Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1079

Haldir Marchwarden
User is heavily violating WP:OR, ignoring various reliable sources and a whole article to push his opinion in Sogdia. Not agreeing with him (or in his own words 'failing to understand' ) results in personal attacks. 

He has already recently (as in a few days ago) been topic banned in Balkan-related topics for something seemingly not much different than he is doing now, looking at his ANI report. . --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

HistoryofIran (response against claims)
I have tried to be calm with User:HistoryofIran, even when they turned a comment into a vote half an hour after making the comment, later trying to explain to them why they might misunderstand something abut the article Sogdia and the list "Notable people from Sogdia" (the discussion can be read here).

They published a warning against edit warring on my talk page while I was starting a discussion at the article's talk page. In that case, we were both writing at the same time, and, truth be told, I should've started with the talk page before reverting their deletion of material in the first place. Because me and "History of Iran" disagreed about what to include in the article Sogdia, I asked for another opinion. They saw my rfc later, apparently, and, apparently, didn't think it was necessary. As the discussion at the talk page progressed, they started to make fake claims (including also: you’re yet to show a source for your claims, including the one about Antiochius, a Greek king based in Western Asia, being Sogdian when said claim has been introduced many years ago) and gradually grew slightly uncivil, up to the point of making threats and personal attacks. In addition to this, they left the discussion at the talk page and reported me at the Administrators' noticeboard because I disagree with them. At this point, I am myself asking for supervision from an administrator, as per, at least, No personal attacks and WikiBullying.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The content issue is rather clear-cut to my previously uninvolved eyes. As for the conduct, nobody looks exactly innocent. People must remember to stay cool when the editing gets hot. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You have tried to be calm with me? What is this then?      You were accusing me of vandalism, nitpicking, jeering and whatnot right off the bat. Also, I'm not sure what's wrong with me voting.. that's what an RFC is for, which you requested. Moreover, I didn't make any false claims. You were trying add several notable figures as 'Sogdians' even though literally not a single source stated that they were one - I'd advise anyone reading this take a look at the citations he posted. Also, that was not a personal attack, I simply told you to refrain from attacking me, otherwise I would you report you, hence why we are here now (again, anyone can see that clicking the link). This users edits/comments in ethnic-related articles, is the same reason why he was topicbanned just a few days ago. Also, do note that two veteran users have already disagreed and reverted him. --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That you are nitpicky in that respect is true. I accused you of "vandalism" after you removed material. Vandalism was not the right word and I should've never reverted but started with the talk page first, as I have already admitted. If it offended you, then I'm sorry. However, I never made personal attacks, differently from you, who did make threats and personal attacks. I didn't say you shouldn't vote, I merely pointed out you changed the first comment into a vote after other comments were added below. So if you wanted to vote, you should've added the vote at the bottom. Please, don't try and bring the matter here. What is the focus of my compliant is your personal attacks and unwarranted request for adminship. Now you say anyone can see that clicking the link). This users edits/comments in ethnic-related articles, is the same reason why he was topicbanned just a few days ago. This is another personal attack and lack of good faith. I advise you against such behavior.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. The admins can take it from here. HistoryofIran (talk)
 * Hopefully they will. P.S. please, do use they /them for people you don't even know.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTVAND is rather clear, FWIW. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already apologized (twice) for my misuse of words. I also said that I should've used the talk page in the first place (third time). This doesn't undo their threat and multiple personal attacks, nor does it warrant their request for adminship against me as discussion went on at the talk page.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

- LouisAragon (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm baffled to be honest. User:Haldir Marchwarden received an indefinite topic ban less than two weeks ago in relation to WP:BALKANS, and now finds himself yet again at ANI for making problematic edits within another contentious topic area. Lets call a spade a spade; no one gets a topic ban without reason on Wikipedia. At Sogdia (incl. its talk page), I find his edits to be rather problematic as well. Just because one source considers Avicenna to be Sogdian, it doesn't provide a free pass to add him to the Sogdia article, as the utter majority of the sources, including those listed at the Avicenna page, consider him Persian. Thats called violating WP:UNDUE weight and constitutes WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. I do believe his approach vis. User:HistoryofIran at the Sogdia page was a violation of WP:BATTLE and WP:CRUSH too.
 * "Deleting because I'm sick of this hypocrisy ."
 * "(...) so wait before vandalising the page again, please (...)"
 * "(...) to appease your nitpicking (...)"
 * "''I even changed the section's title to appease your nitpicking (...)
 * "''It is not "pure WP:OR" (if you really want to nitpick so much) (...) We are not "done" here, though perhaps that is what you wish.
 * Comment: I am baffled as well tbh. LouisAragon was involved in the discussion at Sogdia from the very beginning, in fact they were the first to intervene in support of History of Iran, posting a very long list of sources.
 * What does my previous case have to do with this? Because I was topic banned I deserve less respect and deserve to be personally attacked, or my opinion matters less? Further, all LouisAragon posted has been already addressed: I used an incorrect wording (vandalising), for which I apologized. My revert of "History of Iran"'s warning at my talk page is due to the fact we were both writing at the same moment (they publishing a warning, me trying to discuss at the talk page). Yes, the user is nitpicking as regards Sogdia. I said I would appease what I perceived as pedantic (because in good faith I don't know how to explain it otherwise) by changing the section's title (a list about people from ancient Sogdia. History of Iran avers the article Sogdia is about an ethnic group, and argues scholars Corbin, Caselli, and Ferro are unreliable, or that what they say isn't what they say).
 * Yes, if an editor, after denouncing me to the administrators while discussion is going on, tells me "We are done here", I tell them we aren't, because it is true, and "probably is what you want", based on the whole discussion. I apologized. Now I want excuses, or an explanation, for the threat and personal attacks linked above, and for the request of adminiship against me. Was it reasonable? P.S. LouisAragon, I respect your ways, but please use they/them and not he/his. Thanks.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Haldir Marchwarden, if you feel strongly about which pronouns are used to refer to you, you might consider updating your profile preferences so this usage is displayed to other users, or putting a note on your userpage as to your preference. It's easier than one-at-a-time corrections, both for you and for other editors. Grandpallama (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right Grandpallama. I already planned to redo my talk page also adding other cool boxes, but I always forget or have other stuff to do. I will do that tho, thanks for the advice.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert
WP:BOLD partial close as no consensus. This part of the discussion (whether or not El_C's unblock should be undone) is a sticky situation, indeed. El_C's original block was for 's personal attacks and disruptive editing. It was not an interpretation of consensus of the community, but rather a regular admin action. The unblock, likewise, was done after a direct appeal to El_C by JPL. None of the above requires community input, as it was not done or undone based on any community consensus. However, as always, the community may decide that the editor should be blocked or TBAN'd. It is within our purview to form such consensus, and admins are sometimes tasked with acting upon that consensus. One such proposal is directly below this close! (A TBAN) '''I encourage everyone read and consider that TBAN proposal carefully. Likewise, I urge the closer of that proposal to review any votes in this discussion re: possible TBANs. Even ignoring procedural irregularities, we have sped towards No consensus'''. 13 votes in favor of the unblock, 16 votes opposed. On first glance, the nays have it, right? However, it is not so simple. To overturn an admin action like this would require a much more robust consensus. Surely not such a slim margin! Or we would be reinstating blocks and unblocking all over the place! The difference between a forced reversal of an unblock and a novel block is a small one, but an important one. Overall, we should focus on new proposals which are framed on specific actions (e.g. "Proposal: Block JPL") And such a proposal would still be in order. That is the magic of the no consensus close. Given what has transpired below, the confusion surrounding all of this, the muddying of proposals, etc. etc., we should probably all ignore this part and instead focus on some concrete policy-based proposals.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 04:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reversed User:Shibbolethink's inappropriate, unilateral close of a very active, pngoing discussion. Nothing in policy justifies such a close. It was simply a unilateral supervote. Significantly, Shibbolethink grossly misread the trend of the discussion. He said "we have sped towards No consensus. 13 votes in favor of the unblock, 16 votes opposed"; butr what has in fact happened is that after an early batch of !votes breaking narrowly (9-7) in favor of unblocking, subsequent discussion and !voting swung in the opposite direction (4-9); if the current trend continues, there will soon be a solid consensus opposing unblocking. But that's hardly a sure thing. This is a community decision, and no single editor or admin should act unilaterally to throttle discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t like a straight numeric assessment but if we must I think your numbers are off. I count much closer to 20 opposed. Not necessarily opposing the close, just asking you to check your work. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , Close withdrawn, that's WP:BOLD-revert-discuss for you. I might add that all closes are unilateral by their very nature. And that, regardless, I still think this is a malformed discussion that should be about imposing a new block, not undoing an old unblock that was done completely independent of any ANI thread. I don't feel strongly enough about this to do anything, though. Enjoy the mess this has become...Collapsing as off-topic and withdrawing close.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 11:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert unblock conditions
There was a discussion about User:Johnpacklambert here a little over a week ago (archived). During the discussion, JPL was blocked by User:El C. The discussions, both here at ANI and on JPL's talk page, continued after the block and deteriorated, and it seemed unlikely that something productive would come from continuing at that time. I removed talk page access for a week, and closed the ANI thread, as a cool down period. In the close of the ANI tread, I said "When/if unblock conditions are discussed, people will have an opportunity to comment".

El C has reversed his block, with a condition (forged on JPL's talk page by several editors and admins). The unblock request reads "I recognize that my over reactions, over defensiveness, and general attacks on others were disruptive and would like to apologize for it. As detailed above I am requesting an unblock authorization. The plan is that I will work on articles in Category:1922 births, adding sources, adding categories, adding text, and doing general improvments to the articles. For the time being I will only edit articles that are in that category when I began editing them. The plan is in the short term to when I complete that category move back to Category:1921 births, but I will wait until I get through the 1922 births to do that. For now I will only do edits on those pages that are in the category when I find them. Again I would like to sincerely apologize for the disruption I have caused. I want to be an editor who improves the project and does not cause problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)"

So, I guess the question is, is this unblock condition acceptable to the community, and does it address the problems that led to the ANI thread in the first place? FWIW, I think it is worth a shot to try this. Discussion about these unblock conditions is on JPL's talk page. I'm hoping the ANI community accepts it. But I promised a discussion when I closed the ANI thread, and so here it is. After the fact, but what else can I do? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Ugh, I'll tell you what you can do. You could take all of your belongings and go live in a shoe! El_C 03:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You may not be aware, but you're being a douche when you make nonsensical comments like this. You're doing it a lot lately.  Please stop it.  It's frustrating, and if you keep doing it, you'll likely disrupt this thread and make it harder to settle this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A douche, you say? That's refreshing. El_C 04:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Translator's note: "douche", in French, means "shower". jp×g 22:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This situation needs to be handled sensitively and with minimal drama. Starting a thread at ANI strikes me as the opposite of that. – bradv 🍁  04:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that's me, a fucking drama monger. I promised people could comment, and kept my promise. I'm out.  If you close this, it's on you, not me.  I tried to do the right thing.  To everyone in the previous ANI thread: sorry I lied to you.  It was unintentional, and to some extent, in retrospect, out of my control.  --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * First I would like to remind everyone including myself that the existence of this thread does not require anyone except El C, Floquenbeam, and JPL and perhaps if there's someone else involved to respond and even then only if questions are specifically raised about their behaviour, actions and plans that definitely need a response (a lot of the time no response is needed). If the community appears to be proposing a plan then of course you might want to help shape that decision if necessary. (Remembering if the outcome seems clear and your feedback is unlikely to change things then as always consider if it's necessary.) Anyway I would prefer no ANI thread but IMO this thread is the best solution.


 * It's clear the previous thread and discussion was closed partially under the reasoning that JPL was indeffed with no chance of any action of responses on them for ~7 days. That period has now elapsed and indeed JPL has been unblocked. For those of us with long experience of Wikipedia, we know that a good way to get people here riled up is to prematurely shut down or prevent discussion about something they're not happy with and there seems a strong risk this would be one such case. This may not even be about a different outcome, but simply that people feel the issues haven't been properly explorer. Even if a thread with way more anger than was needed doesn't eventually result from such an attempt to prevent discussion, it can lead to long simmering tensions that keep coming out. Further AFAIS, the previous closures were mostly accepted with perhaps some minor silliness. There's a good chance that if instead of allowing a discussion in the future like was promised we shut it down, this makes it far harder to have relatively clean cut-offs like that in the future. (The pending changes mess and other cases I can't recall offhand resulted at least partially from a feeling promises of discussion were broken.) To be clear, there may be a few cases where we can go against promises made, but there need to be exceptional circumstances and/or where the situation has substantially changed neither of which seem to apply here. Also while I'd prefer no need for an ANI thread, I see zero significant harm in one. (There is one recent arbcom announcement and preceding ANI thread where we had far more reason to limit discussion and did, but even there we still allowed some discussion.) Ultimately if the community does not agree with this decision, then they have a right to impose some other decision and it's incredibly unfair of anyone especially admins to suggest they can't. Likewise if the community or JPL cannot handle this thread in a reasonable fashion, then any problems which result are a symptom and not a cause; and we really need to work out how to resolve those problems rather than doing stuff which just makes everything worse like preventing discussion when people want it. While Floquenbeam could have let someone with concerns open the discussion, I think the comments here show why they are the best place. While Floquenbeam clearly feels at least 2 of the replies so far are unfair, and may not totally agree with the way the unblock was handled, they are still largely an uninvolved admin and so I'm sure have the experience and wherewithal to deal with such comments. By comparison, it's easy to see some editor who is very unhappy about the unblock or conditions getting rather pissed off about any perceived attacks of them opening a thread and for the thread to substantially degenerate as a result.


 * Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Unblock with conditions - I think the specific plan addresses the issue at hand well, and can be reevulated in the future as needed. –– FormalDude  talk  06:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support unblock- this seems like the best way forward for everyone. Reyk YO! 07:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Unblock with conditions. If JPL can stay out of drama for 6-12 months, there should be a good chance of getting the restrictions lifted. And thanks to admins for last few actions on this. Floq's 1 week cool down wasnt risk free but seemed for the best on balance of probability, & JPL looks much calmer now his TPA is restored. Also great that El_C unblocked; with that as the status quo at the start of this discussion, its much more likely we'll get JPL back. If JPL reads this, I hope he considers JClemmen's point about being too reliant on Wikipedia as his vehicle for making valuable contributions. Even allowing for the challenges from mild autism, there must be thousands of undertakings that would appreciate help from someone with JPL's intelligence and energy.FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support unblock with conditions per my comments at JPL's talk page, and above. Hopefully these extremely narrow conditions will allow JPL to get back to editing and improving the project, while keeping them away from problematic areas. And JPL knows that if he breaches those tight conditions, then a lengthy and perhaps permanent block awaits. I'm also sorry to see El C and Floq in disagreement above - both admins I respect greatly, and I can see where both of them are coming from - El C is entitled to undo their own block on the one hand, and Floq wanting to keep their promise to the community by coming back to ANI. Hopefully this discussion here will not prove too contentious, and then the two diverging narratives can be reunited once more. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, I've been finding Floq to be grumpy a lot lately, which is frustrating, so I admit to have generally been trying to avoid a closed loop of frustration there, but sometimes there's overlap. And sometimes you're tired. Oh well. Anyway, too bad we couldn't discuss the details of RESTRICT formalities on JPL's talk page, but I guess a promise is sacred. Still, I'd submit more broadly that not everything needed to be done right fuckin' now. In any case, it is what it is at this point, so forging ahead, I guess. El_C 12:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Change of view to oppose unblock. Apologies for this but, when I wrote the following (now struck through) on the 6th, I was unaware that JPL had created additional accounts and this rash action must count heavily against him. The recent block for BLP violations (highlighted by Andrew below) is another decisive factor because it is inexcusable for an experienced editor to breach BLP. While I remain concerned about JPL's stress levels, I think Guerillero makes a salient point in saying that "editing Wikipedia seems actively harmful to JPL's mental health". Much has been said about JPL's attitude towards religion and, although I personally have no religion whatsoever, I fully respect other people's religious views and JPL should do the same, always subject to site policies such as WP:V, WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:RS, etc. – obviously, if JPL were to revert some unsourced nonsense about the CLDS, he would be right to do so. On balance, the combination of SPI and BLP (both of which I had not previously taken into account) tips the scales and I now think both JPL and WP would benefit from a parting of the ways. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support unblock with conditions for six months. In addition, I think JPL should be allowed immediate access to AFD and CFD because I've found his contributions there are always insightful and useful, even on the few occasions when I haven't fully agreed with him. If he can interact with others at those pages, it will help him to feel part of the community again. Bearing in mind that his messages during the block have strongly indicated extreme stress, he should not be made to feel marginalised. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Unexpected to see a good faith editor like yourself selectively quoting Guerillero in a way that makes their nonsense seem even less reasonable. What they actually said was From the last thread, editing Wikipedia seems actively harmful to JPL's mental health. That's a valid reading of the thread, but it's a rather small data point. Before venturing an opinion on another editors MH it would be polite to take a wider view. JPL was quite clear on his TP last week that Wikipedia is the only place where he feels able to make valuable contributions. Regardless of the fact that the editing here occasionally makes him feel stressed, angry or panicky, it's clearly allmost certainly a net +ve for him. There's a handful of editors here who engage in high level consultancy with platform operators & governments concerning Digital media use and mental health . But most venturing opinions on other editors MH should be ignored or asked to keep their armchair psychology to themselves. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, editing Wikipedia can be torture. But no-one expects the comfy chair!! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support unblock with the proposed restriction. It’s a curiously narrow restriction but if JPL is content with it, I am too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Opppose any unblock without a specific and logged ban at WP:RESTRICT from all deletion processes and all religion-based pages for a period of at least a year. Otherwise this is an utter waste of time and we will be back here as soon as JPL thinks people have stopped paying attention. The above from JPL are not actually 'conditions'. Note use of 'the plan' and 'for the time being'. Even with specific blocks from those two areas, JPL will just cause disruption somewhere else. This is not their first rodeo, this is not a second or third chance, this is once again JPL saying 'sorry I wont do it again' then they will go and do it again. WP:NOTTHERAPY also exists for a reason. We are way beyond the point where Wikipedia has made reasonable adjustments to accomodate JPL constant excuses. They have demonstrated over many years they are fundamentally unable to change, so they either need to go completely, or be forcibly prevented from causing issues. And I will absolutely echo KW here in that the persona JPL likes to project on-wiki is very far, deceptively so, than that they project off-wiki. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Waiting to hear from John I have some thoughts to share, but before I do so, now that John has had ample time to reflect on his decisions, I would like to read his thoughts on his using multiple accounts. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and second the statement by Only in death does duty end. I followed the thread without comment last week, and have been watching it unfold at JPLs talk the last few days. Definitive logged restrictions need to be in place. A blanket restriction from religion articles is probably also in order, as editor seems constitutionally incapable of separating their own beliefs from the NPOV required to edit them, especially concerning his own religion.  He  iro  12:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock I think it is in everyone's best interest from from JPL to the community's to give JPL our best regards and bluntly tell him to find himself another hobby. I suggest one that is not found in cyberspace and involves coming into contact with vegitation or the outdoors on a reguar basis. From the last thread, editing Wikipedia seems actively harmful to JPL's mental health and his contributions to our deletion processes and religion have been harmful to Wikipedia. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd really wish there were less of these NOTTHERAPY expressions by those espousing this CBAN masquerading as an oppose unblock. El_C 12:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And I'd really wish you didn't rush to push the unblock button before the community had a chance to give their input on it. I find my comment to be extremely frank and transparent. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I used my discretion when blocking and I used my discretion when unblocking. "Extremely"? Yeah, maybe. Good luck to you all. El_C 13:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought the "go take a walk outside" rhetoric to be pretty condescending and dismissive, actually. Reyk YO! 14:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not really an unblock condition. It's so loosely worded that there's no real condition here except 'start slow then phase back in'. Probably why it isn't logged at Editing restrictions/Voluntary like other unblock conditions would be? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * At this time, that is correct. El_C 12:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose on these terms. There is absolutely no commitment to avoid problematic or tendentious editing areas, only not to immediately start back on them (and even then, "1922 births" seems like such a niche area that it's hard not to assume they may have a biography in mind within the wheelhouse they're best avoiding); any request should ideally include a much more concrete tban from areas fraught with issue for JPL until they can demonstrate they're responsible enough to contribute. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 12:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support unblock with conditions - the self-imposed conditions seem very stringent to me. We could change it to "1919 births" if there are doubts about the randomness of 1922. I have always found JPL's comments at cfd of interest and as valid as anyone else's (other than my own of course). Oculi (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support unblock with the current conditions and Support asking everyone to step back from the edge a bit. None of the recriminations, aspersions, or sniping helps build the encyclopedia. There's far too much personalization of actions and ascribing of motivations occurring. Take a break and go smell the flowers or dance in the rain, as your local weather indicates. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 14:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The categories of 1921 and 1922 births are not random and seem quite inappropriate. The people in this category will tend to be either (a) recently dead or (b) centenarians or (c) of uncertain BLP status.  JPL was blocked just three months ago for messing with BLP categories of this kind and the proposed restriction seems likely to increase the chances of this happening again.  It would be better to restrict them to a less sensitive age band such as 1821 births. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty ridiculous to unblock so soon after JPL's sockpuppetry. Seems as though people were simply swayed by his strong emotional reaction to the original block to the point that the subsequent misbehavior was treated as immaterial or forgotten about entirely, but it's a pretty serious infraction. At a minimum it seems more reasonable for JPL to wait out the standard offer before being given the opportunity to return with such restrictions, in light of how easily he fell into the temptation to evade editing restrictions (that is, a full block). --Equivamp - talk 15:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1922 and 1921 look oddly specific, but people on the spectrum often view the world in non-mainstream ways, and I read nothing more into those dates than that. There's no doubt that improving existing articles is valuable work which can make a real difference. For a pragmatic reason, I'd suggest 1770 births and working backwards from there; before the birth of any prominent member of the LDS Church I know of. If JPL can get any article in that class up to DYK or GA status - well, enough said! those are hats well worth collecting. Narky Blert (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support unblock with conditions under the assumptions that concerns about the pattern of emotional blackmail etc have been addressed in private off wiki by JPL and relevant admins. If my assumption is incorrect and those issues have not been addressed then I can’t in good faith support an unblock. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC) I was incorrect the main issue has not been addressed, I must therefore change my position to oppose per my previous statement. At this point I’m not even sure that they understand that what they did was wrong, which is really the bare minimum and should be just the start of the conversation. On the philosophical side (because apparently thats also what we’re discussing), is there nothing compassionate about enabling an abuser? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I see an attempt at an apology, but nothing more, and nothing to address the issues that JPL was blocked for and why they wont repeat that behaviour. Then it goes to the non sequitur of tasking themselves with articles in the 1921 and 1922 births categories. That's before you get into the issue of socking and the recent BLP-related block, that Andrew Davidson mentions.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Although this all seems moot now, as I see their account is unblocked.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose given all the drama, second/third/fourth chances, and the fact that none of these restrictions get at the original problematic behavior, the sockepuppetry, etc.; enough chances have already been given. Grandpallama (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the complaints at the top of the thread that it's "insensitive" to have an ANI thread must be rejected; unless ARBCOM is involved or the restrictions clearly (and voluntarily) include all the suggestions in the initial thread there MUST be this follow-up thread. It seems the unblock condition is that JPL can only edit articles regarding people born in 1921 or 1922?  This is one of the most bizarre unblock conditions I have ever seen, and it doesn't address the issues regarding the Manual of Style's guidelines on short names of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at all.  Obviously this isn't a long-term solution, and we must expect an appeal; if there is an understanding that further disruption (particularly regarding Manual of Style issues) before an appeal will result in a Community Ban Not Appealable For 180 Days this may be minimally acceptable. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 20:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding JPL agreed to not edit any articles, even those appearing in people born in 1921, that are in any way related to the LDS Church. Additionally that topic restriction means he can't edit the MOS. So, for those reasons, isn't his issue regarding the MOS guidelines on short names of the LDS Church fully addressed?
 * I do agree that this ANI thread is a requirement and appreciate Floquenbeam for following through with it. –– FormalDude  talk  04:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I must endorse the WP:NOTAVOTE claims; I don't feel I am supporting or opposing any specific written proposal regarding the unblock of JPL. That editor is currently unblocked, yet consensus is clear that an unblock would need conditions.  I support there being fair conditions; not unreasonably burdensome conditions that amount to a procedural block, yet also not so vague and minimal as to amount to an unconditional unblock.  If anyone can tell me whether that is "support" or "oppose", they might be more enlightened than Bodhidharma. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν )
 * Tally — 9 Support to 7 Oppose as it currently stands. ~18 hours post thread opening. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To you of all people I thought citing WP:NOTAVOTE wouldn't be required. No comment on the matter at hand, since I really don't care for the drama, although if it's this close, it might be that there is no consensus here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * NOTAVOTE is so idealistic and much of it hardly applies in practice these days. Maybe it used to apply more once upon a time. When was the last time a large-scale dispute was resolved by building actual 'consensus' (using the traditional definition of the word, not the WikiSpeak definition)? I don't remember, personally. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CON still exists, but it does have to contend with vote counters of several types, including those who will snow close a discussion rather than let the discussers try to come to some understanding of each others' perspectives. Though I will agree that so called "drive by voting", and people talking past each other rather than listening to each other (not to mention gamesmanship of many forms), seems to be becoming more prevalent, which I do find disenheartening. - jc37 03:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My anecdotal experience with WP:NOTAVOTE is that it applies when people are not justifying their votes, or when there are people piling on just to pile on, rather than to further expand support or opposition for a particular point. To that extent, everyone here seems to be furthering the discussion. –– FormalDude  talk  01:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course I would agree, this is not a vote @RandomCanadian! But I still think a vote tally is a useful gauge to approximate how the discussion is going. When closing, arguments and policy must be examined, as well as the strength and merits thereof. But that doesn't mean we just ignore the vote tally. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 11:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support somewhat reluctantly, mainly on the basis that the WP:ROPE has been extended so many times now that it's on its very last thread, and any further issues will probably be a CBAN, and I'm sure JPL knows this. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably meaningless now, since it's a fait accompli, but oppose per Black Kite above. There has been so much drama and so many numbered chances, not imposing a restriction of some kind (not a "plan"; that's neither meaningful nor enforceable), let alone not addressing the socking...it's hard for me to see this ending at all well. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 22:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Involved support I was the editor who brought JPL to ANI which spun into this situation. I have accepted his apology about the actions that led to El C's indef and as I said here or his talk (can't find-but someone can), I won't stand in the way of an unblock as that was not my goal when I brought his Mormon / LDS edits here. I remain concerned about JPL's ability to edit with an NPOV, but there are enough folks watching that I'm sure any 192x issues will be addressed if and when they happen. I do think this is the last last straw though as he's a productive editor but he has been here one too many times  Star   Mississippi  23:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LindsayH et al. - the socking is a major aggravating factor. GABgab 01:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose with a "But" Given the behavior included socking, I think we're beyond the point of a simple apology sufficing. I do not believe that JPL editing Wikipedia is in either Wikipedia's interest or JPL's interest given the behavior in the last few weeks when they were unable to edit. However, since it appears that the block will not be reinstated, if JPL's allowed to edit again, I'd argue that it's crucial that any condition of return involve a topic ban specific to religion, given that the behavior in that area has been repeated and is why we are here in the first place. So yes, allow JPL to post about 1922 births or whatever, but make sure that we're not talking about religious figures, broadly construed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think JPL has done much more than a simple apology, but either way I agree that a topic ban specific to religion is a good idea. Since he is limited to only 1922 births, that is a given, and he has already agreed to the further restriction from editing any 1922 articles that are in anyway involved with the LDS Church. I think it is likely he would agree to not editing any religious figures broadly construed too. Following his two week break, he has been very reasonable and accommodating in his request to be unblocked. –– FormalDude  talk  04:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Leave as is unless something new happens A lot of people supporting or opposing the unblock. However the unblock was performed by the blocking admin and no admin needs community consent to reverse their own action. So the question to me is not if the unblock was appropriate, it was. The question is if a new block is justified. I say for a new block to be justified there would need to be new behavior to justify it. I suppose it is possible that the previous discussion of sanctions could resume, but I think it lost steam. That being said the community is clearly close to its breaking point with this user and I recommend to them to walk as though on egg shells. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Observations: 1) First, thank you Floq for following through on your promise. 2) I think a couple of the early replies were uncalled for, and I was disappointed to see that kind of behavior. (the douche comment was also over the top - but I understand it due to the frustration).  3) I agree with High in BC in that since it was El_C's block, it was his right to unblock (although I'm not convinced it was a particularly good unblock).  4) Again I agree with HighinBC in that once someone has been unblocked, it would not be right to re-block ... absent continued disruption.  To that end, I'd suggest just closing the thread, and stop snipping at each other. — Ched (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support unblock with no conditions - if they can't edit productively without any conditions attached to their account, they have no business editing Wikipedia. If they are truly a net negative to the project, leave them blocked indef. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a philosophical question that doesn't belong here, goes against years and years of actual practice and actual processes -- hell, actual software features like partial blocks. If you want to make fundamental changes to how Wikipedia does things, start an RFC. --Calton &#124; Talk 07:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not starting a RfC, and I did not ask a philosophical question. Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black">(talk)</b> 07:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding whether or not a block can be issued, as with any scenario, the community is free to review what has transpired and reach a consensus on the best path going forward. isaacl (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock. He definitely should be banned from any deletion discussions due to his well-documented history of indiscriminate voting and prodding and any topic related to religion per Only in Death and CoffeeCrumbs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock. A read of his talk page will show a history of shifting rationales, of saying whatever he thinks will let him get his way. His sudden and aggressive attempt to use "racism!" regarding the word "Mormon", for example, and his change to over-the-top attempts at evoking pity makes me believe that he's acting in bad faith, where he's treating Wikipedia like a video game where if he can use just the right cheat codes he can win. The restrictions he wants don't address the issues that keep bringing him to ANI, and seem so specific and unexplained that I can't help but wonder what's behind them. Unless there are firm restrictions that address his actual behaviors and have consequences for attempts at testing or gaming them, Wikipedia is better off without him. --Calton &#124; Talk 07:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "his change to over-the-top attempts at evoking pity makes me believe that he's acting in bad faith, where he's treating Wikipedia like a video game where if he can use just the right cheat codes he can win" is what I was referring to in my comment as "emotional blackmail etc” I assume its been addressed off wiki by admins in emails with JPL. I assume that there are in fact firm restrictions that address his actual behaviors that we just don’t know about. I would actually like clarification on that, can you help? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No. El_C 15:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So the big issue was never even addressed? You’ve gotten enough shit already so I won’t pile on but smh. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding is JPL agreed to a broad topic ban and would likely agree to additional firm restrictions. –– FormalDude  talk  15:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Shake your head all you want, Horse Eye&#39;s Back, but if you're not going to bother reviewing what I've written here and on JPL's talk page, I'm not sure why you think you're owed a substantive response. Please stop pinging me to this discussion, my patience is wearing thin. El_C 15:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats not correct, I have read everything that you’ve posted here and on JPL's talk page. I’m not sure why your patience is wearing thin, I pinged you a grand total of one time so there is no need to give me a scolding. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever. El_C 16:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, you sure showed me by revising your statement to call JPL an abuser, Horse Eye&#39;s Back. Major smh. I honestly had a higher opinion of you, which saddens me. El_C 16:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you’re going to ask me not to ping you I would expect an extension of the same courtesy, thank you. If it makes you feel any better the reassessment of opinions and sadness at the result is mutual. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Double whatever. El_C 16:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you not? It makes me feel weird when an admin acts like a kid, I don’t really know what to do here. If you actually have an objection to me calling JPL an abuser I would like to hear it, seems fair after the PA, socking, etc. Don’t we refer to all of those as abuse? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Can I not what? Explain to you the difference between "abuse" and "abuser"? No thank you. Please leave me be. El_C 16:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You could perhaps explain how its possible to have abuse without the one doing the abuse being an abuser... But I will digress, I do hope you don’t take this personally. You’re still one of my favorite admins and I know at the end of the day I’m probably the dick for taking such a strong stance against someone on the spectrum, but I think its the right thing even if it makes me feel shitty about myself. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support full unblock, a productive long-time Wikipedian. Gets carried away on a topic from time to time, but then those are discussed and ultimately solved. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as proposed If we're going for a last-chance unblock, then, looking at what ultimately caused JPL's block, and now the aggravating socking (from someone who has been here long enough to know that's not the way forward); the conditions strike me as entirely missing the mark. What I could support is an unblock with the following, simple restrictions: topic ban from religion, broadly construed, and, of course, a single-account restriction; but in principle no one is essential to the project so I don't see why we'd want to make yet another example of WP:UNBLOCKABLES. We indef new editors for way less, so I'm not convinced in any case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support unblock with conditions - I have thought about this all weekend. My mind has wandered in both directions. I believe Wikipedia is a net positive for JPL but is Wikipedia a net positive with JPL here? Ultimately, I agree that Wikipedia has ben affected negatively by JPL in certain areas of focus. However, other areas have benefited greatly from JPL being here. The conundrum we face as a community is the health aspect. I'm not discussing particulars or going into detail but it is a reality and to deny including it in the conversation is actually doing a disservice to JPL. Wikipedia has been a positive place for JPL in regards to his health. He feels most productive when being able to edit here. To deny that would cause serious harm to a fellow editor. That being said, the community must also protect the integrity of the encyclopedia and I believe adding restrictions and conditions to JPL will not only accomplish that but will also be beneficial to him. What I genuinely request of my fellow Wikipedians is to please treat this situation with sensitivity. We are dealing with a real human being, not a robot, not a machine and not just a name on a computer screen. Please make sure your comments going forward are done so in kindness and respect for JPL as a human. I am in no way saying you can't speak the obvious according to the way you see it. Just that we can do so while realizing the complexity of the situation and respecting the individual we are discussing. -- A Rose Wolf  14:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "... The conundrum we face as a community is the health aspect. I'm not discussing particulars or going into detail but it is a reality and to deny including it in the conversation is actually doing a disservice to JPL. Wikipedia has been a positive place for JPL in regards to his health. He feels most productive when being able to edit here. To deny that would cause serious harm to a fellow editor."
 * Absolutely no.
 * I am and have been a strong supporter of the idea that we need to remember that there is a person behind the username. And in my opinion, this situation is a mess.
 * But it is up to JPL to manage their own health issues, whatever they may be, we are not doctors, and we can not (and should not be expected to) do that for him.
 * So I'm sympathetic, but at the end of the day, JPL is to be held to be responsible for their own actions and their own choices. - jc37 16:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , If you have read any of my comments directed at JPL over the entire duration of this discussion and even a prior discussion here on AN/I, I have never removed the responsibility off JPL for his actions. However, I will not remove the responsibility of the community to act with kindness and understanding, of which most do so without having to be told but the fact that his talk page has had to be protected and the fact that a fake account was made to try and exploit upon JPL's situation to try an further get him in trouble, which was determined not to be him, has lead me to caution the community that we can not shy away from our responsibility as human beings. WP:AGF is nonnegotiable and it has no limits in regards to content. If this were a simple content dispute then the application would be simple. However, there is behavior and content issues and the only way to address them is to address them all. Sticking your head in the sand and saying that a person's health issues can not be a determinant factor in the behavior of a person is in-effect, denying its existence. I kindly ask you not to put words into my mouth or read into anything I have said as if I am claiming we should be doctors or manage his health. What we should be is humans and we should look at the human equation in its fullness. My call was to uphold policy but do so with understanding, civility and kindness in regards to JPL's health and status as a human being. That was not and has never been a blank check for which JPL can do anything he wishes. I believe that this AN/I discussion and the results has been eye-opening for JPL and the break he was forced to take was impactful. Only he can decide what he will do with what he has been told and shown. I choose to help him if he decides to call upon me or seek my advice. Many others have offered the same. -- A Rose Wolf  18:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In much of what you are saying, you are preaching to the choir. I totally agree, it was merely the way in which you seemed to frame this as if we must allow JPL to edit because to not allow him to edit may adversely affect his health. To that I say: assolutely no.  If Wikipedia is being used in that way, that has zero to do with us as editors or as a community.  That may be between JPL and whatever health provider he associates with. But that has nothing to do with whatever decision-making we do here. - jc37 06:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:ARoseWolf, well-said on the kindness stuff. Would you care to voice some opinions on what areas you think John's use could be limited in a way that might be mutually beneficial to Wikipedia and to John? I think it would be beneficial for everyone if as many people are as specific as possible in terms of what we might like to see happen. (You and I have some similar thoughts, I think, and while I voted "oppose because" and you voted "support with" :) ) Good to see you again. Peace be with you! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies, . I was sidetracked by something off-wiki. It is great to see you as well. There really isn't much difference between your "oppose" view and my "support with" view from what I can see here. I respect everyone's opinion and I think there have been a lot of valid points. One of the things I wanted JPL to understand is that, while some of the actions like vandalism of his talk page and the trolling sock account meant to try and get him in trouble are concerning, the opposition to him being here is not unfounded. His actions have affected a lot of people negatively. The socks he created, which, though they didn't cause harm from what I have seen of their contributions, are a direct violation of trust that so many have placed in him, especially those that have defended him. It also indirectly led to the fake sock being given so much credence. Actions have consequences. I believe, if JPL is here for the right reasons then he should evaluate his editing and avoid the contentious issues like religion, among others, and by avoiding I mean even AfD discussions. Cut it out completely. I believe it would be wise for JPL to find a group of editors here willing to assist him with advice. No one should feel forced to intervene but if there are those who would be willing to offer advice then I think that can't be anything but a positive. Should JPL follow the guidance I think we will avoid a lot more discussions like this involving him. If he refuses to follow guidance then he may wind up here again and the community may have to ban him. I am trying to avoid that recourse and its why I have asked JPL to help us help him. That's a choice he has to make and it appears he is taking serious which I am thankful for. My goal has never been to silence people who think different than me, I don't care how different, positively or negatively, good or bad, we may think about something. I don't want you or anyone silenced. I've been there and I have realized we are not solo dancers in life. We can not be a symphony if we all play the same instrument. That being said, the disruption can not persist. That's why I have implored upon JPL to heed our advice here, even those he doesn't agree with. All of the points made here are made with reason. -- A Rose Wolf  19:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - colleagues, you are wasting your time supporting/opposing an unblock that already happened. This round began with a community discussion about a topic ban from religion based on personal attacks and other disruptive editing. It's not the first time; April 2021 was the most recent ANI thread involving personal attacks (and other disruption). During this discussion, JPL had a bad reaction and was blocked, and has now been unblocked. The next step isn't to argue about the block/unblock but to resume the discussion of the topic ban. If others agree this is the next step, perhaps someone should propose it formally. Personally, I don't think restricting JPL to Cat:1922 births addresses the issues raised in this month's ANI thread. Levivich 14:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Since JPL's was initially a unilateral admin block, the admin is also able to undo it. Due to the fact that the earlier ANI was closed for compassionate reasons, a consensus to enforce a ban on the editor did not arise. I suppose the closer of this discussion will have to interpret "opposes" here as implicit supports for a site ban, and "supports" as implicit opposes against a site ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And thus the compassionate block/unblock has turned a tban discussion into a siteban discussion. Levivich 15:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as proposed. What will he be allowed to do and not allowed to do? For how long? Everyone needs clarity here, especially John. (Go to his talk page, he doesn’t know how he is supposed to use it at this time.) If John is to be successful, such arbitrary phrasing is likely to lead to trouble. He had talked about being on the autism spectrum before; however, all users deserve more specificity than this. Beyond the as-proposed issue: Socking to double-vote and perhaps to get around a likely block reveals an addiction to using this site. This is not some unbecoming behavior that can be chalked up entirely to frustration and is quickly forgivable when one is contrite (accusing someone of something one has a history of experiencing in the heat of a moment is; I can overlook that in light of the apology). But the socking is unethical, problematic, a red flag, of utmost concern. Outside of this website, this kind of deceit is the sort of thing one could lose credibility, licensure, and career over. It doesn’t matter how long the accounts existed. Are there other accounts? Will there be accounts in the future? John desperately wants to stay. His actions suggest he should move on. I would love to see him enjoy anything in the real world, or even something more creative online. His comments about his life being a failure, etc. are alarming. Anyway… I asked John on his talk page about his involvement in deletion point-blank; his reply suggests he is uncomfortable answering questions there and here because he is concerned about repercussions. Reading between the lines of what he said, he may be agreeable to this. He could keep going on with category work and perhaps more minor edits to articles and I’d be fine with that (though “minor” perhaps should be defined; I know there have been run-ins). A permanent ban from all AfD processes is a more than fair compromise. He is stuck on it enough to sock. 99.9% of what he does in AfD is prodding or nominating; anyone can do that. We aren't losing one of our better HEY researchers by taking him out of that space. (NOTE: John and I have probably been on the same page in AfD as often as we are opposed, and when we’re opposed, I generally can make an article pass muster, so I’m really more disappointed at the thought of losing his votes in the religious corporation space than I am threatened by the thought of his continuing here.) Socking must be met with a permanent consequence of some kind… or some of us will lose faith in Wikipedia. Can’t we iron out some specific terms? FYI, I would support his return if a full and permanent ban from deletion is in the terms. Per Morbidthoughts, Only in death does duty end, and others. Sorry this is so long! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban from religion and article deletion (previously "oppose but might support with more appropriate specific conditions"). Indefinite topic bans from religion (all religions) and from all article deletion processes (including CSD and PROD, and project-side discussions about deletion) ought to be minimum, owing to the fact that JPL has on two separate occasions within the past six months created socks to avoid scrutiny and in the more recent case to evade a block to edit those topics. While some others in these various discussions have applauded JPL's devotion to Wikipedia, I see a level of fanaticism that is disruptive to the project: after being blocked, in two spurts totalling five hours of editing JPL made more than 80 comments on his talk page which were some variation of this begging apology, including "my life is unlivable", "I am sinking into despair", "I am not going to kill myself", "I always fail at everything", "I have spilled out my life in trying to make Wikipedia better", and including a handful that required suppression. But in amongst this flailing against a block he considered "like a death sentence" he nevertheless continued to ping editors to his talk page to start new discussions about LDS content that he disagreed with . That is not dedication, it's obsession: John is demonstrably unable to disengage from this topic. If he really only wants to edit articles about people born in 1921 and 1922 then fine, these restrictions shouldn't hinder him much but ought to keep him out of the areas he frankly can't handle. That being said, the unblocking admin's wrist-slap unblock, and their flippant and dismissive comments in this thread, shouldn't be held against JPL. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to know a lot of this, I suppose. But my block wasn't a CBAN and the unblock wasn't the TBAN, though I did intend on working on that component of it in consultation with the community. El_C 16:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban from religion Levivich is correct above that it is a waste of time to express support for or opposition to unblocking. Johnpacklambert is unblocked. Everyone whose has paid attention knows that the recent disruption has to do largely with topics pertaining to the Salt Lake City church he belongs to. Right now on his talk page, he is going on and on about expatriate categorization for Gerrit W. Gong, a senior figure in the leadership of that church who was born in 1953 not 1921 or 1922. I think a clearly defined topic ban is necessary if there is to be any hope of this editor continuing to contribute to this encyclopedia. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  16:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose current unblock restrictions, support topic ban from religion - Category:1922 births and Category:1921 births would include centenarians and thus be covered under the longevity DS (which, for reasons I don't understand, is also listed at WP:GS, so I guess it's both a GS and a DS). When an editor has been disruptive in one area, restricting them to a DS area is a bad idea. Additionally, those categories include dozens of Latter Day Saints, which is the topic that started this round of ANI. The unblock conditions should address the issues raised in the ANI thread that led to the block, such as a TBAN from religion. Levivich 16:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that analysis. It is interesting that Walter Gong was born in 1922 and is the father of Gerrit W. Gong, who Johnpacklambert is discussing on his talk page. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose current unblock conditions, support topic ban from religion A topic ban from religion is an absolute must. The socking has not been adequately addressed either.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , and . I appreciate Floquenbeam keeping their word and soliciting community review of the unblock conditions. The most recent flurry of inappropriate conduct was centered on the question of religion, and the archived discussion included evidence that this wasn't the first time. It's sensible for the community to protect itself from the further abuse that is likely if JPL continues to edit in the topic area. Some editors/admins note the drain that continued discussion is having on both JPL and others. JPL is communicating that the 1922 voluntary restriction will be helpful to them and formalizing such a restriction should help clarify the bounds. I'll be likely to support dropping the restriction in a while on appeal. Finally, continued discussion on this matter is clearly a drain on both JPL and the community; I encourage an uninvolved admin to be bold on closing this discussion quickly. Not now, but ideally soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose religion topic ban (Involved) I'm a regular editor in the Mormonism topic area. JPL's moving and renaming spree was annoying and disruptive. I know. I spent nearly an hour reverting it. And I was shocked by his complete loss of objectivity...calling people bigots for using the word "Mormon" and such. That said, in my experience this kind of behavior is not normal for JPL. I think part of it may have been a negative reaction to stress or something. More importantly, I think JPL has realized he crossed a line and is committed to correcting course. He's been unblocked for 2 days now and is gnoming articles in the 1921 category or whatever, as promised, drama free. I hope after several months of productive editing on this tiny sliver of the encyclopedia he can eventually return to full editing. The bias is still a concern, but that's something that can be managed. Recognizing it's a problem is the first step. I appreciate having gnomes around who are both knowledgeable about the subject matter and capable editors. ~Awilley (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock without very stringent editing limits, particularly with regard to religious topics. JPL has an established history of religious hate speech off-wiki coupled with targeting articles relating to religions he disfavors on-wiki, especially the Roman Catholic Church. There's also his bizarre comments here, barely two weeks ago, declaring that the concept of Islamophobia "invented by the same forces that orchestrated mobs that killed over 200 people in direct oppostion to the right of people to draw certain cartoons" and that people who use the term support "physical punishment for apostasy". He seems unable to sustain rational discussion when religious ideas he disputes are involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - on the basis of socking. Will except an unblock in 6-months, if no socking has occurred between now & then. GoodDay (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support unblock His presence on AfDs and CfDs is missed. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support unblock but also Support Religion TBAN as an add-on that, in a formalized way. I think the unblock was proper, I think the conditions were workable, and I think this discussion is malformed. We should, in general, be focusing on the TBAN proposals below and not on critiquing the behavior of an admin who was acting in good faith. If the unblock conditions are adhered to, I think it would be a perfectly fine outcome. But I do support the religion TBAN as a prophylactic measure. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support unblock I believe that editor has expressed sufficient remorse. The block etc. have been logged and are part of their wiki-record. That's enough if we ever need to revisit this; let them resume their productive activities. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Deja vu
So in reading all of this, I'm getting a strong feeling of Deja vu. The apologies, and the volunteering to limit editing to certain articles of a year-related category (which I don't think ended up happening in that case). I spent some time doing searches, but couldn't find what I was looking for. Maybe someone else remembers more clearly. I dunno if it would help bring insight to the current situation or not, but it just seems like an odd thing, the offer being so similar (in my memory, at least). - jc37 16:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This also occurred to me, but I can't find anything either, and if my memory is correct it wasn't quite the same issue (I could be wrong, but wasn't that one to do with "YYYY in sports" or "YYYY in the United States" type articles?). Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't say for certain, I don't completely remember. I wish I did, because the similarities between then and now just makes something about all this to 'feel' disingenuous. It's funny, in my head I can see my computer screen with the text of the discussion in question, but not quite what all the text was (I think there were one or more cfd discussions involved?). But I do remember him protesting that it wasn't fair the things people were saying, that he felt he was just trying to say "x", and so on.
 * The thing is, it's sometimes kinda true. Quite often these things with JPL are situations of "it takes two to tango", but all too often they either start with someone baiting him (typically in an effort to discredit his perspective while trying to push their own perspective in an xfd or rfc), or with him just saying something that is less than stellar, or making edits that are less than stellar (to put it kinder than I prolly should), or some combination thereof. I don't think the above proposals (the unblock conditions) are going to do much more than kick the can down the road (again), but I also don't think indef is necessarily warranted yet. I think there are solution possibilities, but no matter what they are, I am pretty sure JPL will feel they are "unfair". Anyway, that would be a whole new discussion I guess, and right now, people seem more concerned about the immediate situation. - jc37 02:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the "Deja vu" feeling. We've had a fair number of "Last chance unblocks" that didn't work out over the years.  Can't say any particular "one" comes to mind though. — Ched (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally, every time JPL ends up here it seems to be because they are incapable of dropping a stick, they're given rope and we end up back here a few weeks later—blindlynx (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will say this, if JPL is blocked again, that's it. Enough "last chances". I do not care how "vital" someone is to Wikipedia, you are NOT bigger than the project itself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Final thoughts
Look, if an individual admin has done their research and still viewed my unblock to have been in error, I wouldn't have seen it as WP:WHEELWAR for the indef to have been reinstated (when I told Floq that they could re-block, that was not a trap). And, indeed, there may well be a lot of key history that I'm unaware of.

