harassment/Allow all registered users the right to semi-protect their own user and talk pages, see also Project:IPAHT. I know that I am supposed to be notify the user that I am posting here, but SURPRISE GENIUSES I CANT. I hope a {{Ping}} will suffice. @Bbb23:. Now that I've done that I request a formal admonishment of the admin. -IP 147.134.96.39 (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have a specific need to communicate with Bbb23? Their talk page has been subjected to vandalism. 331dot (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. And you are who's sock of a blocked editor? RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Villianc.png

    @147.134.96.39: Bbb23 clearly has not miss use of any Admin abilities. I agree with RickinBaltimore and 331dot that User:Bbb23's talk page is subjected to Vandalism and that is the reason why it is semi protected. Chip3004 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) @147.134.96.39: The reason states (on why it is semi-protected), "TrollBGone". It may be users repeatedly trolling Bbb23's talk page. Agreed with the three users above. Severestorm28 01:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Floquenbeam is the one that protected Bbb23's page. Bbb23 is innocent here, Floq is the evil admin that is preventing you from sending love letter to Bbb23. I say we keep Bbb23 and tie Floq to the railroad track. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Physical threat against subject

    IP blocked and disruption revision deleted, by other admins. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    As described in title. Reference. IP warned, but an admin may want to follow up. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 01:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a LTA. I revision deleted the edit and blocked the IP. Thanks for the report MelbourneStar. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP not following MOS:DATES

    2600:1004:B126:3A23:46A:46B0:6BF2:92ED (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (currently, but it changes) keeps changing "month year" to "month, year". I reported this previously and the thread was archived with no action. When they do this with a template date (e.g citation needed), it causes a categorization error which is easy to find and fix. When it is in plain text, it is tedious to fix (AWB doesn't undo this). I've tried a Talk Page message before, but they are on a different IP today so probably didn't read it. MB 02:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    An example is diff where the pepper-shaker principle of adding commas has been applied. I assume "Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit" means it's a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. I don't know what to do other than block them. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we need to get their attention somehow. There may have been days that they edited without hitting anything on my watchlist so I don't know how many extraneous commas have gone undetected. Most of their changes are probably beneficial copy editing, but they seem to be unaware of the MOS. They also change date ranges from preferred yyyy-yyyy to yyyy-yy. MB 15:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnuniq, they at back today doing more of the same ("July, 2016"). MB 02:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note, using WP:MOSNUMscript will fix the unnecessary commas while leaving their other edits (which presumably are good) intact; I've done so at Park Avenue main line. The caveat is that it changes the other date formats to match as well, so this should be done with particular care. For the most part, these appear to be U.S.-centric articles with {{use mdy dates}} on them, so I'll see what I can fix. While it would certainly be preferable to get the editor's attention somehow, given they're an IPv6 that changes, I'm inclined to agree with Johnuniq in that a rangeblock might be the only reasonable option to prevent continued disruption. --Kinu t/c 02:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had imagined that the IP would have received an explanation at their talk but all I could find there was an unsigned notice about this discussion. I left a message at their talk and will have to wait for a response. Please alert me again if problems continue without that response. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did leave a short message at a different page several days ago. I didn't bother to repeat it on the most recent TP because, as you said above, they probably don't see these. MB 02:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Competency issue of ChunnuBhai

    Dear Administrators.

    • 1. I have carried out [this edit] on NDTV page.
    • 2. Later ChunnuBhai reverted the same without giving any edit summary [Here].
    • 3. I have given a heads up about there incompetency at [there talk page]. However, they have not responded.
    • 4. Later again they have revetred the same. And they cited the reason for there revert that the source I have given is a [blog ].
    • 5. However, they have failed to carry out a proper analysis about the source i have given that the source i have given is not a blog but a [fact checking website].
    • 6. At this point i seriously doubt about there incomptency to edit wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satdul (talk • contribs) 06:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MBFC - it is considered self published. I see you are a new editor, and would suggest you withdraw this before suggestions of a WP:BOOMERANG start. BilledMammal (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What we have here is a failure to communicate. In most varieties of English, calling something "biased" is pejorative. While you might not have meant it in that way, it was obviously taken as you insulting NDTV which is why it was reverted. On that note, your English language skills need work. You might want to try the Hindi Wikipedia (given that NDTV is Hindi language) [104] or whatever language of Wikipedia reflects your native language. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Chess, fyi, NDTV has both English- and Hindi-language channels. W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 13:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt they can speak English very well so tbat leaves one option. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolute boomerang. "Clear POV vandalism" IS an edit summary, a defensible one, and one with which I agree. (Even if he hadn't, leaving an edit summary is not required.) If there's any incompetency, it's the other way around. Ravenswing 09:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    An IP address keeps on adding information without a source

    @43.239.80.6: keeps on adding information in She-Hulk (TV series) without an unreliable source. Been reverted it twice and added a warning template on its talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centcom08 (talk • contribs)

    Addressed at RfPP (diff). El_C 12:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    ZaniGiovanni's edits on Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh

    ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs)

    Last week, a SPA named Charlemagne768 (talk · contribs) came and made an [105] edit that while the vast majority of UN member countries, 100 in total, and including Great Britain, Germany, and Israel, abstained from the vote.; which is WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:OR. The source mentions OSCE CO-chairs, but not Great Britain, Germany and Israel explicitly as he stated. Except to that, he ignores how many countries voted yes, but only places abstained. The problem with this is, I checked the source various times, as I told, it doesn't mention those 3 countries explicitly and ZaniGiovanni seems confident to revert me 3 times without showing that this source mentions explicitly those 3 countries, or only adding abstained countries without adding how many countries were in favor. This is clearly WP:OR. His first revert also [106] contained another source, added by Charlemagne768, supposedly had to say something about the status of NKAO, but it doesn't. Beshogur (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Normally, I'd chalk it up to a content dispute, but ZaniGiovanni speaking of 3 and your error wrt you conflating a p-block with a WP:TBAN (or WP:ABAN, rather), where you wrote (in full):
    I don't want to do this myself, and I'm asking you to strike your vote. That isn't even an RfC to begin with and most importantly, you're tbanned from the article. This is the 3rd time I'm reminding you of your tban. Please don't test my patience. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC) — diff, see also: User talk:GhostInTheMachine#Tban and User talk:El_C#Old habits die hard? Bold is my emphasis.
    Granted, you sought a clarification from myself as the sanctioning admin, eventually, but it'd be good if you were to be more diligent (i.e. aiming for less than 3), especially in an area covered by WP:ACDS, like WP:AA2. Thanks. El_C 11:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    El C as you said yourself, I clarified the difference with you and struck my comment. I thought the user was breaching their tban 3rd time, but it was a p-block as you clarified and I asked directly to you as the enforcing admin. I'm still somewhat new, so apologies for not understanding the difference. But I don't think this has anything to do with this insufficient report. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Propose WP:BOOMERANG per the following:
    1) I didn't breach any guidelines, I reverted once in 29 January [107], and twice yesterday [108], [109].
    2) My reverts of yesterday are indeed valid, per source: [110] and I'm going to quote the full source because I'm tired of these out of context battleground reports:
    • "Abstaining: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Zambia.
    • Draft resolution A/62/L.42 was adopted by 39 votes to 7, with 100 abstentions (resolution 62/243)."
    3) So let me get this straight, I made initial revert of 29 January, Beshogur reverting me with his explanation, I didn't attempt to restore the full text any further. Later, I checked the sources and the first part was actually correctly sourced as I demonstrated above, so I partially restored it and opened a talk discussion [111]. I was planning to reply but I didn't get what you were trying to say with your last comment. You didn't wait for my reply, reverted me again, and opened an ANI report? lol what's even happening? I woke up completely surprised. And btw, besides your battleground report, you made personal attacks like: "pushing the view ow a SPA with 3 edits". I don't push "views of SPA" I couldn't care less, I look at the sources. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ZaniGiovanni: You proposed [112] another boomerang for because the user 217.149.166.11 was doing edits in similar way. My concerns here was, you either put how many countries did vote yes and voted for abstentions, or remove it both. You did not reply for my concerns on the talk page despite being active. And I pinged you. As I told, those 3 countries are not even listed explicitly, where the SPA probably tries to imply something, an argument which I saw various times outside the Wikipedia, which you called my thought WP:OR. It's a legit concern imo. Beshogur (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? I'm proposing a boomerang right now for your battleground and completely unneeded report, edit warring and personal attacks. Btw, regarding reverts, in the span of less than a week, you made twice more reverts than I did [113]. Don't you think you should've taken that into consideration before accusing others of 'edit-warring'?
    And btw, please don't make comments baseless assumptions like this: Except to that, he ignores how many countries voted yes, but only places abstained. - I didn't place anything, that wasn't even my edit. I restored the correctly sourced part, which I demonstrated above. If you wish to add how many countries voted yes, go ahead. That has nothing to do with me restoring sourced information, do you understand that or not? So many bad faith comments and assumptions. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ZaniGiovanni, you joined almost a year ago, so a newcomer's defense reads more like WP:CIR at this point. Also, I thought we spoke about the lol. Anyway, here's what I see having happened. You were edit warring on the wrong end of WP:ONUS, while discussion about the dispute was still in its infancy. You were restoring the reverted addition of Charlemagne768, a user with 3 (again!) edits in total (all to that page, all that addition/reverts) on this contentious WP:AA2 page. And your last revert even had an edit summary that read rv, see talk page and stop edit-warring (diff). FYI: when edit warring, it usually looks bad to ask an edit warring opponent to stop edit warring. Anyway, this and the other (GhostInTheMachine) 3, those fall below expectations. Your response above falls below expectations. I am logging a warning for you at WP:AEL to stress that this is skirting the line. El_C 12:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    El C El C, regarding GhostInTheMachine, I genuinely didn't know the difference. I thought if you're blocked from an article, then it means you can't edit it and its talk page, sort of like being tbanned from an article. But when you clarified, I struck my comment. I left a followup notice in your talk as well as the enforcing admin.
    And regarding this report, it's insufficient and battlegroundy. I made total of 3 reverts: Once in January 29, which I didn't attempt to restore any further after listening to the concerns of other reverters. And twice yesterday, which was a completely sourced information being removed without valid reason. I opened a talk discussion and informed the user that they're edit-warring and removing sourced information. And if sourced information is being removed without valid reason, that is an edit-war. Please see my comment above, I explain everything in detail and quote the UN source itself. Please don't leave any warning, as I don't believe one is warranted. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ZaniGiovanni, the warning has already been recorded in the log (AEL diff). And I'm sorry, but I'm finding your reply directly above to be rather unresponsive to my points, which doesn't inspire confidence that the message is resonating. El_C 12:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will address your points one by one then, and I want community consensus on this if possible. I think there is a big misunderstanding here:
    • You were edit warring at the wrong end of WP:ONUS, while discussion about the dispute was in its infancy. ... You were restoring the reverted addition of Charlemagne768, a user with 3 (again!) edits in total, all to that page, all that addition/reverts) on this contentious WP:AA2 page. And your last revert even had an edit summary that read rv, see talk page and stop edit-warring
    This (29 January) isn't an edit war El C, I didn't restore it any further. I only made a single edit restoring the full text, and as I already said, I didn't attempt to restore it further. And just because a user is new doesn't mean they can't make valid contributions, as apparent by the first part of that edit, which I restored 2 days later after having time to check the source (1 February) [114], [115]. I opened a talk discussion just as I'm supposed to, as you said yourself, those were relatively new additions. I didn't receive any valid reasoning for sourced information being removed, and didn't make any further comments or edits.
    Today, I wake up to an ANI report, the UN sourced text being reverted again with personal attacks. I didn't even have time to reply to them, as you're giving me a warning to my surprise. I want that warning overturned and community consensus on this.
    • Anyway, this and the other (GhostInTheMachine)
    El C, for the last time, I was wrong regarding this. I didn't report the user or anything, I came to you as the enforcing admin. You didn't reply to me, so I made a comment in their talk page, asking the user to strike their vote (because I thought the block included the article's talk page as well), and informed you in your talk page. When you replied and clarified, I struck my comment. Why this completely unrelated and resolved issue is being brought up against me in an insufficient ANI report? What exactly I'm being accused of by Beshogur? I made 3 reverts in total in the span of 4 days. First one I didn't even attempt to restore, and second/third ones, after looking at the source 2 days later, it was a completely sourced and valid information, and I resorted it opening a talk discussion. Please retract that warning, and if possible, community comments would be appreciated. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ZaniGiovanni, you were edit warring and it was an edit war. RE: I want that warning overturned and community consensus on this — okay, go for it. El_C 13:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @ZaniGiovanni: The problem is not that only 1/4 of the sentence appearing in the source (100 countries abstained), the problem is "vast majority" and those 3 countries I mentioned are not explicitly mentioned in those source (maybe picked by OP because he thought those were relevant?). It was an edit made by SPA with 3 edits. The first revert you did had a source claiming the status of NKAO was not even determined, while the source doesn't even mention. This means you probably didn't even bother to check the source. Also I told my concerns on the talk page, you didn't reply while I tagged you and you were active later on. Beshogur (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with Beshogur. I was involved in that discussion too, I actually started it (please see talk of the article), after ZaniGiovanni restored edits of an SPA account. Those edits contained 2 claims: 1) status of Nagorno-Karabakh is undetermined by international law, and 2) about voting for UN GA resolution. I pointed out at talk that the source used says nothing about the status of NK, and it is generally accepted by the vast majority of reliable sources that presently NK is de-jure a part of Azerbaijan. ZaniGiovanni did not respond to that, but continued edit warring on the second claim. Clearly, he did not even check the source that he tried to restore by his first revert. Grandmaster 14:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually linked your comment in the below discussion and as I said, I made a single revert in 29 January and didn't restore it further. The 100 countries which abstained are completely supported by the UN and I thought it's logical that major countries like Germany, UK, Israel, were listed separately, so I restored it. I opened a talk discussion and said the same thing [116]. This isn't something controversial imo. My edits in question aren't controversial either, [117], [118]. They're supported by the UN source itself. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What useful information was added by arbitrarily choosing a few countries from the list of abstained? How did that improve the article? What was the need for multiple reverts in support of this? Grandmaster 17:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Community consensus for overturning a Warning