Still, I'd have wished to have gotten a chance to follow up post-unblock with JPL about, well, everything I'd previously noted to him. From the LDS issues (including about Mormonism, whose full and move protection first brought him to my orbit), to the attacks, to the socking and so on. I admit to have found it hurtful not to have even gotten a chance to try.

But, okay, if someone feels committed to doing something then that's that and there's not much more to say (and for me, to also do) about it now. That said, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that during JPL's block, I've had to protect both his talk and user pages due to repeated harassment. So, yes, I thought that the path forward could continue being charted with them unblocked. All things I'd have touched on had I been asked. But I was not ... asked. Oh well, spilled milk and all that. El_C 05:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * El C, I can't understand the approach you're taking to this discussion. You still have a chance to follow up post-unblock with JPL, and it seems you're doing so. You still have a chance to try. The path forward is currently being charted with them unblocked. You have been asked above to touch on all sorts of aspects of the block/unblock. Do you just generally disapprove of community discussion on a TBAN or other restriction? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. I don't understand the maudlin self-pity&mdash;what's preventing you from following up with JPL now that he's unblocked? MastCell Talk 16:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Give me a chance to answer before twisting the knife, MastCell. Firefangledfeathers, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but the block was for egregious personal attacks and harassment by JPL. That's it. As for my original intent of figuring out the right TBAN package: no, I don't want to do that anymore, not like this. And if the prevailing view is that that is a defect on my part, so be it. Finally, the various NOTHERAPY expressions here are ones I find particularly objectionable and I want no part of that. I really don't know what else to say. El_C 17:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think El_C's unblock was 100% appropriate. We don't want to get into a rut where we need to go to AN/I to overturn the unilateral action of a single admin (especially when the admin wants the action undone). I think Floq also did an ethical thing in allowing the community to finish its discussion on whether to impose a topic ban. I'd guess that discussion will finish with no consensus, but if people want to have it, fine. I personally prefer trying to resolve issues at a lower level, but accept things won't always happen that way. ~Awilley (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Though it's worth even less, I also agree that the unblock was appropriate. The "support unblock"/"oppose unblock" framing of the above debate is unfortunate. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would take it a step further and say that I think 's approach in particular left a lot to be desired. Yes, they closed the original thread because the situation warranted sensitive treatment, compassion and/or calm discussion with minimal drama, which is admirable. But the unpleasant taste left by reading the first posts in this thread was in my view caused entirely by Floquenbeam's ill-considered wording within the closure text and their subsequent exercise of unintentionally poor judgment. Their closure of the original thread noted: It is not possible that he will be unblocked without significant restrictions... I do not think a community ban discussion has, or is about to gain, consensus, but I also don't think unblock conditions are going to be hashed out now either. When/if unblock conditions are discussed, people will have an opportunity to comment. That is, there was no consensus on unblock conditions or bans, which made it within 's discretion as individual blocking administrator to unblock if El_C was persuaded, but the wording of the text concurrently and inappropriately suggests that El_C cannot unblock without community discussion (that is simply not the case). A more considered closure would have swapped the promise with something like "Discussion on restrictions will resume at the time or shortly after the block is lifted"; that might have been worthwhile and generated less concern and frustration at the outset, though arguably, Floquenbeam could have left it at that too. In any event, even with the ill-considered text that was written, exercising sound judgment and "doing the right thing" in that scenario would involve Floquenbeam having a discussion with El_C individually about his desire to return to ANI to fulfil said "promise" (or indeed, seeking input about El_C's views on it prior to opening this thread as an unblock review) at the outset; I believe that level of courtesy and camaraderie is expected of administrators and would have generated a response from El_C which was far less "frustrating" to Floquenbeam, and in turn probably would not have resulted in Floquenbeam's unseemly response in this thread to El_C about "nonsensical comments", being a "douche" and "disrupting this thread" about their own unblock. (Lastly, my observations are certainly less pleasant, less disappointed and more wordy than El_C was in answering Floquenbeam's question at the outset of this discussion of what else they could have done, but personally, I'd prefer El_C's response over mine - but then again, maybe my comments are also somehow nonsensical.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist, while I appreciate the support, I'd really like to put this behind me. Yes, the oppose unblock !votes were weird to me, to say the least. At no point did I promise that JPL will remain blocked during a TBAN discussion phase. As I noted above, I used my discretion when blocking (not a CBAN) and I used my discretion when undoing my own block (not the TBAN). It just feels like a lot of confusion and tension followed for naught, but maybe I have too rosy a view of my own actions (probably). El_C 23:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Except for the last sentence, the comment was intended more as clearer feedback about Floquenbeam's approach rather than support for you specifically. I couldn't do that without mentioning you unless I did so indirectly (which would make the response more wordy), sorry. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for JPL - Biographical information
User:El_C has posted to JPL's talk page that they have withdrawn from this. So in some ways everything above is apparently moot now.

But from what I can tell, the community would like something done, and would like some sort of solution or resolution to these situations.

Ok, well for JPL, this means a tban related to biographical information (including but not restricted to BLPs). Full stop.

Yes, over the years people have complained about LDS, or other religion, biases, as well as actions with categories, and at XFD.

But biographical information is simply the main issue. And BLP editing is not a minor thing.

There are many many discussions concerning him and editing information on or about people, which go back many years.

Does the community care about the other things? Sure. That seems clear in the comments above. But most of the other issues fold back to biography-related editing. And besiides, to keep him out of various Wikipedia process discussions would seem to be counter-productive.

But I think drawing a line at biographical info should be something rather straightforward to enforce.

Based upon previous discussions, I would not be surprised if JPL found this to be "unfair", and I am aware that there are others who feel that some of his edits concerning biographical articles has been good content. That's great, but do good edits counter this amount of regular, consistant disruption? I believe this is the only way the AN/I merry-go-round is going to stop, short of a site ban. And, as yet, I don't support that.

If JPL can show that he can contribute positively on Wikipedia in other ways for a year at least, then maybe he could come back to the community and appeal this topic ban (per WP:BAN).

tldr version - topic ban User:Johnpacklambert from all biographical information on Wikipedia regardless of format (article, template, category, etc.). This includes project pages and process discussions like RFCs and XfDs. He may appeal this in no earlier than 1 year's time.

I hope this helps. - jc37 17:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Until a better proposal comes along. Though it does not address sockpuppetry directly, it effectively does address some of the practical implications from the abuse of multiple accounts, namely the XFD involvement. It is better defined than the "birth categories until it's time to do more" proposal. Would prefer topic bans of an indefinite nature (I'm not saying a universal one, John), but a BLP [edit: BIOGRAPHICAL, INCLUDING DECEASED PERSON BIOS] ban for a minimum of one year is workable. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A ban on all biographical information in addition to the current reverse Category:1922 births ban? That would reduce the number of articles John is allowed to edit from 8162 to zero. (Unless animals are included in the 1922 births category.) ~Awilley (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not in addition to, but to replace that restriction. Wikipedia has many articles that are not on people, and John has experience editing them. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC).


 * Support However, I believe this should be a permanent topic ban. I say this based on my experience with the issue at hand that lead to this (being one of the first editors JPL challenged on his controversial edits reguarding the LDS Church), and based on the slew of community input that has been given, which largely considers JPL's past AN/Is as a key issue for why his actions have been so unacceptable. I honestly do not know if JPL could be a productive editor of religious or BLP topics again, though he is quite convincing, which others have noted could easily be an attempt to game the system, and this is not something that I can rule out, especially given the socking. What I do know is JPL has been here again and again, and given the seriousness of his misteps, the only tolerable action in my view would be a permanent topic ban with no option to appeal. Since he wants to stay a part of the project, let him contribute only in areas he has not yet proven to be disruptive in. –– FormalDude  talk  19:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Overly restrictive. And also targeting the single area where JPL has been doing allmost all his recent good editing, at least over the past few months. If we look at these so called "many many discussions concerning him", then out of 34  AN appearances , most are either trivial, have nothing to do with biographies, or are just JPL's name appearing in a thread attacking someone else.  This strongly opposed 2013 Topic Ban request isn't trivial, but unless one just read the top few lines, it fails to show JPL in bad light.  This said, while I see JPL as a big net positive for us overall, I wouldn't oppose a 1 year topic ban from religion &/or XfD -there has been some long term disruption in those areas. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * His block log dating back to 2015 tells a different story. –– FormalDude  talk  20:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Look again. 5 blocks is not that much for such a prolific long term editor. And there only seems to be two BLP related blocks. One was admitedly for a severe violation, though still an understandable mistake. The other was just for removing a "Living persons" cat from the mainspace page of editor Brucedouglas1925. (Who was obviously alive exactly one year ago from today, and allmost certainly still is now.) But seeing as the most recent source was from the 70s, removing the Cat wasn't really that terrible a call. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * When I said "many many discussions", I wasn't exaggerating. There have been discussions on talk pages, user talk pages, project pages and talk pages. There's been at least one rfc/u (from back when we used to do those) and even a controversy where outside media and User:Jimbo Wales was opining. These things have simply been going on a long time. - jc37 20:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I struck "so called". Unless I'm missing something he didn't do anything that bad for the outside media controversary. Granted, the more elite types would have seen it as sexist in effect (if not intent) even at the time. But back in 2013 even some female editors were adding females to the "women tags", it was something that could been seen as boosting women. The Atlantic article that named JPL was actually partly defensive of him. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A large majority of prolific long term editors have never been blocked. The problem I have with this proposal is that it does not address the topic area of the recent disruption, which is religion, specifically the editor's determined opposition to use of the word "Mormon" which was commonplace usage until three years ago when the leadership of his church suddenly rejected that term which they had previously long embraced. His recent disruptive editing justifies a topic ban from religion and religious figures, not from all biographies, and accordingly oppose this specific proposal. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  20:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - a generalized topic ban on all biographies, including BLP's. If the proposal wants to be more topic specific, like biographies on religious figures, then it can be brought forward as a different proposal and evaluated on its merits. -- A Rose Wolf  20:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support while biographical issues are a large part of his issues, I think we also need to consider LDS/Mormonism as well as that is what led to this whole mess. JPL is unable to edit neutrally on the church regardless of whether it's about LDS people or not. The challenge (which led to the indef) is he does not take criticism of his edits well, so imagine we'll be back here. Star   Mississippi  20:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Tentative Conditional Support, although, much like User:Cullen328 and User:Star Mississippi (and multiple other users in the section above) have noted immediately above, I think the issue of a tban on editing LDS/religion in general broadly construed definitely needs to be addressed in definitive language and apart from any "ban on bios for a year and then come see us again".  He  iro  04:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as t-ban proposal is too broad. GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is both too broad and also misses several areas of disruption. Try the narrower sanction first, and if the disruptive behaviour migrates to other topics then consider expanding the scope. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think the user has shown they are capable of editing in the narrow areas proposed in the informal unblock conditions, and there's no reason why we should unnecessarily prevent them from editing the 1921/1922 births area. That, to my reading, would be included in this proposal and therefore the proposal is too broad. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: unworkable. Few articles on Wikipedia don't contain biographical information. There's a sleight of hand being used here to switch between BLP and "biographical". TBANs need clear rules and clear methods of enforcement. I believe this is particularly important to autistic editors. It's prohibitively difficult to check that every page (not just article) you edit doesn't fall under the TBAN, and JPL does lots of rapid gnoming edits. If I can't work out how I would act if I were under this restriction, I cannot expect JPL to either. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is so broad that I don't think this will help clarify the distinction between this editor's constructive editing and ability (or not) to refrain from problematic contributions - which is in any case the purpose of considering an editing restriction over more extreme measures. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose You've got to give even the most condemned a fighting chance to survive! There's more than 1m articles in Category:Living people vs 6.3m articles on WP. Add in the deceased biographies, and it would be quite hard not to edit a biography. Unless you only worked on ant species in Rwanda or some such obscurity.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Biographical information" can cover so much on Wikipedia that this is unworkable.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Information about a person". A much more concrete definition than what I see in the thread below. Nearly anything can be associated with religion in one way or other. Which, I think, is being discussed below. - jc37 16:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've seen how "broadly constituted" topic bans can be taken to include almost everything. This one is so broad that it's effectively limits the recipient to very small part of the project. Additionally, I don't find the rationale convincing (where are the diffs?). No, if you want something so broad, take it to ArbCom. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Rationale
The idea behind this was straight-forward. JPL has had multiple issues around information related to people. He's even currently under BLP sanctions which do not appear to be religion-related. And by setting an appeal date, we give him a timeframe and a chance to work and show the community (on a longer term than just during AN/I discussions) that he is moving forward as a productive contributor.