    I'm currently being reported for my reverts in Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. I made 3 in total in the span of 3-4 days:

    First revert, I in good faith thought that sourced information was being removed from the article with no valid reason, so I reverted it. After checking this comment, I didn't attempt to restore it. I made a single revert and didn't restore it any further. After 2 days, I checked the sources for myself just to be sure. My edits of yesterday (17:06, 17:24) are completely supported by the UN source cited in them, it lists all the 100 countries every single one of them, and later states, per source: Draft resolution A/62/L.42 was adopted by 39 votes to 7, with 100 abstentions (resolution 62/243).. The edits themselves only list major countries and clarify that 100 abstained, just like in the source. I'm sorry, but how is this controversial and how on earth I'm being reported for something like this? I was also the one who opened the talk discussion [119] and said the same, that it is sourced information. Meanwhile, I was insufficiently reported in ANI today, which raises battleground concerns regarding the OP, and I just received a warning. Hence, I'm asking for community consensus and that warning to be overturned. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • ZaniGiovanni, if anything, this warning was probably long overdue. Alongside useful contributions (which I am taking into account), you've also been skirting the line at WP:AA2 and periphery DSs for some time now. So unless you start dialing it back a bit: with the edit warring, with the CIR lapses, and with your tone and tenor, sanctions are likely to come next. So my advise to you for the long haul is to reflect and to be introspective, with the understanding that a certain course correction is needed wrt these problems. Thanks again. El_C 14:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      El C I appreciate your concerns but I think this warning was a stretch. While I do edit both in AA and outside of AA, I don't usually edit-war. Please check my contributions and tell me where I edit-warred last time? I always open talk discussion even when I make a single edit, and I try my best to adhere to guidelines.
      Regarding what I'm being reported for, I don't think those 2 diffs of me warrant an ANI case against me or a warning. I don't count the first one because it happened 2 days prior and I literally didn't restore it any further as I state in my comment above. After those 2 days, I checked the sources again to be sure and restored the non-controversial part included in the UN source itself. I'll patiently wait for broad community consensus regarding this. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for example, you got involved in the edit war at the Zangezur corridor page on Jan 23 and 29 (revert 1, revert 2), which I noticed after taking DS action on that page (largely in your favour, as I recall). Anyway, maybe let's let other people comment, so it isn't just you and me going back and forth...? What do you think? El_C 15:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No opinion on the complaint but, ZaniGiovanni, coming to this board and saying I don't usually edit-war isn't really a good look; you might want to ensure that, going forward you can always say, "I never edit war." That's much more likely to get a good response here (or any other board) and gain traction for your requests. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 16:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    LindsayH Thanks for your input. By edit-war I meant to say I don't usually revert second, or very rarely third time. Probably esl kicked in. The limited time I've been here, I've learned that discussing is always preferable at that point, which I did, and I'm doing currently as well. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arguing content here is not persuasive. On the warning itself, perhaps I'm missing some AE nuance that El_C may be able to clarify, but a warning is not a block, or a particular sanction. Someone could get blocked without such a logged warning, and quite frankly if a system gave everyone in AA2 logged warnings on a rolling basis I'm not sure that'd be too bad an idea. This warning seems within the admin-discretion allowed to such actions, and I'm not sure what overturning it would do. CMD (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Chipmunkdavis Arguing content here is not persuasive. - I agree, this should be discussed in talk. I saw your comment and will reply soon. The problem is this report as a whole. Beshogur says they reported me because quote: For my ANI report, it's not about the content dispute, but you trying to revert me mady by an user with 3 edits. - The revert in question is this which I didn't restore any further per talk comment. I made a single revert and stopped. 2 days later, after checking the source, I only added the abstained part per UN. Whether as you suggested in talk it should stay or not, or that it needs Secondary sources as well are all valid concerns, and I'll to address them. Just wanted to clarify regarding the report and why I wanted to appeal the warning. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I see nothing in this AN/I report that I would say is sanctionable. However, a warning is not a sanction. El_C appears to have based it on more than just this report, but even if they didn't, I think it will be difficult to "overturn" a warning as a warning doesn't really do anything. You're expected to act with caution, but you're expected to act with caution anyway. Going forward, I would say as a piece of advice not to reply to an AN/I with a call for a boomerang straight away. Even one fully vexatious AN/I filing (as a general comment, I am not commenting on this specific filing) is not enough to get a sanction, and it's usually not a helpful response. CMD (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warnings are not a sanction and are not something that needs to be "overturned". If it were a block, a ban, a page protection, or something like that, that would be an action that can be overturned. A warning is just a notification of something. You read it and you decide to heed it or not. If the warning was valid, you can be sanctioned for continued disruption. If the warning was not valid, nothing will happen. You need to decide all on your own how to proceed. Choose wisely. But the warning carries no special restriction on your behavior, it is just information. --Jayron32 17:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about Normal Op and evading topic ban

    Before Christmas I received an email from someone I do not know telling me that Normal Op had returned to Wikipedia on a new account Platonk (it appears an IP did leave a comment on Platonk's talk-page about this [120]. Normal Op "retired" from Wikipedia on 7 November 2020. Before they retired this user was indefinitely blocked from editing content related to animals [121] specifically all topics related to dogs and canines. The same user had a disruptive history of editing articles related to this area [122] and making problematic edits on anything related to animal welfare, animal rights or veganism where they just mass deleted content, wrote screeds of text on talk-pages and attacked other editors. The same user was once also nailed for sock-puppetry [123]. Platonk joined Wikipedia in February 2021 but is obviously not a new user. Before Christmas I had a look at these accounts and I suspected it might be the same person but as they were improving articles related to Ethiopia which they seem to edit I didn't really want to get involved with filing anything.

    A few days ago a user I know who edits a lot of articles related to animal rights told me that they suspect Normal Op is Platonk but they don't want to file an SPI because they are scared of this user. It seems this user is very aggressive and users don't want to be a target of this individual. I have gone through this users edit history from the beginning and it is very likely they are Normal Op, there are many give away signs and they have edited a lot of the same articles on animals. My question is, is that if a user is topic-banned and they create a new account then is that topic-ban still in place? Secondly, if a user retires their account then creates a new account several months later then is this sock-puppetry? I was going to file an SPI but I would like admin advice on this. Is it worth filing one? What are the rules about creating new accounts and not declaring? I am pretty sure it is sock-puppetry but I would like to know for sure. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Psychologist Guy, the topic ban is for the person, it applies to all new accounts. There is also avoiding scrutiny if it is as you described. If there is sufficient evidence for SPI, then both the new account and old account will likely face an indefinite block. Pikavoom Talk 12:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. I also found that one other experienced editor back in October 2021 suspected Normal Op was back [124]. I will go ahead with the SPI but it will take awhile to collect all the evidence and file it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update, I see an SPI was filed back in September [125] interestingly the admin commented "Platonk is probably either Normal Op or Tangurena. "Probably" as in "above 50%" but no action was taken. I will have to update and file a new SPI with new evidence. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WTF! Such suspicions sure explain some of the bizarre behavior I have seen from a few select editors. And I wasn't notified of that SPI and didn't see it. So let me get this straight: because I was editing articles you didn't care about (Category:Ethiopia), the issue was moot for you; but because I made an edit you didn't like yesterday (in Milk!), now I'm someone else? Platonk (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It's obvious you saw that SPI because your account was linked when it is filed, even an IP tried to contact you. This is all unrelated to me, I only found this SPI that Cavalryman filed against you today. I looked at this SPI and even an admin agreed it is a possible match but more behavioural evidence was needed. You just have no response to any of the evidence. There is quite a bit of behavioural evidence but we can wait for the SPI for that. I have had several private emails with people about your account, it is obvious you are Normal Op, it's the same anti-animal, anti-animal rights type of disruption familiar with Normal Op, you have a very distinct pattern of leaving aggressive messages on talk-pages. I was emailed in December about your account. My advice about your account was to wait and see and back in December I suspected you were Normal Op but was not sure so no I did not file back then, but now I am. Based on what I have seen there is now enough behavioural evidence, it's not worth filing an SPI without good evidence. Users have wanted to file an SPI against you but because you are such a nasty individual who attacks and writes screeds of text on talk-pages about users they have been too scared to. You were topic banned on animals, you should not be editing anything related to animal rights or veganism. We have been here many times before, your agenda is obvious. I suggest that an admin closes this and an SPI is the correct avenue for this. This will be filed by me in the next 24 hours. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not notified in September; check my user talk page history. The only link to my account from that SPI was by using no ping (no notification). An IP user attacked me in December spouting nonsense; I figured it was probably just Cavalryman's doing, as he had been the only editor acting strange towards me (as well as that Swiss VPN IP address). But even that wasn't a notification. I do not appreciate your personal attacks today. Platonk (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I don't see a pattern here. To begin, I doubt Normal Op would have been on the same oppose side of this merge as I am, and seriously doubt he would have walked away from a discussion as easily as Platonk did here. Atsme 💬 📧 23:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 2A01:4C8:800:14F0:75C3:C05A:EA09:F2A1