This actually is something he has done in the past. It sometimes took the community to show him, but once he understood, he did get better about trying to follow policy/process in those specific instances.

Limited sanctions should always have a sense of focus and rehabilitation to them. (We say 'preventative, not punitive' for these very reasons.)

I look and see in the discussion below that there are those who really seem to see this as a mere bureaucratic formality towards what is apparently their end goal - a complete ban.

This all is really starting to look punitive, not preventative.

If that's the plan, then just indef him now. Don't slowly drag him through this seeming torture, just to ban him anyway. That just seems wrong. - jc37 16:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for JPL - Religion

 * The specific proposal is: Johnpacklambert is indefinitely topic-banned from articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed. I have no comment on the above TBAN proposal and do not intend for this one to create mutually exclusive options. Editors might support both. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Addressing some comments below: Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support He needs to be topic banned from the topic area where he was most recently extremely disruptive and dogmatic. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Whether sticking to 1922 bios or not, he's amply demonstrated that this is a subject area that is trouble for him. The community is entitled to some prophylaxis here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - There have been more bio-related issues than just religion-related ones, which is why the proposal above. That said, I am not opposed to this proposal, and I agree that both proposals could pass and not be mutually exclusive. - jc37 06:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN from LDS topics only. A ban from all religious topic is too broad in my opinion. I haven't seen any examples of JPL being disruptive in non-LDS related religious topics. I think the TBAN only needs to be for the Latter Day Saint Movement and related articles. My preference would be that the LDS TBAN is temporary (rather than indef). –– FormalDude  talk  06:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support In my experience JPL let’s his personal association with the Mormon/LDS Church color his editing activities and votes at AfD inappropriately and expressions of concern are not enough to curtail this. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This seems to be the root cause of the issues at hand. Demonstrating an ability to edit constructively outside of a wheelhouse that they hold personal connection to would be the best start to proving that being unblocked was warranted. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 11:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. If this will resolve the endless amounts of time and ink we spend on this one editor in the absence of something stricter like a re-block or indef, then I'm all for this particular TBAN. Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I have to oppose this proposal because it is too broadly construed. Religion is a huge topic. Almost anything can be considered a religion. There are pagan religions. He could inadvertently edit an article on someone who is linked to any type of religion and technically he would be breaking the TBAN. Anyone with an agenda would see the opportunity to get JPL into trouble. It's unfortunate that we have to look at it through this lens but it would be equally unfortunate to have went through all of this and still have JPL banned because of some inadvertent mishap. I believe we should focus a TBAN as tightly as we can in the specific areas that are an issue. -- A Rose Wolf  12:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point on the breadth of merely "religion"; it does seem that LDS/Mormonism is the real crux here we could merely narrow it down to this if it were agreed upon. Ultimately the way I would want to see it done is in a manner that shepherds JPL away from areas of religious concern so as not to attract this same problematic editing pattern, if that takes a smaller rule to do so then the end result is what matters. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 12:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I hear your concerns, A Rose Wolf. I think this could be spelled out in more detail later--and in an official way--to protect John from drama. Certainly many biographical articles on older people may have mention of religion. But unless an article subject was in ministry, whether ordained or lay, or led a church or religious company, or is a journalist or essayist who wrote on religious topics, they should be fine. This should be apparent from categories, and if John finds out a topic he thought had no religious involvement is not religiously involved, he could play it very safe and revert his edits. Just some ideas. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , we have been here long enough to know that wont happen and it wont matter if he reverts after the fact once someone comes to AN/I over even the smallest violation. It is putting an enormous amount of weight on admins to decipher intent and purpose of even the smallest edit JPL can make. Whatever is the result here will be the only definition that matters. If the community supports a general TBAN on any article that even mentions religion as a focus then that is what JPL will be held to and that is what broadly construed means. No nibbling around the edges of any topic on religion, not just lay people or ministers. The specific wording of the TBAN above includes the topic of religion and religious figures of any kind, type, association or otherwise and it includes all religions and its indefinite. I feel this is wrong and could very easily become more of a trap in the future. -- A Rose Wolf  13:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - if that's the area that gets him/her into such trouble. PS - I'm an atheist by the way. GoodDay (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - John has demonstrated a lack of objectivity in too many articles related to religion, specifically LDS articles. He and Wikipedia alike would benefit from his focusing elsewhere. To be candid, I'd miss John in religious corporation AfDs, but that's moot. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit: Would also be fine with an indefinite LDS topic ban, as that is where the trouble seems to be, and editing behavior outside of LDS but still within religion is better, in my personal experience with John. A Rose Wolf makes good points--this needs to be worded carefully. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support broadly as stated per my comments in the main thread. If the consensus is for a narrower ban then it should be worded carefully to cover both the LDS Church and Mormonism, since JPL has insisted that they are separate topics and has likened equating the two to hate mongering, part of their ongoing pattern of being completely unable to edit those topics neutrally. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, if consensus is for a narrower scope than "all religion" then it should also include Catholicism, broadly construed, as that seems to be John's go-to "whatabout" deflection. And a strict reminder that the community will not look favourably on testing the edges of the ban, so John should steer well clear of these topics. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Avoiding areas that this user has such strong feelings about(religion) may remove the trigger for their problematic behavior. It may be the best way to keep an otherwise good editor. If topic ban is violated or the same behavior is exhibited in other areas then a long term site ban may be needed in the future. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 13:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Unconditional support. This is as much or more a problem area for him as biographical articles as he is unable to edit in areas of Catholicism or Mormonism with an NPOV. Also, this was my original request before it spiralled. Star   Mississippi  13:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and per Star's original report. "Religion" is a better scope than "LDS, Mormonism, and Catholicism". The latter is too many enumerations, better to keep it simple. Levivich 14:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how making it all religion is simplifying anything. There are literally thousands of religions worldwide. That is my issue with this tban. We need more clarity, not less. Is it just lay people, ministers, graduates of a seminary, a self-taught shaman in Asia or a medicine man from the Modoc tribe of Oklahoma? This is a trap topic. One violation will get JPL banned and it is more likely to happen than not. He could avoid every subject for three years on Catholicism, Mormonism and the LDS and edit the article of a "priest", or "shaman" from South Asia and get banned from Wikipedia even if his edit is nothing more than a category change. This is the problem with broadly construed tban's on such large topics. -- A Rose Wolf  14:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hell, based on this tban he couldn't edit the article on Tibetan bowls. They are an instrument used in Buddhist religious ceremonies. I don't use them for that purpose but they are a "religious" instrument. -- A Rose Wolf  15:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "religion" is unclear. Is this article about a topic which a reasonable observer would (or might) consider to be a religious topic? Don't edit it. According to the standing bell article which covers Tibetan bowls, they are used in religious ceremonies, so that article is off limits (precedentially, only the portions of the article which cover religious use would be within scope, whereas their use as musical instruments would not be, but that is a very tricky argument and a slippery slope). We could say "organized religion" but then what counts as "organized"? If we have to start listing off every specific topic or even specific articles which John is not allowed to edit in order to ensure compliance, then John is not a suitable candidate for a topic ban and should just be site-banned. I don't see any reason to believe that he wouldn't be able to abide by a clearly worded restriction, even if it is very broad. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Reasonable is a subjective term as indicated by the different opinions stated here. What you see as reasonable may not be reasonable to me. This broad TBAN is a slippery slope to begin with. A more focused TBAN to protect specific areas that have been a problem and are the very reasons we are here having this conversation would seem more reasonable to me. LDS, Mormonism and Catholicism are specific topics that can easily be identifiable. Most topic bans I have seen are very specific so that there are less pitfalls and traps. -- A Rose Wolf  15:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no "pitfalls and traps" in avoiding religion-related topics. You read the article before editing; if you see mention of religion or religious topics, you don't edit. As Ivanvector said, if we have to create rafts of specific restrictions for an editor, that's evidence they shouldn't be editing at all. JPL has been here a lot, so it's not as if this is a first-time effort where gentleness is necessary. Grandpallama (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe quite a few here would vote to support a site ban on JPL and you should definitely propose that if you believe that reasonable. That should not be the intent or purpose of this TBAN and it should be as constricted and specifically worded as possible. As far as gentleness goes, it is not for you to decide how or when I apply it or advocate for it. I believe the pretense of that statement is highly inappropriate and grossly offensive. -- A Rose Wolf  16:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Conversely, I find the pretense that in addressing a longterm, problematic editor, our first concern should be the editor and not the encyclopedia highly inappropriate and grossly offensive. It's also tiresome to see the old argument that a TBAN is somehow a "trap" rather than a measure to protect the encyclopedia from an editor who cannot edit neutrally within that topic. Grandpallama (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What religious topic outside of Mormonism, LDS and Catholicism has JPL specifically edited on that is problem for you or that you view as non-neutral? So you understand I am not going to comment on your personal opinion of what you view as my "priorities" or "concerns" because that really isn't within your purview but I will discuss specifics of comments outside of that aspect. -- A Rose Wolf  16:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I hear what you're saying and you've got me thinking, but I'm gonna push back a bit. First, that a TBAN'd editor can't edit an article related to the TBAN is a "feature" not a "bug". So no, if John were TBANed from religion, he couldn't edit the article about the Tibetan bowl used in religious ceremonies. I don't perceive that to be a problem, I perceive that to be the solution to the problem (the problem being John's disruptive editing on these topics). Second, the same thing (whether you call it a feature or a bug) would happen even if John were TBANed from something narrower, like, say, "LDS, Mormons, and Catholicism" (I'll call it "LDS etc."). The LDS etc. ban would mean he can't edit Utah, Salt Lake City, Brigham Young University, all of which are LDS/Mormon. Utah's basketball team, Utah Jazz, would be an edge case. Kyle Van Noy is an American football player, but also a member of LDS and played for Brigham Young, so his article is probably out of bounds. How about Girl Crazy (1997 film)? Seems fine? I don't know, it's made by Richard Dutcher, the "Godfather of Mormon Cinema." No matter what the topic area, there are these unexpected connections where making the determination of whether it's "in scope" is hard, and that's what "broadly construed" is all about. Which leads us to my third point: this isn't about John, it's about everybody else. I appreciate that you have a lot of sympathy and concern for John; I do, too, but I have more concern for everyone else, everyone interacting with John. When evaluating the TBAN, I think it'll be easier on the community to analyze whether something is related (broadly construed) to "religion" than "LDS etc.". Yes, it means more restriction upon John, but easier for the community. That's a trade-off I think is justified. Don't forget, this isn't like John is making some innocent mistake and we have to help him fix it. He has repeatedly made serious personal attacks against multiple editors. There have been multiple ANI threads just in the last six months about this. The purpose of the TBAN isn't therapy: the goal isn't to "heal" John or "fix" him or otherwise help him in any way. The TBAN is probation: it's an alternative to a full site ban (the point is to find something less than a full site ban that will prevent disruption), and the goal--the only goal--is to reduce John's disruption on everyone else. The TBAN gets lifted not when John is "fixed", but when John can demonstrate that it is no longer necessary to prevent disruption to others. So you've got me thinking about it, but I'm going to vote based on what I think is best for the community, not what I think is best for John. So, as of now, I still think "religion" will be an easier topic ban than "LDS etc." for the community to administer, and that's why I support the broader scope. If you think I'm wrong and the narrower scope will be easier on the community, I'm all ears. Levivich 16:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, consider that John's own proposal was to limit himself to only people born in 1922. This sanction gives him a lot more freedom. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I know what you intended by this comment but it comes off as a little insincere. Everyone knows if a personal sanction was enough we wouldn't be here discussing this. Also, putting it between parenthesis doesn't make it more believable. A personal ban can be lifted or put in place at the whim of the person making it. I ban myself from things all the time. It's a lot like those yearly resolutions so many people make. This TBAN is a community sanction and it will restrict JPL very far beyond the topics of his disruption. -- A Rose Wolf  16:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * but I'm going to vote based on what I think is best for the community, not what I think is best for John Exactly. Grandpallama (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So it's about what is easier on the community now? On the face of it that would seem reasonable. Less headache, less oversight, less concern, less opposition. Is that not also a slippery slope. Hey, if I always chose the easier approach I wouldn't be here throwing out a different opinion. I believe we can protect the community while also placing restrictions on JPL in the very focused and specific areas that he has been disruptive. Does he deserve that? I don't know. What I don't want to see is us having to come back here and discuss an instance where he made a minor edit to an article that barely mentions anything religious, doesn't even have to say religion in any form, but someone feels is a violation of his TBAN because it says "broadly construed". This is about practicality as much as it is anything else. There are literally hundreds of thousands of articles that could fall into this category something about religion. I dare say more that do than those that don't. Why not get specific if it can narrow that approach? -- A Rose Wolf  17:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not easier, but what's best. Often, easier is best, but not always. That's an example of easier not being best. Sure, it'd be easier (for you and the community) if you didn't throw out a different opinion, but it might not be best (for the community), because your different opinion might help the community make a better decision than it otherwise would.  Completely agree.  I believe figuring out if something is "religion, broadly construed" is easier, and therefore better (it'll save editor time), than figuring out if something is "LDS, broadly construed", "Mormonism, broadly construed", or "Catholicism, broadly construed". Simply because it's easier to determine if something is in one broad topic, than three narrower topics. Broader is easier on the community, and therefore better. Or so my thinking goes. Am I wrong? Levivich 17:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We may have very different opinions on what is right and what is wrong so I don't usually look at things from that perspective. Beyond that I don't believe I have the right to say you are wrong in your approach as much as we might disagree. I have been here and commented on many of JPL's AN/I discussions. I know full well he has negatively impacted others to the point where they probably don't care what happens to him. I can't say that I blame them and I can't say they are wrong for thinking like that. Your opinion is your own and I am not trying to change that, just offer my own such as it is. -- A Rose Wolf  18:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Except for sanctions that we can enforce technically (i.e. blocks, or granular parblocks more recently) we have to trade off between "covers the disruption" and "is enforceable". Editors who have been around JPL a lot longer than I have have observed that the disruption is centred on the LDS Church but frequently spills out into other much more broad topics, and this suggests a sanction needs to be expanded in scope to "cover the disruption". I get the sense that religion isn't broad enough, but we have to start somewhere. In other words, assuming that JPL is going to abide by the restriction, a broader scope means it's less likely we'll be back here dealing with spillover in a month's time. As for the slippery slope at the edges of the ban (I agree with you here) we do not treat kindly editors who weaponize sanctions, there's a policy about that. If we get disingenuous reports here that JPL edited an article about a person whose father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate once attended a Mormon church, the person doing the reporting is going to be the one facing sanctions. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish I could have the same confidence but history has dictated otherwise. Nevertheless, its an issue that JPL will have to contend with and I suspect he will receive little leniency going forward for even a minor violation such as you suggested above. -- A Rose  Wolf  18:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I would also support a narrower TBAN covering "Judeo-Christianity" or just "Christianity", either of which would cover LDS, Mormonism, and Catholicism (which, as I understand it, are the three relevant areas). Levivich 17:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd support that too, it's a sensible limitation of scope. If the disruption is centered around three specific branches of Christianity, it doesn't seem plausible that it's going to suddenly branch out to Jainism or Zoroastrianism. If it does we can revisit. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, I think "Christianity" and especially these three concepts is ideal as a scope, broadly construed. The only reason I said "Judeo-Christianity" and not just "Christianity" is that there are some folks who do not consider Mormonism to be a Christian religion . (It's complicated). Suffice it to say, a lot of Christians don't believe Mormons count: Basically a few Evangelical traditions, but also the American Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian conferences. And Mormons have actually said they consider themselves as close to Judaism as to Evangelicals. Even Evangelicals would admit that Mormonism falls within the bounds of "Judeo-Christianity" as a religion which believes the Bible to be a holy text, believes in the divinity of Christ, etc. Even if they don't consider them formal "Christians." And of course, LDS-adherents and basically all Mormons self-identify as Christians . —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a very reasonable compromise. -- A Rose Wolf  20:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's actually not that hard to explain. New prophet plus new scriptures equals new religion. c.f. for one take on it. Jclemens (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per all above discussion. NW1223 ( Howl at me &#124;  My hunts ) 14:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN for Mormonism, LDS and Catholicism, which seem to be the problem areas.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN for LDS topics, broadly construed. lomrjyo (✉ • 📝) 15:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a long overdue religion TBAN. Grandpallama (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as more workable than overlapping smaller bans in the problem areas of Mormonism, Catholicism, and Religion in America. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a narrowed TBAN applied to Judeo-Christianity, to exclude islam, buddhism, sikhism, taoism, etc. But including Catholicism, Protestantism, and topics relevant to the LDS church and the broader topic of Mormonism. Support a broad TBAN against all religious topics, as a close second. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This seems to be the main problem area for this user, and it would make sense to have a TBAN to prevent further disruption/timesinks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: unworkable. "Religion" is far too broad and amorphous. TBANs need clear rules and clear methods of enforcement. I believe this is particularly important to autistic editors. It's prohibitively difficult to check that every page (not just article) you edit doesn't fall under the TBAN, and JPL does lots of rapid gnoming edits. If I can't work out how I would act if I were under this restriction, I cannot expect JPL to either. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bilorv, what would you have the community do instead? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Outline a clearly-defined sanction that everyone in the discussion thinks they would be able to understand and comply with themselves; and that sanction should be as specific as possible to JPL's methods of editing. Your narrowed TBAN suggestion is much better. You could go in a whole different direction and try to restrict the type of conduct that leads to escalation, like 1RR or a "no more than one reply in threaded discussion" kind of thing (but then I don't know enough about JPL specifically to form an appropriate proposal). — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that JPL seems to hold deeply personal beliefs about the LDS Church and Mormonism and isn't able to depersonalize when editing anything close to that topic, and he loses objectivity and can't deescalate whenever someone challenges his POV, which is unfortunately often. Personally I don't see how we can craft a restriction which permits him to continue editing those topics, and per comments on his talk page recently he seems to agree. He's separately under a "one AfD nom per calendar day" restriction (since 2017) and has done well under that (blocked once for violating it, for less than 48 hours) and so I think "he won't understand/comply with the sanction" is an unfair argument. He may be neurodivergent but he's not incompetent. I guess the other side of that coin is that if he can't follow sensible restrictions then he gets site-banned, and I don't think there's really anyone here who wants that. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * if what I communicated with my comments is that I think JPL won't be able to comply with sanctions because of his autism then my several rounds of rephrasing and copyediting my comment were in vain. I did not intend to convey that and I do not believe that. My argument was that clear and well-tailored rules are needed, and I said that I (a neurotypical person) would really struggle with obeying the sanction as currently described. The "one AFD per calendar day" restriction is immediately clear (just the pedantic word "calendar" rules out the only obvious edge case). This TBAN is not at all clear. If the restriction were reframed, say, "any article in any subcategory of Category:Religion" then it would at least be clear (albeit still prohibitively expensive to follow). As framed, I see several major points of contention that are unclarified and would be unsurprised by a quick indefinite block when JPL does something that falls within their understanding of the TBAN's allowances, and maybe even several admin's, but not by the blocking admin. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as currently framed. I agree with Bilorv. Any restriction on JPL should be so closely tailored that both his and everyone else's understanding of it is the same. He and I recently had a friendly discussion on his TP after he'd expressed puzzlement as to why anyone should mistakenly write 1922 instead of 1933. It might be obvious to you, but it wasn't to him. On the other side of the coin, we do not want his enemies crying "Gotcha!" and dragging him here should he accidentally step over the mark. Excess detail will help no-one. I tentatively suggest "Christian religions and people closely associated with those religions". That would solve some problems both of breadth and of over-specificity. It would allow him to edit (especially, to gnome) articles about people which mention their beliefs, but which are not important towards their notability. Narky Blert (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Narky Blert, I don't think talking in terms of "his enemies" is warranted here. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose another word, if you will. The people I have in mind are the WP:GRAVEDANCERS who infested JPL's UP and TP during his recent block. Narky Blert (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , gravedancing troll LTA sockpuppets are not just Johnpacklambert's enemies. They are enemies of all of us and of this encyclopedia, and any such nonsense would gain no traction here at ANI. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  22:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I counted two socks on his talk page and one sock on his user page; all, no doubt, the same editor. (That's actually very, very little, considering the exposure this has gotten.) All had CU run on them and if that delivered an "enemy", I'm sure it was blocked. This troll is not the kind of editor who is going to be someone calling "Gotcha" as if they were a real editor. In fact, that thought is so far-fetched that I am wondering how you could seriously think that this was a real opportunity. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support but I don't mind a Christian tweak. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a narrowed TBAN applied to Judeo-Christianity (or just Christianity) My personal view largely matches Ivanvector's. If we're going to exclude JPS from LDS which he's passionate about, I'm not sure a general Religion ban would be much more onerous. Yes the trap potential is there, per religion still permeating so widely. But I agree with Ivanvector about JPS's competence, and (mostly) his assessment that the community is too decent to punish JPS for the inevitable minor violations. That said, RW, Shibbolethink etc strike me as insiteful editors - perhaps they are right that a more focussed Tban is for the best. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support either all religions or the more specific Judeo-Christianity area. For some reason or another, their editing in this area is disruptive, and well this seems like a good attempt at preventing that disruption. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support narrowed to Judeo-Christianity per above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban. It's clear that this is a problem area for JPL. I don't want to see JPL re-indeffed, this seems a good compromise. -- <b style="color:white">Mike</b> <b style="color:white">🗩</b> 00:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support a topic-ban narrowed to Judeo-Christianity, but... I guess my query is whether articles like this one (about someone who taught at a Jewish Community Centre) or this one (about someone who wrote about Secularization in Multi-Religious Societies), or this one (about someone "prominent in her efforts to rebuild the Catholic Church in China") would be caught up in either version of the topic ban? JPL has made largely innocuous edits to each since being unblocked (in an effort to establish he can be productive). But his typical editing pattern seems to consist of rapid-fire categorisation until he stops to read something, stays to fix it a bit, and then moves on. I have to query the value of sanctions that force a substantive change to JPL's editing pattern so that he can diligently assess each and every article for indications that it might covered by his broadly construed TBAN. Why not just let him focus on the one category he is currently interested in for a while? (I did advocate for expansion to 4-5 specific-year categories on his talk page).  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Surely the answer is to be found in what part religion plays in the person's notability. I haven't looked in detail, but the third example above (Audrey Donnithorne) self-evidently would fall under the ban based purely on the quote given from the article's lead ~ anyone whose notability depends on efforts to rebuild the Catholic Church would naturally fall under such a ban.  As for changing editing patterns, aren't we all supposed to be diligent in assessing our edits?  What difference if JPL needs to assess them with regard to a ban? Happy days ~ LindsayHello 08:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, but I suppose that's easier for those of use who wouldn't be subject to sanctions for making a mistake. If I include a factual error I can go back and rectify it. I can re-write the same paragraph 17 times before being happy with it. And I can drive-by tag a bunch of articles regardless of what they are about (and then go back and fix my mistake if I make an error). But I recently clarified that even talking about the subjects covered by a topic ban, with admins, to rectify damage done by someone else, was considered a breach. So I imagine all of those articles could be interpreted as being covered by the ban. I just think it will inevitably lead to dozens of editors watching JPL's edits and at the first mistake, we'll be back here again (again!). This is supposed to be about getting everyone back to productive editing, including JPL. I'm not sure this proposal will achieve that, but there seems to be support for it.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This was my biggest concern going forward. JPL's disruptive editing, thus far, took place in the natural course of conversation. It's not like he was trolling along looking for ways to be disruptive. He allowed his emotions to get the better of him during conversations and in his editing. Such a broad topic ban is basically a delayed site ban. It has nothing to do with intelligence or ability. We are asking a human being to never make a single mistake in editing or discussing anything related to one of the most broadest subjects on Wikipedia. And with it we are inviting other editors to watch him for the slightest mistake so they can drag him back here for more punishment. To this point, it has been a legitimate reaction to a disruptive editor. This ban, as it was worded, doesn't just cover obvious subjects but also subjects at the very edge of the periphery. He could literally be in violation for discussing the birth or death date of an individual that attended a religious institution, even if their focus was not religion and they didn't pursue that in life, and even if the institution doesn't clearly define itself as religious. Baylor University is a private university in Texas. It is operated by the Baptist church. According to this broadly construed ban he can't even discuss anyone that attended that university. Nothing in Baylor's name indicates they are a religious institution. This is what is talking about when they say that JPL and the community needs to know what the details are of such a ban.  -- A Rose  Wolf  12:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you may be overly broadly interpreting the WP:TOPICBAN scope. It would cover any edits about those persons where the edit was related to their involvement in religion. But not in mundane facts about their life. a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". (emphasis mine) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You've emphasised the wrong bit: the point is all pages ... broadly related to the topic, so that edits that are not about religion can fall afoul of the ban. Any of the three pages (in their entirety) given by Stalwart11 could fall under the TBAN, or not do so (except that the third is pretty blatantly under it), depending on which admin makes the decision—and crucially, JPL is not permitted to discuss whether any of the three articles fall under it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe they are allowed to ask for clarification on their TBAN? Of the Admin in question? If it's a super complex case I think it's supposed to come back here, but I think if it's relatively simple the implementing admin is supposed to be able to assist with that. Am I wrong about that? It's been my experience with other people's TBANs. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, in this case (and many others) the admin in question would simply be implementing the will of the community. While holding a mop comes with more responsibility, I don't (personally) believe that should extend to constantly re-adjudicating the original context of a ban to determine scope on a case-by-case basis. If it's too complex for an admin (or the community) to agree on its application (as indeed those three random examples suggest it might) then we should probably default to the proposal suggested by JPL himself (and provisionally accepted by the unblocking admin). In the end, JPL's conduct will determine if he can return to unrestricted editing (regardless of the scope of any ban). I don't see the value in making this more complicated that it needs to be, whereas I see merit in his choosing the length of his own WP:ROPE.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support either full religious ban or narrowed Judeo-Christian one. Should help JPL and the community in avoiding further conflict. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 08:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support At a minimum a full religious topic ban (although I will again say this is hardly the limit of JPL's disruptiveness). The idea that a ban limited to judeo-christian specifically would actually be worthwhile is just setting up for wiki-lawyering later on. Its laughable the idea that given the chance JPL will be productive/not distruptive about religions that are not Judeo-Christian. When JPL holds, by any standard, views that are extremist both about their own and other religions. I am pretty confident that the Buddhists wont want him touching their articles either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe discussing the merits of the personal views of another editor are where we want to go as a community. Discussing edits is one thing, attacking personal views is another entirely. -- A Rose Wolf  18:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that Buddhists owned any articles on Wikipedia, or that anyone did... or that we make decisions based on what we assume members of a group believe about articles of particular interest to them. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Has the user in question showed any disruptive behavior in articles or on talk pages related to these other religions? if not, I don't think we should go around pre-emptively TBANning people based on what we suspect may become an issue. In the absence of evidence. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I had asked you a similar question in a comment but rescinded it after seeing you post this question. It is a valid question and I asked for diffs earlier in the conversation because I cant find where he may have been disruptive on article related to other religions except LDS/Mormonism and Catholicism. Maybe someone will provide them. -- A Rose Wolf  18:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The only thing that comes to mind is John's questioning of the (if I recall correctly) non-policy-but-precedence-set blanket notability of bishops of Catholic and Protestant (exclusive of LDS, and we won't get into its classification here) faiths. He works on and sometimes nominates such articles for deletion when they basically serve as little more than a Wikipedia-as-directory listing when they are unsourced or poorly sourced. That is generally met with significant pushback. For what it's worth (nothing, really), I agree with him on the need for a real standard on this issue and appreciate his more critical thought on the issue. But that's one example of behavior that some would consider disruptive. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Questioning something is considered disruptive? I've questioned lots of things on Wikipedia. Surely it must have been the way he questioned it, like did he make disparaging remarks, and not the questioning itself. But isn't he already limited in AfD nominations? -- A Rose Wolf  19:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect this is easier to show than tell. See the recent AfD on William Thomas Larkin. I believe there have been other articles, but I have neither the time, nor the interest, nor still the need to dig them up, as I think this covers it. Some people go for the essay/not policy of WP:BISHOPS and others don't believe every bishop ever of the 2000+ Catholic diocese are a) by default notable and b) should remain in Wikipedia even if sufficient sourcing is not provided. Now, that is my own summary based on my experience in bishop AfDs. I am not saying I could draw both conclusions from the Larkin AfD. Just context. So, that's why *some* *might* consider his work in one religious, non-LDS space disruptive. I disclose it here because I read the question and had some evidence to shed light; it doesn't mean I find such work of his disruptive (for the record, he nominated based on policy and was not out of line in the Larkin nom). To answer your other question, John is limited in number to one nom per day, but, I believe, not the topic of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiamondRemley39 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DR. I really hope no one thinks that AfD was disruptive because I have about a million more that would be considered uncivil if that was disruptive. It appeared to me to be a back and forth discussion. Should we really be punishing editors for nominating at AfD when it is policy based, even if we believe faulty application of policy is involved? I'm sure there are better examples of disruption and incivility is intolerable but I don't see an example of either in that particular nomination. I wouldn't call it disruptive if he nominated every bishop ever known to the Catholic church. At the same time, I wouldn't call it disruptive if he nominated every chief of the Cherokee people either, so long as he thought he was going by policy and provided said policy as he understood it. I digress, it is only one example. I'm sure there are other examples that are actually disruptive. -- A Rose  Wolf  20:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * $It wasn't. I was the one who suggested it be closed per WP:SNOW and I did so because at the time we were dealing with another AFD at DRV which had to be overturned because of JPL's conduct. I thought it easier to rule a line under (or through, as it were) JPL's conduct that week and move on. But nothing about that particular AFD struck me as disruptive.$  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , my perception is that Johnpacklambert is consistently inclusionist about LDS Church officials and consistently deletionist about the officials of other churches. A long pattern of that is disruptive in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree with your assessment, @Cullen328, from my perusing of his past conflicts as shown in his talk page history. That's part of why I think the TBAN should cover all judeo-christianity, but probably doesn't need to extend to non-abrahamic religions, and probably not even to Islam. But I think it probably should cover protestant christian denominations as well as catholicism and mormonism. And probably also cover judaism as there are many ways in which LDS doctrine associates itself with the early church (e.g. gnostics) and jewish history. See: Judaism and Mormonism. Compare this to Islam and Mormonism. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to an entire TBAN on abrahamic religions, but I would prefer as narrow a scope as possible. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume this is Cullen and I apologize if it is not. I appreciate your perspective. Mine is different. If we decided that someone was disruptive just because they had "inclusionist" views on one topic and "deletionist" views on another (honestly, I'm not even sure why we still use those terms) there wouldn't be very many editors left at Wikipedia. It is just an AfD. One of the first lessons I learned about Wikipedia is if my favorite subject has to have an article on Wikipedia in order for me to feel legitimized, and I really hope JPL is looking at this because it applies to him too, then maybe I need to evaluate why I am here. I love articles on American Indians because that's my heritage. I remember being caught up in AfD's over about twenty articles on the Sioux people. I vigorously fought for those articles and we saved some and lost others. There was so much incivility thrown around that I realized it wasn't even worth it. The assumption that certain editors were here for dubious reasons and just being disruptive by nominating something they felt didn't belong felt so wrong to sit through and entertain. If I have to fight that hard then why am I here? You can nominate every article I care about and I'm still going to be who I am and I am still going to be here and I promise you that I will not view the nominators as disruptive just for that reason. Incivility and edit warring and socking are a different topic altogether but that isn't even being discussed at this point. Maybe it should, I don't know. I will never agree that a person's view and actions based on policy, even if misguided, is solely defined as disruptive. I'm yielding the conversation because I feel I have said enough and others opinions matter too. I was just responding to yours specifically. -- A Rose Wolf  21:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for failing to sign that comment and thank the bot who signed for me. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  22:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Beep boop. — Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 15:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, ARW, I think the question is "what solution can we find that prevents JPL from being his own worst enemy, and that also protects Wikipedia in the most comprehensive way." Questions about JPLs motivations can help us get there, but I don't find them very convincing. No one truly knows what evils lay in the hearts of men. (or what angels). I very much do not like hypothesizing about the minds of others. I just want us to look at his past disruptions, figure out what pattern there is, and prescribe a solution which prevents those from recurring in the most targeted way possible. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per above -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a full ban from all religion topics, indefinitely, with no appeals to be considered for a period of not less than two years from TBAN start. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Reaffirming my earlier comment. A TBAN on "religion" would be too broad. It would, for example, preclude removal of the deprecated religion field from infoboxes. From what I know of JPL, he would need a precise definition to enable him easily to distinguish between allowed and forbidden areas, and "religion" does not do that. Narky Blert (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Narky Blert, you already !voted above. You can't !vote twice, and I have therefore unbolded the beginning of your post. You should also use the word "vote" rather than "comment", because this really was a !vote . -- Softlavender (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not-vote jargon is unduly confusing. If the editor not-voted, then they can call it a "not-vote" or a "comment" (even if that comment begins with an initial "oppose" sentence). Calling it a vote pretty much negates the value of using the not-vote jargon. isaacl (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're not making sense in my view. No one cares that you don't like the "!" convention, so that's just trolling on your part IMO. This is a poll/survey. Each person can vote in the poll only once. Votes are bolded by convention. Anything else that is bulleted plus bolded at the front and is not labeled "Comment" is generally perceived as a vote by closing admins, particularly when it says "Reaffirming my comment". The problem with NB's bolded bulleted statement was that his so-called "comment" far above was a clear vote ("Oppose as currently framed"), not a "comment" . If it had only been a comment, then there would have been no need for unbolding (or notifying closing admin, etc.). Softlavender (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you called it really a not-vote, it was odd to request that it be labelled a vote instead of a not-vote. If you had said to call it a vote because it was really a vote, or to call it a not-vote because it was really a not-vote, then the request would have been consistent. Although I agree that it's courteous not to make multiple posts with bolded summary sentences at the start, I have confidence that closers can handle it appropriately. But I don't have any concerns about unbolding the sentence. isaacl (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't call it "a really a not-vote"; I called it (NB's first bolded statement in this thread ) a "!vote"; nor did I "request that it be labelled a vote". Please stop trolling; push your fringe agenda and false double-talk elsewhere. We also disagree about closers -- it is standard to correct issues or to notify closing admins when someone has made what appears to be two bolded votes. Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, see WP:NOTVOTE. isaacl is trying to be helpful here, not trolling or agenda-pushing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My comment above was ill-advised, and I apologize for the condescension implicit in linking a basic policy/guideline at an experienced user. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no disagreement on choosing to unbold the sentence or notifying closers. isaacl (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Since religious topics have been JPL's problem area, removing him from these topics gives him the best chance of continuing to contribute. Cbl62 (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support with the understanding that after an indefinite period proving his ability to improve articles in the non-religion space that he be allowed to return. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. This would be a stronger proposal if it included diffs to problematic edits, or links to prior places such diffs were presented. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a close
I think this has gotten to the point where it's pretty clear the result. I might be biased but I think we need a WP:CLOSE here so the community can move on and get back to working on the project instead of debating about the number of angels on the head of a pin or whether this user should be able to tell us about that number! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. It often seems that the length of time a discussion runs is inversely proportional to the obviousness of the result. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I also think a close now would be best. If it helps, I support whatever brand of religious TBAN the closer determines best matches the consensus here. Constructions as narrow as just LDS/Mormonism to as broad as my proposal are all fine with me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's time for a close--and in the light. I hope the administrator(s) involved in the closing will post a clear overview of constraints for John and for all. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought we didn't do RfC/User anymore. Well what it this then. It's the job of the admin corps to decide whether to block or unblock. The admin corps has IRC or whatever people use now, let them discuss it. There's a reason we don't do RfC/User anymore. Oof people complain about how stressful an RfA is, this is so much worse. FWIW I support letting the guy edit. The Wikipedia is not a respecter of persons, but come on -- it's a website -- probably ephemeral -- and hobby. Balance that versus the life human being who's trying to get thru his pilgrimage here and contributing here is helping that a lot. Be kind. Even ExxonMobile allows for individual cases when a person has a condition. Should we be meaner and harsher than ExxonMobile.