    2A01:4C8:800:14F0:75C3:C05A:EA09:F2A1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) pushing obvious racism and conspiracy theories at White demographic decline. Could someone place a block for a bit please? Theknightwho (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The recent history of that page suggests that it's more than just one disruptive IP. I've semi-protected the page for a month, but I suspect indef semi-protection is probably the baseline level of protection needed there. Guettarda (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. The article is currently in limbo after some massive pruning of the WP:OR and WP:POV of the article's primary editor, and nobody really wants to pick up the mantle to sort it out (not that I can blame them). Theknightwho (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia as a tool of Russian hybrid warfare

    Please pay attention to the harmful activities of Ушкуйник. For many years he did nothing except of turning Ukrainians into Russians, Ukrainian names spelling to Russian spelling and diminishing role of Ukrainians in history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/%D0%A3%D1%88%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA. Day by day. I do not think that such activities, which are targeted exclusively for erasing all Ukrainian traces from the history should be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.95.211.239 (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is something I am familiar with. Let me start by noting that you did not notify them as required.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, most edits of Ушкуйник here are related to personalia of 18th and 19th century which reasonably have some relation to Russia and Ukraine, such as for example Dmitry Bortniansky who was born in what is now Ukraine and is mainly described as Russian in reliable sources. In Ukraine, all these people are described as Ukrainian. Since this editing area suffers from a huge amount of driveby Ukrainian editors who show up (sometimes in flocks), replace Russian with Ukrainian and disappear, these articles need to be constantly watched to keep their content aligned with reliable sources. This is what Ушкуйник is mostly doing. This is not to say that there are no harmful edits by Russian users (there are, and they are often paid by the government, but typically not for these topics), and this is not to say the all edits of Ушкуйник are ideal - they sometime overdo things. But this report does not have merit in my opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever wants an illustration of the disruptive editing I mentioned above can look at the edit history of Aleksandra Ekster - driveby editors repeatedly come to describe her as Ukrainian-only (contrary to all possible sources, which describe her as either Russian or French or Russian-French), never discuss anything and disappear forever.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but as Russian language is your native language (in accordance with your page), I believe you could not be impartial and neutral in such situation. I think that the question should be checked by other administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.95.211.239 (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, American here. Can verify that what they are saying is correct. Also, an IP who's only edits are to come to ANI? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Breach of due process by RandomCanadian

    This is going nowhere fast. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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



    This editor has posted an ANI complaint against me. The editor is fully aware that when starting a discussion about another editor, a notice must be placed on that editor's talk page, optionally by using {{subst:ANI-notice}}. I have not been advised of this complaint, neither formally nor even unofficially by a ping. I found the complaint when I checked the section immediately above it, in which I had made an earlier post.

    This is a breach of due process that needs to be investigated. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Posting this does not speak well of your judgement. Mackensen (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, really. Please explain why. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it makes your judgment seem lacking. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a non-answer. Explain how it seems lacking. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    RandomCanadian opened a sub-section within a discussion that you were already active in and had stated that you would keep tabs on. BilledMammal (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the mechanics of the matter are as you say but the fact is that he opened an ANI complaint against me and did not formally advise me of it. Even if it is in a sub-section of a thread I have in my watchlist, that doesn't guarantee I would see it and, as I have said, I didn't find it through the watchlist but by checking another post I made earlier. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    My edits on David II of Scotland were reverted by another user!

    OP blocked by Yamla as a sock of a blocked user. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi. My edit on the aforementioned page (see subject above) was reverted by a user. I was just trying to help out the wiki, but the people are reverting my edits. They literally make sense! Please also shut down ClueBot NG, all because of my constructive edits. Will you do all of that please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExpositionLaner2835 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit was correctly reverted. I don't see any other edits from you to that article. --Yamla (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Concern this person is a troll or vandal. I've had to undo multiple edits from this account due to seriously poor grammar. Either they need to stop editing until they have WP:COMPETENCE or they need to have the right to edit removed from them. Also- you are supposed to notify me when you open an ANI case about me. I am aware now though so thanks :-) Nightenbelle (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) I don't think we can shut down Cluebot NG just yet, you can report the bot here. We can shut down Cluebot NG if multiple users report it in a short period of time. Also, please refrain from not signing posts, especially on the new section that you created. Severestorm28 16:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) @ExpositionLaner2835: In the future, remember that you are required to send notice to the user you are reporting as is stated in the red text at the top of this page. Taking a look at the edit in question it added nothing of value grammar-wise (or constructive in any way), and I agree with its reversion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) I'm suggesting this user may be blocked per WP:NOTHERE? Severestorm28 16:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like the user is blocked as a sockpuppet. Severestorm28 17:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Obvious Undisclosed Paid Editing on LELO by 46.188.150.101, Lrudak and 46.188.139.161

    Lrudak and 46.188.139.161 are likely editing from the same computer given the edits around 2 months ago, then, in January 46.188.150 edited, a possible partial rangeblock and user block may be required to prevent any more undisclosed paid editing. Zippybonzo (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Zippybonzo, I went through that article and removed significant amounts of unreferenced and poorly referenced promotional content. I have pageblocked Lrudak, but the editor can make edit requests on the article talk page. The two recent IP edits were over three weeks ago so I do not think IP blocks or semi-protection are called for at this time. Let me know if active disruption resumes. Cullen328 (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 2804:14D:1C79:9C7C:F9D7:BD0F:DFDA:17CC

    Do something with this IP using abusive words to admin [126] ... २ तकरपेप्सी talk 17:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I converted the partial block to the sitewide one.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure the entire /24 range should be blocked? There seems to be way too much collateral damage. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are right. I have now restored the previous block for the range and blocked the IP for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopping after unblock the user not harras again. Thankyou ... २ तकरपेप्सी talk 18:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:37.143.251.118

    37.143.251.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    This IP for the past few weeks has despite numerous warnings overwritten their own User talk page disruptively with article content. Their entire edit history also contains evidence of hijacking articles and redirects relating to television. The edit summary style also matches that of previously blocked user Wink TV Europe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also showed this behavior until their inevitable block on username policy issues. There does not appear to be any sign of stopping this behavior no matter how many warnings can be issued. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep in mind this IP was also blocked at both ruwiki and trwiki for similar behavior. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 2402:3A80:1F09:9B10:C579:EE30:B7E5:D481

    2402:3A80:1F09:9B10:C579:EE30:B7E5:D481 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This particular IP is harassing me for past few weeks from different ranges. Please assist me something. Tagging two senior admins @Anachronist: and @Liz: who knows this IP and help out better. ... २ तकरपेप्सी talk 18:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Please make it harder for the Ottawa music vandal

    Widr blocked the Ottawa music vandal again today, this time for 31 hours. Can we lengthen the block to something like a year, and perhaps cover a larger range? This person has been disrupting Wikipedia for 15 years, starting in 2007 with two IPs from Brampton, near Toronto. They shifted to Ottawa, continued the disruption, and have been blocked many times. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment need a strong range block. ... २ तकरपेप्सी talk 21:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you got a list of addresses they've been using since the March 2021 report (and more importantly in the last few months) or is that /64 pretty much it? As I said last time it hopefuly shouldn't be too hard to construct a more long-lasting rangeblock without too much collateral. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the last ANI report in March 2021, the active Ottawa vandalism is represented by the following IP list. A handful of /64 ranges are present, and one IP4 address. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, so the latest /64 is the only one that's been used since October. I'll extend that block to 6 months, please let me know if they switch. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evation

    An user doing LTA has again being evaded block [127] with new IP [128]. --C messier (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Done--Ymblanter (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: New IP used [129]. --C messier (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One edit is too little for me to conclude this is the same LTA.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Stone walling

    This complaint is not about my recent 3-day suspension but some of the events and edits around it and the behaviour of two editors, User:Headbomb & User:Muboshgu that I believe contravene [[WP:STONEWALLING ]] & WP:OWN Having recently created an entry for Shannon Stirrone, science journalists, I was prompted to add some links to the article. It became clear that there are quite a few mentions of Ms Stirrone but all of the citations none of which were linked. I set about adding some links and it quickly dawned on me that this was going to take some time and that AWB was a tool designed to assist with such edits. So I applied for access rights stating very clearly what I intended. It took a while but eventually, I was given access. It took several goes to get all of the entries due to variations in the spaces used in some of the references. Unfortunately, I did not notice that while I was updating AWB 1 of the edits was reverted. The editor who reverted was unhappy and immediately accused me of edit warning. I took exception to the summary on his revert, claiming that no one else was linked and that the others were “insanely” more worth than Stirrone of being linked. They later claimed that my edit was an indiscriminate bulk edit and violated WP:CITE. To make it clear what the edits were and how the resulting page looked I've attached an image.

    The section of WP:Cite that might apply is “To be avoided When an article is already consistent, avoid: switching between major citation styles or replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's – except when moving away from deprecated styles, such as parenthetical referencing;”

    However, this is a very minor change in style and appearance it is not of the magnitude of replacing one academic style with another. The text and spacing are identical, the only difference once the 2nd edit was in that the name was a hyperlink. There is no apparent difference between 3&4. The editor was asked to show which item in WP:CITE was contravened, all that was provided was some pseudo markup code that the editor had created and which gave no clue as to what the final result would have looked like.

    Another section of WP:CITE would seem to support the edit "Generally considered helpful The following are standard practice: improving existing citations by adding missing information, such as by replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it aids verifiability, and fights link rot;" as would a Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should be linked

    "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question."

    Knowing who the cited people are and why they produced the item will allow people to understand the significance of the cited article. The edit improves the existing citation by adding a link to information about the author allowing the reader to easily ascertain the reputation of the author. It has also been claimed that it isn’t best practice, I can find no examples of it being mentioned to it not being best practice. If it is discouraged why is there a field “author-link” for exactly this purpose? There are articles such as Ideological bias on Wikipedia which use author-link=.

    It has been suggested that having only 1 author linked would compromise the articles chances of being used as a Featured Article. This seems to be a rather bizarre claim, if it is true then it means that improving an article makes it less worthy of prominence. If it is true then the criteria being used to assess featured articles are not those that inform the creation of articles. The fundamental goal of Wikipedia is the production of an encyclopedia not the generation of articles to the standards required for Featured Articles, if an enhancement to the utility of an article introduces some minor flaw in consistency, that is unacceptable to those determining what should be a featured article then the solution is to bring not to simply undo the edit but to perform additional edits to bring other parts of the article up to the same level. On my talk page, there is a long discussion in which the editor continually restates their objection without actually addressing the points raised. It has been suggested that I should see it from their point of view as they put lots of effort into getting it up to FA standard and so should decide on the validity of edits. This seems to contravene WP:OWN.

    It has also been claimed that being linked gives undue prominence to Stirrone. She is worthy enough to have her own article, which no one has suggested is not reasonable. The reference is closely related to what she is noteworthy for, in any other circumstance link her would go without comment.