 * I set up this fellow with the idea of doing a positive pledge (random narrow place to edit) as this is much easier to follow, and for other people to check, than a ban on certain topic areas. (I suggested (at random) working only in Category:Calabar which needs much expansion, but the guy chose 1921 births instead, and fine,


 * I'd like to see if "Restriction to only topic Y" could be a better approach than "Ban from topic Z", for difficult issues where the editor's career is on the knife-edge. I think it might be easier for the editor to stay IN someplace rather than OUT of an attractive place [for a probationary period might last even a year say]. At least it's new idea (I think) so let's try this test case and see.


 * I'll be spot-checking and if he edits outside 1921 births [for several months anyway and with eplicit permission], then that has to be the end and he knows that. If it happens, the Wikipedia will survive. Herostratus (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, one of the reasons RFC/U was abolished, was due to the pile on effect. I remember, as years ago, I had an RFC/U done on me. It was like trying to climb out of a hole, with the sand falling in each time you tried. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That's news to me. Can you give me a link to the change in ANI policy? I just wasn't aware that community input didn't approach closure... Also importantly, I'm not asking for a close in the RfC sense. I'm asking for a close because the community wants to know what's gonna happen here. Is that what is meant by an RfC/user? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "I just wasn't aware that community input didn't approach closure...". Well now you are, cos I'm telling you. It's the ANI board, not the "let's have a bunch of rando editors kick some hapless mook around" board. The admins allows non-admins that aren't party to a situation to chime in. They don't have to, but it's worthwhile more often than it's not, so they do. But here, it's not helpful.


 * Anyway, yes what we're seeing here is pretty much what RfC/user was. Sometimes RfC/user was useful, but it was shut down because a lot of times it wasn't and was just a lemon-squeezing party and just not an OK way to treat most editors. Still true. Herostratus (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Am I wrong in thinking your sentiment here conflicts with WP:CBAN? If not, how is CBAN different? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Shibboleth, much as these discussions can be distasteful, community banning is part of the banning policy and there has to be a mechanism for that to be executed. ANI discussion is one of those mechanisms. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Herostratus has got it completely wrong. CBAN’s, topic bans, etc etc are regularly determined by the community here (not just Admins). Indeed, that was part of the rationale for getting rid of RfC/Us - ANI was one of the fora that could take that up in lieu. DeCausa (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hero, John is not the only . Your post makes it sound like the community just called John to the carpet and started evaluating him in a vacuum. Of course John, a human being, is more important than a website. I believe in "people over pages," but that is not the situation here. The community is not evaluating John; the community is evaluating John's interactions with other editors. And those other editors are human beings just like John. And while John is more important than a website, he is not more important than the other people who use the website. Sanctions are to prevent disruption not to the website, but to the other people who are using the website. That includes people who John accused of engaging in hate speech because they wanted to use the word "Mormon," for example. They shouldn't have to put up with that sort of thing from John or anyone else, and we should have as much sympathy for them as we do for John. I support John editing here, too, but I also support a TBAN to protect others from John's behavior, and that doesn't make this an RFC/U, and it doesn't make me . Given that this isn't a new issue but one that's been going on for years, it's actually downright nice that the community isn't just throwing John out, but is instead investing significant time and effort into coming to consensus on some compromise that allows John to continue editing. Give credit where credit is due. This thread is a testament to how much the community cares about John, because if it didn't, he'd be indef'd already and no one would be talking about it. Levivich 04:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried to stay away from the discussion as much as possible over the last week because, well, I've made my opinions known, they haven't changed and to have someone constantly repeating their position would be grating for everyone. I'm sure Hero and I agree on a lot of things and we probably disagree on a lot of things. I am not going to pretend that everyone that commented on this case likes John or wants the best for him. Its not like they wish harm or anything either. I think several are apathetic to anything related to him or really anyone else. I'm sure quite a few think the community should have globally blocked John by now. There might even be some that think I have no business here either. We all have opinions and when you have someone that has been before ANI so often over the last few years its bound to come up. The fact is his disruptions have affected other human beings and that should be acknowledged. We can acknowledge that while also acknowledging that John is human and is affected differently than a lot of people here when it comes to confrontation. But John is intelligent and he can figure out how to respond in a different manner and he can take instruction and learn from it as almost every other human being is capable of doing. The approach may be different and I think that's where the divide is going forward. I have never advocated against a TBAN. I think the subjects of the LDS, Mormonism and probably Catholicism but especially those articles related to Catholic bishops should be off limits to John. They have been red button topics for him and have directly resulted in the AN/I cases in which he is the subject.