    It is unlikely that it will be possible in large numbers of articles to link to all the authors cited because not all the authors will be considered significant enough to have an article regarding them but where they do have such an article I believe they should be linked. Wikipedia is after all a hypertext document and hotlinks are fundamental to the concept and one of the primary ways that add utility over plain text. There is no switch to be thrown to convert all the required reference to links but a start need to be made. It has also been claimed that if linking references in the citation was a good thing there would be a tool to do it, well there is it is called AWB.

    Of the edits made under AWB only one was reverted referring to the unsuitability of the edit. Most, such as Lunar Polar Hydrogen Mapper were rolled back by Muboshgu claiming “Rolling back AWB misuse edits”. This means that the edit was reverted because this editor doesn’t think the tool used should have been, it doesn’t call into question the actual edit, it seems a very contrived reason motivated by spite. This was the admin that granted permission to use AWB, which they have since withdrawn, in the application to use AWB it was made clear what the intended use was and the edits do not deviate from that 1 iota. The editor also repeated the bulk indiscriminate edits argument. If he means by bulk automated, then yes they were, everyone was checked to make sure that the relevant part of the articles was being changed, they were not indiscriminate. It does beg the question of what does this admin think AWB is for and why did they grant permission for AWB to be used for this. This admin also claims that a revert was justified as I hadn’t established a consensus before doing the edits, WP:Be bold encourages this type of proactive editing. WikiLinking from the author's name to an article about the author is not bold it is mundane everyday standard practice.

    Given that no one has objected to the edits themselves it would seem reasonable to do the edits manually, which would address the concerns of the editor by not using the tool. However, when I looked for clarification of this from an Admin who had made it clear he would block me if I reverted them I received nothing either way. It is quite clear from their behaviour that neither of the 2 editors is interested in consensus or in applying the relevant Wikipedia Guidelines but intend to simply object to any edit regardless of what the guidelines say or claim to be “The following are standard practice:” In the debate around these, the edits were supported by several people and also referred to by at least one other as minor. The one article which was objected to was Planet Nine and one of the several reverted on grounds not related to the actual edit was Lunar Polar Hydrogen Mapper.Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    TL; DNR. Eyes bleeding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is in relation to #User:Kitchen Knife's utter failure to assume good faith and personal attacks following AWB use – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it isn't it is in relation to your subsequent actions, as it quite clearly say's at the top. You attitude seems to be once someone has broken they and their edits are not subject to the same rules as others.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by You attitude seems to be once someone has broken they and their edits are not subject to the same rules as others? This definitely relates to the above thread, since my involvement with you is that I granted you AWB, you misused it and were called out for misusing it above, with Girth Summit blocking you for 72 hours for making personal attacks, so I revoked your AWB access. I don't know what behavior of mine you think fits the categories of OWN or STONEWALLING. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It has nothing to do with your removing AWB rights, I haven't complained about that, it has to do with your reverts and the justification for those.Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully justified per WP:CITEVAR. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. It's also quite silly to say that "Given that no one has objected". I object, under WP:CITEVAR grounds. The criteria for linking something is normally 'is this relevant to the article, does it help understand the topic?' The indiscriminate, bot-like, mass-linking of a random journalist on 30-something Wikipedia pages is not something that should be done, manually or otherwise. Take Lunar Polar Hydrogen Mapper, for example. How is Stirone relevant to this? Who, interested in the Lunar Mapper, would find the connection to Stirone to be one that is topical or relevant? What's the link between a random journalist and the Lunar Mapper, save for 'one time, they wrote about it for popular science piece'? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See also User_talk:Kitchen_Knife#User:Muboshgu and User_talk:Kitchen_Knife#Olive_branch. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the first time you have explicitly said that so what I said that no one had objected is perfectly true. The connection is clear, she has been cited as the author of an article referenced in the article is sufficient relevance Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've said so multiple times already. You just weren't listening, preferring instead to throw personal attacks around (towards pretty much everyone trying to help you too), and generally behaving as you did at User_talk:Kitchen_Knife#User:Muboshgu and User_talk:Kitchen_Knife#Olive_branch. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, to be clear, these edits you were makings were edits like this which are quite clearly WP:CITEVAR violations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then produce the text of you saying it. Beyond the comment to you which has already been dealt with what personal attacks by me are there? Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to take you to three days ago, "don't mess up with citation styles", "revert to previous style, where none of the authors are linked, all of which are insanely more relevant to the topic more than Stirone", "these links do not belong". That's on top of what's since been added to your talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a reference by you to the planet Nine article not any of the others, it a specific comment on the Planet Nine article. So as I said you haven't addressed the other edits.Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Imagine you go in a store and start sprinkling coconut on the chocolate chip cookies. The owner asks you to stop doing that, because these cookies are not meant to have coconut, and some people have coconut allergies. Ten seconds later, he catches you sprinkling coconut on his raisin bread. The store owner kicks you out of the store. Now why would he have have done that? Such a mystery. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should anyone care about what you have to say if you won't provide any WP:DIFFs? There are numerous prompts that if you want to post here you need to provide diffs. Instead, you have provided a questionable screenshot that illustrates your point in a confusing fashion. If you do not know or do not care to learn what a diff is then your restriction from AWB is completely justified.
    On that note, you need to build consensus before making edits en masse. It doesn't matter whether or not your edits are automated. Mass edits almost always need affirmative consensus in favour of them before they can be done due to the hassle in applying WP:BRD to them. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the Guidance on this? oh and I haven't complained about the removal of AWB rights..Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is linking an author who has an article about them appropriate in a citation? I think that is a discussion to be had at another forum. That aside, could one reasonably conclude that editing the citation style in the manner that was done here disruptive? Given this comment at KK's talk page and the many edits in which |last#=yyy|first#=xxx was replaced with author#=xxx yyy, without use of the author#-link= field, my opinion is that it is. There's a reason for having the two fields separated and for providing an optional field to include a link: to make parsing the citation (whether by human or machine) easier. (Note: I see no diffs in KK's contributions in which author#-link= was added, but correct me if I'm missing it.) The comment above that "the edit was reverted because this editor doesn’t think the tool used should have been, it doesn’t call into question the actual edit" appears inaccurate; one may reasonably interpret the edit summary used for the reverts ("Rolling back AWB misuse edits") as suggesting that the edits themselves were inappropriate, and that AWB just happened to be the tool used to make them. This would still be a misuse of AWB, but perhaps not something that would elevate it to the point of having AWB privileges revoked. However, the discussion at the numerous ANI threads and on KK's talk page, and KK's apparent reticence in accepting any responsibility in this matter, is somewhat telling. I haven't seen anything from KK saying something to the effect of "I might have been in the wrong about the citation styles, so let's have a constructive conversation about this." Instead of coming here and posting this TL;DR post in which fingers continue to be pointed at other editors, it would have been more productive to open a discussion at an appropriate venue as to why and whether such linking is or is not inappropriate. I want to assume good faith, but I feel that KK having access to AWB will only lead to them continuing to make such edits, and I feel that revoking KK's use of the AWB tool was the correct action to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. That being said, given the numerous discussions about this, I think it's time to drop the stick. --Kinu t/c 00:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the n'th time I haven't complained about removing the AWB rights but the reverting of the edits. Someone mentioned author-link and said that was the way to go and I comment on it but I can't find it now.Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, given the walls of text and the numerous places this has been discussed, I don't know what you're complaining about anymore. I'll keep it brief: the edits were properly reverted. "Given that no one has objected to the edits themselves it would seem reasonable to do the edits manually"... no, there appears to be plenty of objection, based on the comments at the various threads about this. You don't have consensus for your edits, so either (a) try to achieve it at the correct venue, or (b) drop the stick. The choice is yours, but I'll note what Black Kite says below.--Kinu t/c 00:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kitchen Knife: I have some advice. Back away, now, because I can predict that this isn't going to go well otherwise. Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a real shame that you didn't absorb Girth Summit's advice on your talk page. --JBL (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been pinged a couple of times above; I don't really have much to add. This is mostly a content dispute about the exact scope of WP:CITEVAR, and about the relative benefits of internal consistency in articles' citations versus those of having links to an article about the author of a citation. As such, any resolution needed should be sought through discussion and consensus, but ANI isn't for forum for that. The only matter that I saw as needing administrative attention was when KK started insulting the person they were in dispute with; when they refused to withdraw the insult or undertake not to repeat it, I blocked them. I think that if KK wants to pursue this, they need to head over to a talk page; this thread will not lead to anything that anybody wants. Girth Summit (blether) 07:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated recreation of Lovejoy (band) despite consensus

    This is about the page Lovejoy (band), which, per an AfD in May of 2021, was redirected to Wilbur Soot. However, multiple users have been attempting to recreate the article despite consensus (especially in the last 2-3 months), and I highly suspect some form of meatpuppetry.

    The first attempt to restore the article was by user MrSisterM (talk · contribs) (who was later found to be a sockpuppet of ProTaylorCraft (talk · contribs)) on the 7th of June, 2021, which was promptly reverted by WikiDan61 (talk · contribs).

    The next attempt was on the 10th of November, 2021, by user JesterClown8397YT (talk · contribs) (who also tried to make a page at Olentangy Hyatts Middle School, but the notability of that is an entirely separate discussion). I thought they were notable at this point, because I had only discovered the article at this point. (so I stupidly tried to fix up the article in good faith, as they did chart on Billboard, so I figured there should be sources...)

    On the 6th of December, Onel5969 (talk · contribs) restored the redirect (which helped me realize I was stupid in trying to keep it, and that there is no real notability per the AfD and what sources I've found).

    And, of course, on the 16th of January this year, Bigmancallum (talk · contribs) tried to recreate the article again. I found out about it through my watchlist, and promptly reverted it.

    Sometime around that time, I went to WP:RFPP to request that the page be protected, and I'm pretty sure it was declined. (As I was writing this post, TheresNoTime did semiprotect Lovejoy (Band), though)

    And now, to today (or, well, the 2nd of February)

    User 80s Sam (talk · contribs) created new pages at Lovejoy (Band) (with a different capitalization at 'band'), Are You Alright? (EP), and Pebble Brain (EP). And I got... pretty pissed.

    There's also problems I note with the user MainsNoobMains (talk · contribs) (most of their edits are about this band and Wilbur Soot, including trying to create an article at a Wilbur Soot-related redirect last month), and also editing two of the three new articles today hours after they were created (at Lovejoy and Pebble Brain). wizzito | say hello! 01:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Both Lovejoy (band) and the recently-created and inappropriately-cased Lovejoy (Band) have been restored to redirect status and have been temporarily semiprotected. --Kinu t/c 01:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then again, most of the users who are restoring this have semi-protected status (or at least I think so, based on their number of edits) wizzito | say hello! 01:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a valid point. I'll keep an eye on these. --Kinu t/c 01:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kinu: I suggest ECP instead, as at least two of the users (Bigmancallum and 80s Sam) appear to have access to semi-protected pages (but are not extended confirmed yet). wizzito | say hello! 02:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And speaking of Bigmancallum, there have been many issues about notability, self-promo, copyright, etc. raised on his talk page since 2020. That is very concerning to me. wizzito | say hello! 02:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP user 124.104.57.209

    IP User 124.104.57.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has for many weeks now engaged in edit warring, pushing his WP:POV in many political articles. He has changed ideologies and positions despite established consesus, has been reverted multiple times by several editors, and has engaged in breaking WP:3RR. He has removed sourced information to instead add in his own opinion of an article. Despite reverts by many editors, he has insisted in adding in his own info, and toggles of what an he believes the article should look like without sources too. Definitely worrying with a user trying to push his narrative in too many articles to keep up with for many editors. BastianMAT (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1069644526"