 * Many don't feel it is the community's responsibility to find a remedy in which John is able to edit here and the community is safe from any of his potential disruptions. That's a fair observation. I've heard it time and time again. We don't matter. All that matters is the encyclopedia. If that's what someone believes then I expect them to look at this discussion and the evidence and say John should have been long gone by now. My views may be different but I can respect that. I also believe, as pointed out by Levivich, that the very fact that we are still discussing it and working through a solution is testament that not everyone here holds that view and they do want John to continue editing and they do see the value in his positive additions while criticizing his disruptions. Hopefully John is watching this discussion even though he has heeded advice not to comment here. If he is then I hope he recognizes what we have just pointed out. The community, even those advocating for a full TBAN on "religion", still values his positive contributions. What can not continue is the disruption. I also hope he recognizes that the people he affected with his disruptions and aspersions are human beings and though I have advocated for him, I have also advocated for them. I believe his apologies are sincere and I believe this particular case has been eye-opening for him. As a member of this community I, like others among us, have decided to try and help John, through dialogue, but also hold him accountable for his actions.


 * We don't have to argue amongst ourselves. We don't have to think the worst of anyone here in this discussion. All points that have been brought up are valid. That's why we are still here discussing them. We are a community trying to find the best solution among many options and its very difficult to find that solution sometimes. The one thing we can not do is give up our faith in the guiding principles of this community. True civility is not found when we agree on something. True civility, one of the pillars of this community, is found when we not only disagree but do so passionately and emphatically. -- A Rose Wolf  12:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I have avoided commenting on the substantive issue here (rather than in this meta-discussion subsection) because more than enough people have done so without my involvement. Surely its best for everyone involved (John, his targets and the rest) that this should be closed as promptly as possible. And, for the FDrecord,X I must be going soft in my old age, because I agree with User:Levivich . Phil Bridger (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Crux of JPL's conflicts—not so much his passionate points of view, rather his misapprehension of how fellow editors are likely to react to his edits that push the edge (in other words, judging consensus). John needs to quickly recognize when his activities are controversial—then step back and engage in discussion when necessary. Any constrictions imposed on his editing ought to be guardrails rather than prohibitions. One revert per article per day; one comment per AFD&. — N eonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 21:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

COI or hoax at John L. Georgiou
This page appears to be a hoax, with no sources anywhere that the article subject or his show ever existed. It has been edited almost exclusively by two SPAs. In this version many, if not all, of the images have been photoshopped or manipulated to show a link to the show, or in the case of to actually add the person to an existing image. has a clearly fake CBS logo added to a shirt, and most of the other images have fake show logos photoshopped into the background. I've brought the article up for AFD and removed some cruft from another article, and has removed the subject from two alumni list articles. The two hoax accounts, and also possibly User:IreneGeorgiou, should probably be blocked. Even if this is somehow not a hoax they're all undeclared COI editors. As for the radio show that was referred to in the article, the only mention of the "internationally syndicated" radio program is a Facebook page with 20 or so likes and no content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Totally hoax. There's a John L. Georgiou in Pennsylvania who runs a financial services company, it is apparently this same guy. He was touting fake achievements and fake praise on his website radiotaxshow.com, claiming to be the "Longest Running Tax Program on the air today" which cannot be believed. Many of the photos are blatant manipulated nonsense. All of this should be deleted with warnings delivered to the perps. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Strange edits by Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D
appears to make some good edits. But then they also make edits such as at Battle of Salamis where they add a distinguish hatnote to frot (probably NSFW), and similarly at Battle of Salamis (disambiguation) where they add a "See also" section with links to the aforementioned "frotting" as well as penis fencing. FDW777 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like, going through their edits, those two were the only "joke" edits I could find. Also, they haven't edited in almost a month. A warning for the edits would be fine, however this was months ago as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

50-edit edit war at Amanda Stoker


There's an edit war on Amanda Stoker so far past 3RR I'm not going to count it, going back the last 50 edits. Both editors have continued reverting after I warned them (and another user joined in for a single revert). No reply at RFPP for 16 hours and it's urgent since the edit war is continuing after the report. I'd recommend blocks for both and, otherwise what's to stop them continuing to act like this? Full page protection or partial blocks are other solutions. — Bilorv ( talk ) 07:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Bilorv. I did not edit-war as you say after your warning - I took that warning very seriously. What I did was put back some content, that was originally in dispute, but when it was returned had eventually gained consensus in a modified form. I believed things had improved now other editors are involved in getting consensus on the page. CatCafe (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And the reason you violated 3RR is? — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the edit-war is not continuing from what I can tell, especially since other editors joined in and had input. You would agree that the more eyes on the talkpage making concensus the better. CatCafe (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It has continued as the edits have been restored without first gaining consensus as per policy, modified or not. Being on the way to consensus does not mean it is okay to re-add the edits. @Bilrov is correct that both of you have engaged in disruptive editing and edit warring on the article. Content can be discussed on the article talk page, this is about behavior. -- A Rose Wolf  13:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The two warring editors, CatCafe and Honestyisbest have both been blocked by User:Ymblanter for 31 hours. In the case of CatCafe, it is not their first block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification,, and thank you for handling the situation, . -- A Rose Wolf  18:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Death threat
Could any admin throw this one into the bin? Thanks! - LouisAragon (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Editor blocked, threat revdel'd. IMHO WP:EMERGENCY wouldn't be appropriate, but if another admin wants to, I won't argue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Editor uploading copyrighted images
I was performing new page patrol and happened upon a new article created by. The mugshot in the infobox File:Arohn_Kee_(serial_killer).png was also uploaded by the editor, who tagged it with the Mugshot template and provided a news site as the source. The source URL clearly stated All Rights Reserved at the bottom, furthermore, the NYPD doesn't automatically release their mugshots into the public domain. After looking at the editors other uploads, I saw File:Bruce_Lindahl.png, an obvious police mugshot which he has tagged indicating he himself is the copyright holder. Many other of his uploads have been deleted and a lot of others are tagged as being in the PD due to some kind of legal understanding in California. The latter inages may be ok, but given his other problematic uploads, not to mention the obvious false ownership of one of them, I think someone ought to have a look through these. I asked him on his talk page to stop uploading images altogether, but it may need further scrutiny/enforcement. ♟♙ (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've deleted File:Arohn_Kee_(serial_killer).png and File:Westside rapist.png. I've not reviewed other uploads of this editor yet (no time at the moment). But, it's clear this editor doesn't fully understand how we handle copyright and images here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I took a quick pass through the rest of their uploads, and the bulk look to be OK, falling under the California public domain rule. I tagged one more to FFD. Also,, if you start a discussion about someone at ANI, you must notify them on their talk page. I've done that for you.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I notified him right after I posted here, BubbaJoe . ♟♙ (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops, didn't see it there. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * FYI, the user has posted at Hammersoft's talk page, and on his own userpage (I copied that to his talk page), saying: "I'm addressing the current issues going on with my credibility. I would like to continue making and editing pages, but I will from now on stop uploading images that I have no right to use. I have a history of using images in articles but ignoring the copyright. Just want everyone to know that I'm not an "intentional" image thief, I'm not that low ok. I'm completely just an Idiot" BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Suspicious Rugrats Editor
I noticed Special:Contributions/2001:8003:378C:2B00:94D2:9173:D752:9ECA was editing two pages for Tommy Pickles and Angelica Pickles from the tv show Rugrats talking about Dil having a twin sister, named Trixie II, while what happened was in the 1998 Rugrats Movie Dil was believed to be female and was originally supposed to be named "Trixie" (named after Stu's mom) but it was a boy that they named Dil (after Didi's cousin) and I think he's just being disruptive Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be an editor bouncing around the /48 vandalising articles with made up nonsense, allways using the character name/show name as an edit summary - see Special:Contributions/2001:8003:378C:0:0:0:0:0/48 someone with more skill than me should be able to figure out the exact range they're editing from. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Not quite sure about what range it is, but 100% a disruptive IP range. Continuously inserting entirely bogus information into different articles. Magitroopa (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Range readded incorrect/bogus content (once again...) on SpongeBob SquarePants (film series)... now reported at WP:AIV. Magitroopa (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Sidhari and probable UPE/COI editing issue
has made under eighty edits to Wikipedia since 2014. Since then, the editor appears to have engaged in a number of problematic editing relating to articles that they have created. Nearly half of their edits have been deleted and, being that I am not an admin, I can only comment on what I can see through their talk page and public edit history.

In the past, the user apparently engaged in the repeated removal of AfD tags from the now-deleted Mayur Shekhar Jha and created a sockpuppet to assist them after they received a warning. This led to a 24-hour block. (They have changed their name since.)

Despite having been warned about the requirement to disclose a conflict of interest, they appear to have continued to edit in areas that they have a conflict of interest in. The user created Gaurie Dwivedi, which was subsequently deleted at an AfD, with OP suggesting the potential of undisclosed paid editing. I believe that this may be the case uploaded a picture of Gaurie Dwivedi to Wikimedia Commons, saying it was their own work. Seeing as the photograph is highly retouched, it does not appear that this could be true without there being some coordination between the editor and the photograph subject. And, in the case that the photograph is not actually their own work, we've got a copyright violation problem.

What's more, the user has recreated the article extremely recently after it was deleted by. While I can't see the deleted edits, this really feels like a persistent UPE/COI editor. In light of this, I believe that the editor should be topic-banned from creation and deletion, and I would not be opposed to an indef. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Note - the recreated article was deleted again by admin with reference to the result of that previous AFD. Liz might be able to help here too.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * due to these multiple problems that span years (albeit in a trickle) yet continue to be repeated to this day. El_C 10:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

AIV backlog
Any admins fancy blocking some people? AIV has a backlog and one editor has been going at it for around half an hour now. It's getting BORING. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP user
The IP user 77.247.95.99, who has already been reprimanded multiple times for adding unsourced material to articles, removed the deletion template on an article before the discussion was over and whined about the AfD in the edit summary. Dronebogus (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Whined, really? El_C 12:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Edit summary:
 * “This article should not be deleted, please I call all administrator and user of Wikipedia to save this page and to exit this warning. This is an importan articles with a lot of information and sources. I beg you all, help!!!“


 * Diff: Dronebogus (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've seen that and had already warned the user about that (User_talk:77.247.95.99). Still, please refrain from diminishing/berating someone's objections, even when these seem less than well thought out. See WP:BITE — wait, am I doing that with you right here? I think I should win an irony prize. El_C 12:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Funny, but no, I’m not a newbie— I’ve been here for over a year and made over a thousand contributions. Dronebogus (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything's relative, I suppose. 17 years→ El_C 12:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

MOS issue by Clipred
Moved from AIV ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#0001 14:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Can we block this guy already? The guy goes to edit pages insisting on using his style despite other editors telling him about WP:MOS. And if you fix his edits, he goes on to ruin the articles, but hides them using flowery edit summaries. There's a pattern here. Same thing he did last time as --he has changed his name since the last incident. He pretends to fix the article but actually he is ruining it. I even reported the guy as a sock, the last time he insisted on adding -- Nic Juddha Cartagena and other derivates of Nic Cartagena -- on the article Juddha Paolo. I reverted his edits, knowing the name was incorrect, he went and mess up the page. I don't know why he got away with it, the name he insisted on adding, is the what the socks of  keeps adding. Why would this guy keep adding that name? It's not like it was something he just picked up somewhere. Carl Francis (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't ruin anything on that article, if you want to remove something on my contributions at that page or any page that I've edited, you should tell me at edit summary the reason why you removed them, but you didn't. And one more thing, please look at my revision first and see if there is a mistakes, and if there is a mistakes, tell me first, in that case I will know my mistakes, but you didn't, and you warned me immediately. I change my username because i didn't like it. Again, i never use multiple accounts. My issue on that Sockpuppetry is cleared already.  clip red (  talk  )  13:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Clipred (previously editing as User:MaccWiki) and User:Carl Francis were at WP:AN3 a few days ago due to a dispute about Juddha Paolo. At that time I warned both of them for edit warring and told them to get consensus before reverting that article again. Since my closure of that complaint, neither party has made any edits to the talk page at Talk:Juddha Paolo. The usual steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available to both of them but have not been taken. I recommend that ANI take no action unless they first follow the advice previously given to them. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

MisbaulLaskar7788
This user has constantly caused disruption in South Asia-related articles across Wikipedia. Every time a user warns him in his talk page, he clears his talk page to make it look like he has a clean sheet. Some of his disruption includes blatant Hinduphobia in articles like Bengalis, Sylhetis and list of people from Sylhet where he removes any mention of Hindus and weirdly claims that only a Muslim can be a member of these groups. I don't think that I need to even justify why he is incorrect, especially when millions of Bengali/Sylheti Hindus roam round the planet. Cc UserNumber (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed his contributions to our articles and engagement with other editors, I am inclined to support an indefinite block. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editors emptying categories
Before either 157.25.19.100 or I start an edit war I'm just going to start an ANI discussion. On Talk:IM L7 me and discussed Category:Cars introduced in 2022 and how the name is past tense. This led to the creation of other categories such as Category:Upcoming car models scheduled for 2021. However, IP user 157.25.19.100 is repeatedly emptying these categories and thinks "your mum" is a valid edit summary for doing so. The final straw of reverting their disruptive changes was when tagged the category for CSD in good faith due to it being empty, and I instantly knew it was because of the IP user persisting on emptying it. There was a discussion for this but the user insists on emptying it with vague and joke summaries and it's getting out of hand and I think action should be taken because I'm in the middle of creating an article right now and I don't want to start an edit war. <b style="color:white">Waddles</b> <b style="color:white">🗩</b> <b style="color:white">🖉</b> 16:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also going to point out that 83.8.53.39 was involved too and doing the exact same thing in a slightly less disruptive manner. <b style="color:white">Waddles</b> <b style="color:white">🗩</b> <b style="color:white">🖉</b> 16:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The ES by '39 '"it is already introduced and upcoming as well in terms of market availability" is less than self-explanatory. Narky Blert (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Marcjordam is a promotional account
Marcjordam is an account used for promoting "Northern Transit Interlocal", a transit company in Montana. The user has repeatedly added promotional content to the articles Cut Bank, Montana, Kalispell, Montana, Great Falls, Montana, Conrad, Montana, and Shelby, Montana and also even tried creating their own article. <b style="color:white">Waddles</b> <b style="color:white">🗩</b> <b style="color:white">🖉</b> 18:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for spamming. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:David M Medlar



 * User talk:David M Medlar
 * User talk:FlightTime#whats up
 * User talk:FlightTime#speculation vs. statistic vs. law
 * User talk:FlightTime#Being didactic

I had undone the worst one. I tried to explain to David that they should assume good faith and how one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. In return they called me pedantic. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * . But I have a bad feeling about this one. Well, hopefully, I'm wrong. El_C 11:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Me too. User has not edited since this thread was opened. I offered a few sage words of counsel. (Please feel free to ping El_C if problems resume. STongue.svg) -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 15:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The subject of this thread is harassing me on my talk page, see Special:Diff/1044893468 and Special:Diff/1044894683. Could one of you up the page protection. (I have a secondary talk page) Thank you, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked. by El C who is faster than I -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 16:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * And... gone. El_C 16:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Who Has Seen The Wind? I'm serious, I can't find a free version of this incredible Leroy Vinnegar track (with Geoff Lee on piano). Anyway, maybe you'll get some Kant quotes at WP:UTRS, DFO. That would be fun-in-the-sun. El_C 17:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, the Joy of Duty I Kant wait. Fiat justitia, pereat mundus -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 17:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I've always felt that an all-or-nothing approach to the teleological-deontological divide is kinda pointless, but granted, my background is   ...     El_C 17:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Wait. That's utility. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 18:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * . Haha, you got me! What a Carlin move. Respect. El_C 20:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Promotional editing and disruptive behaviour by BoardOfEd


(Note: I originally took this to AIV but it was suggested that it was a more complex matter and needed to be raised here.)

BoardOfEd uses his account almost solely to promote his own YouTube channel and website. (He acknowledges that they are his on his User page.) This has been going on since December 2019 when he was aggressively linkspamming his previous YouTube channel (which got terminated for reasons I know nothing about beyond what it says here). Since then he has slowed down and concentrated his efforts at Wimshurst machine (and, to a lesser extent, Tesla coil) but not stopped completely.

Warnings, including a final warning, have been been largely unavailing. All they have elicited are angry, incoherent and completely off-topic rants alleging harassment, antisemitism and far left bias (e.g. User_talk:BoardOfEd). His content is about electrostatic generators so I am at a complete loss to understand where the claims of antisemitism and political bias come in. He also misuses the minor edit tag (which could be accidental) and makes personal attacks in edit summaries.

I feel that this is a clear WP:NOTHERE case with no realistic hope for improvement after all this time. He is also ranting and alleging defamation over on the Commons so maybe a cross-site block is required? --DanielRigal (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, BoardOfEd edits are indeed promotional as their edits on article pages are either adding a link from their youtube or adding www.misterbonetti.com. The account is being used for promotional use only and should be blocked. Jerm (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the contribution history, the account appears to exist for the sole purpose of self-promotion. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * A rather colorful user. I've indeffed them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing Target of Overzealous Editor
I have had issues with Mztourist in the past. Starting earlier this year when he nominated numerous AfD. At the time I was unaware of the rules and will admit revenge AfDing back, but only articles I felt were questionable and worth discussing. Mztourist has continued to AfD my articles on a regular basis some being deleted, some merged, some staying in place. One article was AfDd last year Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (2nd nomination), and as he did not get the response he wanted, he recently AfDd it again Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (3rd nomination). I ran across an article that had a single source for the entire article, which happened to be one of Mztourist and accidentally PRODed the article when I meant to AfD it Articles for deletion/Robert B. Carney Jr.. I was immediately accused of REVENGE, and was told I didn't know what I was talking about and in general handled very rudely. I tried to explain, but was simply accused again. I would have discussed the matter further, but was "banned" from his talk page. The discussion continued on the AfD for Carney. I was looking over other AfDd articles, and added two Bibliography entries to Mac Ross, attempting to improve the secondary sources to unsure notability. This happened to be another article Mztourist is AfDing, my two book bibliography entries were immediately deleted by Mztourist claiming "They are not yet referenced in the page," however bibliography entries do not need to be referenced in the page so I undid the edit, and replied "Stop reverting my edits, I am contributing to the bibliography and providing secondary sources." Mztourist then commented in the Talk:Mac_Ross. He immediately accused me of edit warring, which is what he was doing. To be honest, I am tired of being disrespected, belittled, and harassed by Mztourist. I would like requested an interaction ban for the both of us, because I do not believe anything else will resolve the issue. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If anyone should be making a complaint here it is me. I have previously complained about Jamesallain85 here in June: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070. Jamesallain85 was warned about REVENGE AFDs as a result of that discussion. I AFD'ed Jack C. Titus on 19 August: Articles for deletion/Jack C. Titus. Jamesallain85 was temporarily blocked for WP:SHARE in that debate, the page was merged. I then AFDed Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (3rd nomination) a page that I had AFDed over a year ago, but which was kept on a misinterpretation of the now-deprecated WP:SOLDIER. As you will see there is currently a vigorous debate on the sourcing showing that it was a legitimate nomination. Jamesallain85 then sought REVENGE just as he did with previously with Articles for deletion/George Jacobson and Articles for deletion/John B. Selby previously, by PRODing Robert B. Carney Jr.. I dePRODed the page with an explanation and Jamesallain85 then came to my Talk Page: User talk:Mztourist. Jamesallain85 PRODed the page again. I banned him from my UP as I'm entitled to do and he then AFDed Robert B. Carney Jr. and you can read that discussion: Articles for deletion/Robert B. Carney Jr. particularly comments such as "You don't get it, my goal isn't to delete this page. It was to draw attention to a poorly sourced page.". Jamesallain85 has also !voted on a number of other current AFDs in which I have been active. In relation to Mac Ross he added books to the bibliography which are not referred to in the page and I deleted them with an explanation and he reinstated and I deleted them again, he reinstated them and I opened a discussion about his edit warring on Talk:Mac_Ross. Jamesallain85 claims that I have "disrespected, belittled, and harassed" him, but I contend that is what he has done to me. I have AFDed his pages because I believe that many of them are poorly sourced with tenuous to non-existent notability. Rather than addressing this he has continued to pursue REVENGE. Mztourist (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not commenting on the rest of this as of yet but AfD is "not for article clean-up". We shouldn't be submitting articles to AfD because we feel they need to be properly sourced or cleaned up. If anyone wants to bring attention to a poorly sourced article you can post it on the article talk page or post a link on a relevant wiki-project. You can even ask a question about it on the Teahouse if you want to know where to bring it up. An article being poorly sourced is not a reason for deletion. If you feel it is not notable that is a different thing altogether. Regardless, content discussion is for somewhere else. -- A Rose Wolf  16:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I AfDd an article that had zero evidence of notability. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * On that same note, why is Mztourist AfDing articles and then trying to undo any improvements which would help keep the article. The article I AfDd and article with a single obituary as the only source for an entire article. There was nothing in the obituary which in itself that was notable. There have been many discussions on this topic, being a General is not automatic as Mztourist has stated several times. There were no notable awards, the highest being the Legion of Merit, something else Mztourist has stated. There was no evidence with what was on the page to speak of its notability other than it was printed in the Washington Post, which again by itself isn't notable. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You AfD page after page you claim are poorly sourced, and if I AfD one page of yours which contains a single source for SIGCOV I am REVENGE targeting you? I tagged another page of yours that didn't contain a singe source, do you understand the irony in your statement? I would like to point out some of your statements which point to your hostility: "You clearly don't understand SIGCOV and I can't be bothered engaging with you" "you're banned from my Talk Page now" "I have a habit of not continuing with pointless discussions with someone who can't tell whether or not a topic is notable." "I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to you." " this page is being kept, better luck next time" Mztourist has repeatedly engaged in belittling, hostile, and unprofessional dialogue. If you don't see things from his point of view you are pushed down and mocked until he gets his way. He is quick to AfD article after article, but cannot take any criticism concerning his own. He simply denies it claiming the other is at fault because they just don't know and it is a waste of his time to discuss or explain it. He has engaged in edit warring unto the limit only to turn around and try to blame me for edit warring him, for adding sources to an article he is trying to AfD. I am beginning to question what Mztourist motives are on this platform. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , it gets very confusing. Your nomination says "Fails WP:GNG even with added references." as a reason for why you put it up for deletion and then you lay out your case for why. That's perfectly fine as far as a reason and a plausible explanation. But then you later say "You don't get it, my goal isn't to delete this page. It was to draw attention to a poorly sourced page. The only person that gets enjoyment of deleting pages and reverting around here is you.", the you being Mztourist I suppose. Is it because it fails GNG and you are seeking deletion or is it that you are not seeking deletion and only wanting to draw attention to the fact you believe it is poorly sourced? -- A Rose Wolf  17:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I am trying to be objective. I did not believe there was a source available that would contribute to the article's notability. As it stood it should have been deleted, and it should have been discussed. At the same time, I do not derive pleasure from deleting articles. I actually found a single source that met notability and added it myself, but at the time I AfDed the article I did not think such a source would be found. There is way too much subjectivity and not enough objectivity when it comes to editing. We as editors need to take a more academic approach to AfDs, because the policy is very much written to follow academic guidelines. Unfortunately, many editors do not understand what the guidelines actually mean. Jamesallain85 (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's true, and frustrating, that people often participate in AfD debates without doing reasonable diligence (i.e. WP:BEFORE), but this seems like kind of a silly AN/I thread. It doesn't look like there are diffs here to support the claim that Mztourist is engaging in bad faith at AfD: if they are indeed nominating a bunch of your articles for deletion on spurious grounds, surely there is a big list (rather than the couple you've mentioned here)? For what it's worth, they do not seem to be making ludicrously bad nominations — about 36% of their nominations have closed "keep", "speedy keep" or "no consensus", which is roughly in line with aggregate AfD statistics (around 25% of all AfDs have closed as "keep", "speedy keep", or "no consensus" since 2014). jp×g 08:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a complete lack of a non biased standard is the issue. I was under the impression we are supposed to be building an encylopedia, not destroying one. One of my pages for example was Jack C. Titus, was referenced with more than half a page in "Silent victory: the U.S. submarine war against Japan" one of the most important historical books on the matter. His exploits were recreated into an episode on a television series, which were also analysed by a newspaper (secondary source). I also had many other primary sources besides the secondary sources. What is the bar for WP:GNG if that doesn't pass? So later I run across an article, Robert B. Carney Jr., with a single source, an obituary, considering WP:SOLDIER is no longer the standard and this article isn't passing current standards I AfD it. I am immediately accused of REVENGE, and am introduced to an entirely new standard of notability by Mztourist. While Mztourist has added multiple sources, if you use his same arguments applied to other AfD articles he is standing just as high and dry as the articles he is deleting. His sources are full of government nonindependent, primary sources, or passing mentions at best. I am tired of wading through his hypocrisy, Mztourist isn't attempting to create a better encylopedia, its about AfDing articles, reverting everyone's edits, and flipping out if anyone points out his own shortcomings in his articles. Why doesn't he spend more time improving his own articles like Children's Grand Park, Busan and leave me alone. I believe every article I have had AfDd of mine with the exception of one were all Mztourist. How does that look from my perspective? I will tell you, it feels like I am being constantly harassed by the same editor again and again and again. He wants to AfD an article (not even mine), I add some sources I find to support it, trying to objectively weight the information available and if the article should be deleted, only to have them immediately reverted through edit warring by Mztourist, only to have him accuse me again! Trying to discuss anything is pointless, he becomes hostile, rude, and nonprofessional. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA back at Peter McNally article
Previously discussed at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051

At the article there has been a long history of single purpose accounts claiming he was born in December 1937 in Gravesend, Kent, yet not being able to provide a single reference. Sockpuppetry case on the latest three (two accounts and an IP) filed at Sockpuppet investigations/Toadforthe7, but SPI is backlogged and they've been up to their usual disruption for several days now. FDW777 (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Very likely a sock account of the previous disrupter of this article. I've indef blocked. -- Longhair\talk 10:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you. As detailed in the most recent SPI (linked above), the claim of a December 1937 birthdate in Kent has been a hobbyhorse of numerous accounts over the last couple of years. There was also making the same argument on my talk page, since that message occurred shortly after my revert of  they would appear to be one and the same, and quite probably also the same person as . FDW777 (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The SPI will hopefully weed them out once the backlog catches up to your request. I'll add the article to my watchlist to keep an eye out for their return. -- Longhair\talk 10:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

China at the 2020 Summer Olympics
China at the 2020 Summer Olympics

I got an edit reverted with the tag removed by  with no explanation or discussion. I don't feel like getting in another edit war here.

You should know this user already has been blocked once in this page. Not to mention all his previous behavior warnings.

He hasn't attempted to make any discussion in the talk page and we can see the history that he is rather insistent on putting his views in the article.

Also I question his neutrality as per this link, where he accuses others of being government shill when one of them is trying to open a discussion to get consensus.

Would be grateful to have the admins look into this.

-210.6.154.28 (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As it says at the top of the page, you are required to notify any user you start a discussion about. I've done that for you. – <span style="font-weight:normal;background:linear-gradient(90deg,#e40303,#ff8c00,#ffed00,#008026,#004dff,#750787);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text;">Rummskartoffel 15:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Calton
started off by reverting one of my previous edits on 2021 and reinstating Michael K. Williams in spite of the fact there was no consensus in favour of his inclusion - and he did so with an edit summary inappropriately referring to myself as "Mr. Gatekeeper". Then today he went on Talk:2021 and engaged in the thread started by PeaceInOurTime2021 regarding Norm Macdonald in an extremely hostile and patronising manner laced with personal attacks directed exclusively towards me, of which you can openly see for yourself on the Talk page.

I called him out on his attitude both on the thread as well as on a message in his personal Talk page saying that I didn't think his conduct was appropriate and that we are perfectly entitled to agree and disagree without resorting to personal attacks. He completely ignored my message on his Talk page and continued to double down on the Talk:2021 page - as well as outright singling me out and painting me as the only person questioning Macdonald's inclusion, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. I also note as well looking through his personal Talk page that he has a history of extremely unpleasant behaviour towards other users. Hopefully this can be swiftly resolved. Thescrubbythug (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Calton♂ An extended confirmed user, 16 years 10 months old, with 78,371 edits. I don't think that was his first contribution. Anyone with a blue link can be included on the list of deaths for a year, as is standard practice and standing consensus for inclusion in lists. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, what I mean is that it was his first contribution to the 2021 page in recent days, and one that was problematic right from the outset. I'm aware that this user has been around for a long time haha. Thescrubbythug (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the current situation, it is not true that "anyone with a blue link can be included on the list of deaths for a year", we have more than 10,000 pages on people who died in 2020 alone: including them all on the main "2020" page would be impossible, so some editorial discretion on who to include and who to exclude is necessary. Everyone can be included in their respective month list though, e.g. Deaths in January 2021. Fram (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Conceded. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Would be best for Calton to open a discussion at the article-in-question & seek consensus for who he wishes to include. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean like at Talk:2021, where he's engaged in exactly such a discussion? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 16:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This report isn't over a disagreement in a discussion. It's entirely to do with the personal conduct and behaviour of the person in question, and his refusal to engage without hostility or resorting to personal attacks (i.e. "Mr. Gatekeeper"). Thescrubbythug (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In other words, you're being accused of ownership of said-article. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * He has made constant accusations of gatekeeping towards me, yes - and without properly going through the history of the Talk page discussions and how several users (not just myself) have voiced that we need to be stricter on who should be included in general, with politicians, sports figures and entertainment figures being categories that have been singled out. I find that and his overall uncivil attitude toxic, and an issue that has the potential of alienating anyone who might otherwise want to contribute. Thescrubbythug (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just asking and not saying anything about the behavior of the individual but is there a clear consensus that is described and defined somewhere? I had a similar issue come up on one of these lists where it was specifically declining and reverting any mention of tribal affiliation of Indigenous people where nationality was okay to be included. So if a person that dies was Cherokee you could not put Cherokee American, only American, in the description. Even putting that they were a chief of said tribe was reverted. Examples aren't needed because I'm not complaining now as it was explained thoroughly to me why. I may not agree with that but if it is consensus then it should be followed. I just can see an example of where someone is trying to add a name and being told no because consensus says no but no one has specifically pointed them to said consensus where it can be easily viewed and defined. Not at all saying that isn't the case and not at all saying aspersions and attacks are justified. We should remain civil at all times, especially when we feel challenged or are angry about something. Just a curiosity. -- A Rose  Wolf  18:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding Williams? There was an attempt by one IP user to add him multiple times (and was also problematic in terms of behaviour as well, as seen in a previous report here), but besides that there was little discussion on him. He ended up being bunched in with Sarah Harding on the Talk page (again, due to the IP user essentially saying Harding and Williams should be included more than Mikis Theodorakis or Jean-Paul Belmondo, whose inclusions were never in dispute), but there was little comment beyond myself and Jim Michael agreeing that he does not warrant inclusion. Thescrubbythug (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It does seem that WP:NPA is being breached here— may disagree with individual reverts but the onus in the BRD cycle is always to discuss the merit of your change, not to attack the reverting editor. "Mr Gatekeeper" may not be the most cutting of insults but it does belie an attitude to editing that's entirely at odds with BRD. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 16:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Calton is being too confrontational in the discussion and edit summaries. It's entirely possible to disagree without the hostility. Levivich 17:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is just how Calton edits. If you've ever had a different viewpoint than him on an article you've probably experienced it. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A longstanding WP:BATTLEGROUND exemption from the gods? No one can explain the riddle behind these mysterious powers! El_C 18:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is “just how Carlton edits”, then how has this been tolerated for so long? Clearly it’s very problematic and a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV, and the fact that he gets away with it seems to make him think that this conduct is at all acceptable. No user should be above these basic guidelines. Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I hereby penalize Calton two demerits for being rude to you. Levivich 02:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thus spoke Levivich the terrible WP:UNBLOCKABLE! El_C 02:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It probably doesn't help much that Calton is correct. That's when he can be most annoying. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 02:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The end justifies the meanie, as it were. El_C 02:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Except Calton had absolutely no right to constantly attack me and accuse me of gatekeeping because I held a difference of opinion on Macdonald’s inclusion, and a lot of his attacks came on the basis of unfounded grounds such as the inclusion of Olympians (which had already been discussed previously on the Talk page where there was agreement on including gold medalists), and outright saying I’m the only one questioning Macdonald’s inclusion (hell, I didn’t even start the discussion thread questioning his inclusion). I don’t believe the way he went about everything (“Any more arbitrary lines you want to redraw? And you know about Macdonald's significance outside the U.S. and Canada, how? And this is important, why?”, among other examples of his hostile and patronising attitude) is at all acceptable, and I sincerely hope that this isn’t dismissed and that something can be done, on the grounds of WP:NPA and WP:CIV - even if it’s just to have all the personal comments targeting me removed and/or to have him edit his comments so that he can make his argument without referencing me or attacking me. Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This wholesale removal of comments by Calton was quite inappropriate, . That action is more aggressive than anything Calton said. Please self-revert right now. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC).
 * Calton's entire conduct and behaviour towards me was completely inappropriate and aggressive, and there seemed to be a reluctance here by anyone to do anything about it in spite of blatant violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. According to WP:RUC, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor". Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thescrubbythug, aggressive or unfriendly comments are not inherently personal attacks and would not merit automatic removal that invokes WP:RPA. El_C 11:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How is "Mr. Gatekeeper" not a personal attack, or comments such as "The BBC News reference seems to have escaped you. I skipped over a Guardian reference because I thought it was overkill, but apparently not. Any more arbitrary lines you want to redraw?", "Since gatekeeping is what you're doing -- and looking at your editing history on this page, have been doing -- "gatekeeping" is what I'll call it", "Thescrubbythug is familiar with these shows, right?", or "Why yes, yes you can, your unwillingness to do so notwithstanding. Certainly the rest of us editors can" that are blatantly derogatory, accusatory, and designed to insinuate that I'm an idiot for disagreeing with him. Why do we have "Be polite and avoid personal attacks" as a rule for talk pages if they're not going to be enforced and when they are clearly violated, they are dismissed with an "I hereby penalize Calton two demerits for being rude to you" and nothing is done. How is his standard of behaviour at all acceptable? Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thescrubbythug, while that's uncivil, it isn't a personal attack outright. You are conflating impoliteness with personal attacks. As an aside, that is how Calton had been getting away with it for all these years. They only rarely cross the line from incivility to personal attacks, and they tend to be right on the content. So, if a personal attack = 1, any disparate incident would usually be at, say, 0.5. That, even though in total it's on the high end. It's a bit of a perennial problem on the project which is far from limited to Calton, though they embody it well, I think. El_C 11:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reverted back, though I still maintain that all of his comments personally targeting me rather than choosing to comment just on the topic at hand is very problematic. Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A personal attack is more like, ", I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries!" whereas incivility is just ", you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How dare you question farcical revered aquatic ceremonies! El_C 12:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 'ELP! 'ELP! I'M BEING REPRESSED! Now you see the violence inherent in the system! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm Holy Hand Grenade'ing this silliness! El_C 12:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Calton speaks
Well, that was fast. I go away and come back to this. But thanks to the people who stepped up to speak for me, especially Bishonen. My two iron rules of Wikipedia are "Rule 1) Bishonen is always right. Rule 2) If Bishonen is wrong, step back and see where you went wrong, then go back to Rule 1."

Well, I have a few things I'd like say, namely that this whole circus is WP:BOOMERANG-worthy. In a nutshell -- because it's Saturday and I'm heading out of the house right after I type this, while it's still daylight -- the reason I talked about Thescrubbythug in Talk:2021 as part of a content dispute is because HE is part of the content dispute, as it were. In sum -- diffs later -- he has made judgments without research, in favor of his own subjective opinion of what is important and what is not; has made false -- or at least highly bad-faith -- statements; ignored arguments; shifted goalposts; and has done his best to weaponize behavior policies to take ownership of the page. I mean, the paragraph above that begins with Except Calton had absolutely no right... encapsulates a whole lot of what I think is wrong here.

I will say more later, when I get back and when I can condense it to less-than-mind-numbing detail. It's harder to write short than it is to write long. --Calton &#124; Talk 05:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are accusing me of “ownership of the page” and of “weaponising” behaviour policies when it is perfectly obvious that I would have taken absolutely zero offence or issue with you had you simply made your argument in favour of Macdonald and not gone out of your way to attack me and make personalised accusations towards me, in spite of the fact that I didn’t even start the original thread and that I was not the only person questioning Macdonald’s inclusion. To now accuse me of filing this report when I made it absolutely clear that it had nothing to do with agreement or disagreement on the Macdonald topic, and everything to do with the way that you acted towards me is honestly disgusting and deeply problematic. “Shifting goalpost” is a ridiculous assertion, especially considering that you’ve obviously not followed the history of the Talk:2021 page and the discussions by multiple regular contributors about the need to be more selective about who to add onto the page, and by which criteria (especially with politicians, sports figures, and entertainment figures) would be most appropriate. It has been an overarching, ongoing issue over the last half year or so, and to specifically target and attack one user (myself) over this without even attempting to learn about the background context of these debates is inappropriate. In any case, I’ve already made clear that the issue isn’t agreement or disagreement over Macdonald; the issue is you and and your violations of WP:CIV (which the other admins here agreed was problematic), as well as referring to me as “Mr. Gatekeeper” in the most petty way possible. Don’t try and make this about anything other than that. Thescrubbythug (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Only one way to settle the whole dispute & avoid any editor being blocked. Come up with an inclusion criteria on International Year articles, for who should/shouldn't be added to the birth/death sections. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Communication issue with 51412techno
never explains his edits and has no contribution in any talk pages. His talk page is also full of warnings and I see no hope if this user will comply with WP:COMMUNICATE. Srijanx22 (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The latest 400 edits of the user do not have a single edit summary. The edit summary usage of 0.7% is the lowest I have ever seen. This, despite multiple warnings from me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

You're right he doesnt seem to be communicating, however I'm not seeing much disruptive editting in his recent edit history. Wikiman5676 (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors are required to communicate. Now that he is not responding to this report but still editing, I think he should be blocked until he recognizes the requirement to communicate. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

IP editing at Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy


Would someone familiar with LTA Mikemikev please take a look at recent IP editing on Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy and do whatever might be appropriate? Long term target Talk:Race and intelligence is 500/30 protected now, so it seems to me that spillover to other articles is happening. - MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm familiar with the LTA and related sockpuppetry (Maunus and Doug Weller are experts). You're right that HR&IC has not seen radical changes to the lede, so the additional paragraph is a recent departure. Many experienced editors, including and you, have noted that it breaks consensus and carefully explained why. Stylistically this Milan IP seems unlikely to be the usual suspect: the postings have been too rambling and persistent; and spelling "news papers" as two words is odd. On the other hand, given the IP's edit-warring, doesn't this just look like a case of WP:NOTHERE?   Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that this IP seems to be WP:NOTHERE, especially considering their single-purpose account use of that talk page and article to push a POV. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I admit to having a challenging time parsing the contested content in question, but on Sept 15, fully protected (albeit for a day) as Edit warring / content dispute, so wouldn't the party behind the contending version (93.149.193.190, whose changes were retained in the full protection) be expected to address the dispute on the article talk page, like, in a technical sense? Though, I do note that everyone else are supporting the longstanding version. El_C 16:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I imposed a year of semiprotection on the article, and blocked the IP 48 hours. (Though I didn't mention the semiprotection in the AN3 closure which would be more clear). Since race and intelligence is such a well-known trouble spot, it might be worth semiprotecting Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy for a moderate time such as a month. The talk page of that article shows fairly civilized discourse down to about 15 September when the IP joins in. In the last week there has been a flurry of activity with respect to Mikemikev, but see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive for how that ended up. The main article Race and intelligence has had both article and talk page placed under ECP at various times; this was logged in WP:DSLOG. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I can't read. Sorry about that. El_C 18:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

User:81.177.3.8
Is this IP a continuation of a banned/blocked user? I noticed on IP talk page log, the other IP of User:49.228.168.149 running the same edit back and forth between the two IPs which for some reason made me think it's the same person for some reason. (Made me think of a user editing from a phone IP and home-wifi IP at the same time!) It's first edit was back in July too WP:AN in contrib, talking like an experienced user! Then coming back in September on the contrib, does it not feel fishy (WP:DUCK) to anyone else? Govvy (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * apparently you did not read the big red editnotice that says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page, maybe try to follow the clearly spelled out instructions. Anyway I'm not new and I was reverting 49.228.168.14 an ipsock of an lta. In fact I reported them to AIV see 1 2 maybe check a few diffs before wasting everyone's time with an ani next time. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are editing logged out, and if true, your edits to project space, are unacceptable. An IP doing a non-admin closure of an MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sai aravind/Prasad V.Potluri Siddhartha Institute of Technology)? At the same time, I don't think you're the 49. IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * well of course I'm editing logged-out, if I were editing logged-in my edits wouldn't be recorded under an IP would they? I take it you meant to assert that I'm simultaneously editing with an account and an IP in violation of WP:ILLEGIT? Well I'm not, but I accept that I have no way to prove that (well aside from the fact that I would've been cu-blocked a New York minute after someone reported me here if that were obviously the case). If you don't find that convincing you're welcome to file an WP:SPI, but I don't really see any value in arguing back and forth over it here, what evidence of innocence or guilt would you even accept?I can't imagine anyone taking issue with a housekeeping close, especially as WP:NACD explicitly allows anyone to close under such circumstances (not to mention WP:NOTBURO).I'm glad we agree I'm not 49 81.177.3.8 (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of what you say is nonsense, despite all the emoticons. And NACD does not allow IPs to close discussions: "non-administrators who are registered (i.e. not IPs) may close discussions", but nice try.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As it so happens you are incorrect so I'll quote from WP:NACD If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) but neglected to close the discussion, anyone may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale (emphasis mine). Discussing whether what I say is or is not nonsense is going to quickly lead us down an unproductive semantic rabbit hole, but I would aver that it isn't under the normal english definition of the term, it's certainly not G1 eligible. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an awful lot of (albeit inaccurate) policy references from a nearly brand new IP editor. And whose first two edits were to ANI: . And whose third edit used the edit summary: "actually less ranty than my usual, time pressure is a wonderful thing" Have you edit with other IPs? Your other edits seem to suggest as much.Re: "I would've been cu-blocked a New York minute after someone reported me here if that were obviously the case" Not necessarily. CU doesn't happen that quickly in my experience. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh, I haven't posted on ANI in quite some time (those edits you reference were to AN, yes I know, details details), but more substantively, I can't speak to what the usual cu block response time is these days, I doubt it's that extensive, but I could be wrong. If there is an error in my policy references then kindly point it out, I'm not immune to error. But simple assertions of  are not that convincing (there's a handy refutation triangle about this to link to somewhere, but I can't remember it off the top of my head). Obviously this is not my first ever IP (never claimed it was), hell that was so long ago it ended in Xs (I can't prove that either but who cares). Anyway I'm still not quite sure what you want out of me, Potentially I could find some earlier IPs that were me, but unless for some reason you really want to dive through hundreds of boring diffs I don't exactly see the point. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Still smells like trout around here! Govvy (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say the NOTBURO claim was in error, or a non sequitur. I'm simply pointing out that you have edited under other IPs/accounts. Your explanation is perfectly in order and I don't see much of anything to do about it. I'm sorry if it seemed as though my intention was to accuse you of multiple accounts, I was simply pointing out what I saw in your diffs. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine, written communication is tricky, and I'm certainly guilty of worse myself. Fact is my WP:DGAF level has been quite high for a long time now. On your other point, the principle underlying WP:NOTBURO is that a procedural error is not itself reason to revert an edit or action so long as it's fundamentally correct on the merits (i.e. improves the encyclopaedia). My point being that even if there's some new obscure layer on top of the guidelines that I'm unfamiliar with that says a different procedure should have been followed the ultimate outcome was still clearly correct so getting bent out of shape over it is silly, just leave a note my talk page explaining what the correct procedure is now, and I'll do my best to adhere to it in the future. Frankly that's the main way I keep up with the change in nuance of policy and procedure over time now anyway. Maybe that makes me lazy, but way I see it, I have the tao of Wikipedia down enough that I'm not likely to do something egregiously wrong, and since this is a wiki no action is truly irreversible, hence no need to review all the PAGs anew every time I come off wikibreak. Hope this hasn't taken up too much of your time. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

You seem to know quite a lot about wikipedia while sailing around in the Barents Sea... :/ So you don't want to tell us your real account you're logging out of? Govvy (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot and not nearly enough. I don't have an account, I can't prove that, I can't imagine why anyone would log out to do what I do anyway, but there are some fairly crazy people on the internet so who knows, I've never hidden the fact that when there are mobile range blocks (not directed at me) that I need to bypass I will select an app to do so, which does make the geolocate a bit off. Not sure what else I'm supposed to say at this point. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, but your IP bounced off of one of the sea-vsats rt.comm.ru IPs :/ Just thought that was interesting. Govvy (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually that is kind of interesting. I'm not that technically inclined, so long as the app works and is fast I don't usually worry about the details. I mean I like static IPs when I find them, but that's more or less just a trial and error thing. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOP and the equivalent global policy, I have hardblocked 81.177.3.0/24. This shouldn't be interpreted as a sanction against any individual user or a comment on this discussion, just as a regular webhost block. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Highjacking of The Magic School Bus (TV series) and other disruptive editing
An editor at the IP range has been consistently editing in a very specific pattern of first adding incorrect or unsourced information to the article lords and ladies, and then jumps to the article of kids shows and then changes the countries they are from (see, for example, this set of contributions, or this one). As of August, they've taken a like to The Magic School Bus (TV series) and have been trying to change its content to be that of a different show (see this and this one). The range appears to be static enough, and their actions have been disruptive for almost a year now, so I'd recommend at least a few months long block, to see if they stop. Isabelle 🔔 19:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. by Blabubbs. Semi 3 months by me. Feel free to undo. I'm just leery of hijackers. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 22:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

User Pirhayati
Please nominate User:Pirhayati for deletion for violating Wikipedia rules. The 3 pages he has recently created (Tofan Pirani, Hamid Reza Hejazi and Keyvan Dehnad), based on WP:PAID. Also in Persian Wikipedia, Tofan Pirani deleted 4 times by WP:N and Keyvan Dehnad just nominated for deletion by a admin. According by WP:DP He can not remove deletion tag as he did twice times. Sincerely. MMA Kid (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * MMA Kid has made an identical post at WP:COIN. --- Possibly &#9742; 17:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And he was blocked as a sockpuppet. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 00:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Sarwagya Bhooshan and User:Sarwagyaguruji
The editor had created the page in draft space and then moved it to mainspace. As the AfC template was on the page, it appeared in the AfC submission in mainspace category. I draftified it as it was not ready for mainspace, and have left the usual template responses + a customised response highlighting the issues to be fixed before moving back to mainspace. The user moved it back to the mainspace without addressing the issues. The draft-mainspace move reverts happens again, and is now in mainspace without much of the issues addressed. A G11 tag has been placed.

Other actions taken: The editor has also been reported to WP:UAA as it is of the name of the subject with 'guruji' salutations. A request to create protect the article was submitted when the article was still in the draftspace after the second draftifying action. – robertsky (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

IP 137.27.65.235 - Behaviour issue
I need to report this IP editor, as I think their behaviour has not improved since I last reported them. I just discovered that they have put up a list of faults that they have with some edits I made on the article for America's Got Talent (season 16), stating they intend to put them forward into a future ANI against me, adding I never discussed with them or another editor about a matter in the article's Talk Page. The thing is, we had a lengthy discussion, which went off topic with the subject we discussed, but during it they produced a rather unacceptable behaviour that, even for someone saying they were innocent, was not acceptable for a civil discussion; they even went so far as to try to argue against my opinions with unrelated matters (related to me, unrelated to subject). They never returned to making any further input with either the article or talk page since the end of July, until recently today, and what I read was wholly unacceptable.

I feel upset and angry, because I feel like they are mentioning it there, hoping to catch my attention and say "This is what I will do if you don't revert your edits right now!", which is wholly unacceptable. They never chose to discuss the matter with me further, nor did I know of the other editor's input until today. I would have thought someone like them would also have noted the first thing listed in their five sort of "Wiki commandments" on their talk page about disruptions to prove a point...

I don't know what can be done, but I would really like an admin to have a few words with them. It's disheartening to have someone act like that over an issue that I would say is pretty small, but which they wish to make "mountains out of molehills" of. GUtt01 (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Second time this user has reported me because they interpret my dispute as "bad behavior" or "uncivil" as if they do not want to bend at all with an IP. Please see first ANI. GUtt01 is ignoring the consensus to 1. include Nightbirde in the article and 2. stop reverting anyone changing it to Nightbirde which is how she is notable as. Therefore i had to include GUtt01's prior edits showing they ignored other editor's input. This user is ignoring that Nightbirde's article was not changed to her birth name. They are "not listening" to others input to mention her. GUtt01 left it for awhile then slowly removed her via "amendments" which is code for revert. As you can see on GUtt01's talk page, they are guilty of edit-warring on a regular basis. Then i list GUtt01's history in an effort to avoid ANI and this editor reports me because they seem to be unable to handle any criticism at all or anyone else (especially an IP) contributing to an article they apparently want control of. I also pointed out the paragraph-long sentences they write and keep undoing when someone else changes/fixes them. Even after another editor cleaned it up, GUtt01 went back to undo it with "amendments" so that it's his/her way. After awhile, how can you not be irritated with this? Then i state i would go to ANI in an effort to help resolve the issue and i'm accused of making a threat? This person is disruptive with reverting/removing other editor's contributions then quickly accuses me of doing the wrong thing by going to the talk page? I feel bullied. Unlike GUtt01, i take days/weeks before responding and i consider everyone's input. GUtt01 has already been reported for being problematic. You can see everything listed on the AGT Season 16 edit history and talk page i conveniently included that he/she tried to delete/hide. I only wanted to make it official after the season ended so i came back to be sure she was properly mentioned per sources i provided. And GUtt01 replied on the talk page since User:Ssilvers comments and edits (August 26th) yet claims to not see it till today after i made a contribution?


 * Thank you for your time and i apologize in advance that this had to come here because GUtt01 seems to not want to have a conversation. I regret GUtt01 is uncomfortable once again. I'm taking another break today for the record. 137.27.65.235 (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion was not about including this person into the article; it was about which name to use!! The IP is continuing to blow this out of proportions. Hardly anyone is discussing the name or saying it should be changed back, other than this IP editor. They then list my history of relevant edits on the talk page as if to make me a pariah on Wikipedia, saying I'm acting like a bully, when I have not done anything of the sort here. If they wanted to discuss this, I would have thought they would have the decency, after such a long absence from the article, to talk to me or ping me to the talk page for further discussion, rather than just try to act in this manner. Also, how would they think an ANI would help exactly? This just inflamed the situation further - I was accused of accusing them of failing to heed WP:NOTBROKEN, when another editor was the one saying that - even one of the edits they put up was related to that editor, someone they could have easily accused of causing them trouble. This IP editor hasn't perhaps done much editing, contrary to their edit history (since the IP may be being used by someone else than who originally used it), but they are trying to act out all innocent when they continued to act in a manner that doesn't appear civil. They also think the name is important to mention in an article, where there is a question of justifying this - the person's BIO article is already questioned over notability at present, per WP:MUSICBIO. This IP editor clearly has not done anything to engage me in discussing and talking about this - to actually say they would enter an ANI about this, without even talking to me, is ridiculous. I feel like an Admin needs to have a few words with this person, because I clearly feel hurt by this, especially as I haven't done anything wrong or warranted this action and response when civil discussion could have resolved this. GUtt01 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You took this to ANI (first) not me. Based on our past experience, i did not discuss it personally with you since it was your way or no way last time. I'm not the only one who has changed her legal name to Nightbirde on AGT 16 and the AGT template articles. You know that. And the prior editor telling you to mention her in the article is why i changed it back since you deleted it and ignored the consensus on both articles. So you accusing me of acting a certain way is your perception. You're projecting. I'm doing what Wiki requests. Take it to the talk page. Don't edit war. Don't revert. Go to ANI if there is a dispute that can't be resolved. You accused me of having a bad attitude again yet it's you being hostile and aggressive to me just because i disagree and do not like that you revert people's comments/edits/contributions. I listed your history to show that you keep deleting her name and ignore she is Nighbirde by overwhelming sources including the show itself. I think you don't want to be wrong about this and so you're saying i'm the problem. Regardless, do not assume things you don't have evidence of about me &/or my contributions/IP, etc. Your previous comments here are not factual. I'm not trying to cause trouble. You just seem to think anyone who disagrees needs to be disciplined. Your recidivism of edit-warring and disruptive vandalism i've observed is why we are here. I'll again take a long break because i'm not wanting it my way. I just want it right. This is why i avoided even making changes until now. P.s. I was civil but you're upset that i called you out on you slowly removing her name from the article per your edit history on the talk page... 137.27.65.235 (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * A few things I disagree with:


 * "Based on our past experience, i did not discuss it personally with you since it was your way or no way last time" - that's no excuse for not trying to discuss this with me first, rather than threaten to take it to ANI.
 * "And the prior editor telling you to mention her in the article is why i changed it back since you deleted it and ignored the consensus on both articles" - the discussion was on the name, not her inclusion in the article, which is what you are trying to force into the issue. Her inclusion, if needed discussing, should have been a separate matter from that, something you should have tried to do.
 * "I listed your history to show that you keep deleting her name and ignore she is Nighbirde by overwhelming sources including the show itself" - Why am I ignoring this? I am not disputing her name for the moment.
 * "I think you don't want to be wrong about this and so you're saying i'm the problem" - The situation was begun by you trying to push your point in this matter, without being calm and civil and trying to discuss this normally. We could have settled this matter better, but you insisted in acting in a manner that was very upsetting to me.
 * "You just seem to think anyone who disagrees needs to be disciplined" - No, I would prefer to discuss, because some people have made me see things differently when I originally disagreed to something in an article.
 * "I'm doing what Wiki requests. Go to ANI if there is a dispute that can't be resolved." - Wikipedia would recommend only doing ANI when there is evidence of a dispute. A dispute over something trivial would first require that you conducted a discussion on it with the relevant party involved; you didn't. I had no discussion with you, because you didn't bother to engage me at all - just went in, say you're going to call me out on ANI, and not bother with doing any discussions.
 * Quite frankly, those comments don't exonerate you. While I may have acted badly at times, whether misunderstandings or emotions caused the issue, I am trying to be better. And I would have discussed this with the IP editor, if they had tried to engage me in one, rather than suddenly thinking to force an ANI on the matter.... GUtt01 (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition, this is the last edit summary on America's Got Talent (season 16), regarding the issue: "if you continue to omit her or "amend" after multiple talk page discussions and edit summaries by others including consensus with sources confirming she performs and is addressed as Nightbirde on the show itself - then you will be reported for disruption/reverting/edit-warring not to mention you're constantly writing paragraph long sentences that are confusing so please stop changing this just to have it your way after you've been notified not to exclude her from the season". Notified? I was not notified at all about this. And I pointed out that the discussion in the talk page was about her name, not her inclusion. The IP editor didn't seem to bother to think things through on this matter - furthermore, if someone's being disruptive badly, one would be better off going to that user's talk page and sending a warning to them; it's been done by myself and others to those who acted irresponsibly, rather than in edit summaries (because that way, we notify them of their actions). GUtt01 (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

So. Lots of text that is just you two bickering back and forth. Absolutely no links to differences showing the problems. Nobody wants to spend time searching for what the problems are. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, to allow you to see the issue, here is what the IP put up in the talk page for the article. Note how they begun this though:

": This message is to Ssilvers (talk) only... Please see the following vandalism by GUtt01 before i report it to ANI (amendments = reverts):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=1044645647&oldid=1044638960

(after this talk page discussion GUTT01 included Nightbirde then removed it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036979298

(removed Nightbirde to refuse linking)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1038760618

(removed her all together even though she was mentioned and appeared in future episodes)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1031615690

(her full name comes from alternate sources not the show itself)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1035809664

(ANI complaint about GUtt01)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1035656769

(wasn't blocked for similar behavior)

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

(article unchanged to legal name and inconsistent with other AGT performers)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cabayi&diff=prev&oldid=1035816046

("i really hope i can improve and do better")

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036232917

(user Magitroopa changed back to my edit)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036261756

(keeps writing long complicated sentences)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036772089

(made a decision to end discussion even though Nightbirde appeared again)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036773100

(sources/show & judges/host all called her Nightbirde)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036772726

(included Nightbirde yet doesn't link it only her legal name then later deletes it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036979298

(clearly intentional/deliberate agenda not to have Nighbirde's name in article)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)#Jane/Nightbirde

(suppression of consensus for her notable contribution in show)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=1040702074&oldid=1040701962

(did not acknowledge nor respond)

18:06, 17 September 2021 diff hist +21‎  America's Got Talent (season 16) ‎ Rving edits - Possible WP:DE current Tag: Undo

(has the nerve to say i'm disruptive?)" GUtt01 (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * After some careful thought, when I took a break from my computer to eat, and then avoiding this matter to avoid fretting over it, I have come to the conclusion that I think myself and the IP editor may have acted badly in this matter. I believe the IP editor did act irresponsibly in terms of not trying to engage in discussion with myself on my talk page and possibly displaying a message on an article's talk page, rather than with on the talk page of an editor involved in the subject's discussion. I should have tried to engage with them when I saw this and tried to calm them down from being rash. I'm going to try to engage with them and advise them about their behaviour, but I do feel worried on what might happen - I really am hoping that their absence since yesterday might have given them time to cool off and rethink on this. If they still continue to act in the manner I described at the start, and nothing I try to do to engage with them works, what options do I have? GUtt01 (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm coming back here since GUtt01 dragged me back in with a message on my talk page (please only post comments for me on the Nightbirde or AGT 16 talk pages in the future if necessary). As per the AGT 16 talk page, i'm adding her back with sources. She's notable during the season even if GUtt01 doesn't think she's notable in general. I'm the one who put the tag on her article but she should still be added to AGT 16. If you remove her name or link to her article then you are again being disruptive and "not listening" nor conceding to consensus. Today you didn't include her again yet changed a link to another participant. Something you reverted when i did it for Nightbirde, which Magitroopa used "not broken" as the reason. I'm done wasting time going back-and-forth on Nightbirde's & AGT 16's talk pages just to have something simple like this ignored. Point is she was included then you removed her. You take breaks and wait for people not to pay attention to "amend" contributions which are reverts. Therefore, i was watching. If you try to have Nightbirde's article deleted, it's proof you just don't want her on the AGT 16 article for some reason and will assume a win. I'm not trying to win. I'm being consistent. If that makes me "uncivil" for standing up to your hypocrisy, so be it. That means you have the "behavior" issues. Here is what i'm adding to AGT 16:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/agt-star-nightbirde-delivers-a-health-update-after-sharing-cancer-diagnosis/ar-AAKUnay

https://www.today.com/popculture/nightbirde-shares-emotional-raw-message-about-faith-during-agt-finale-t231360

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/09/16/nightbirde-crying-after-agt-finale-cancer-fight/8369979002/

https://www.etonline.com/simon-cowell-shares-hopeful-update-on-nightbirdes-cancer-battle-after-americas-got-talent-exit

P.S. It makes no sense to mention someone withdrew and leave her name out when she was notable for her song. This is what others mentioned besides me that you just don't want to accept. It's simple, she should be in the article not removed. I'm adding what GUtt01 forgot to include from the AGT 16 talk page for the record (GUtt01/Magitroopa didn't apply the same policy/reverts to these or other participants like Tape Face):

All judges and the host called her "Nightbirde" (except Simon once said Jane) when she gave an update on her health in August and during finals in September.

SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rappin'_Granny (real name not used in AGT article)

SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Barnatt (Keith Apicary used in article)

SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stone_(magician) (Klek Entos used in article)

137.27.65.235 (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

137.27.65.235 (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's my opinion that the answer to your content dispute is simple: none of this matters as the subject is not notable, and I have opened Articles for deletion/Nightbirde. AN/I should be used for matters of conduct and not content, so you'd be well served to stop waging this war here and instead figure out if there is actually a behavioral/AGF issue at question here. seems unsure. I am doubly unsure. Please do not turn the AfD page into what you've turned this section into: irrelevant bickering about the article title that has no project benefiting purpose to be taking place on AN/I. If you wish to comment on the AfD, please keep it to notability policies. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 00:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your input/advice. I added her back to the AGT 16 article. If the Nightbirde article is deleted for some reason, having it not link anymore makes sense but her participation with sources should stay in the article so i trust GUtt01 doesn't delete it again. Thank you, kindly... P.s. There are other AGT participants with articles that should also be considered for deletion per notability. 137.27.65.235 (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright... I've been a bit hesitant to join in here, but I'll try and chime in a bit (I have been keeping an eyes on this thread/replies the past few days...). First, if anyone coming here is looking for a quick recap/TL;DR of what has happened and is a bit confused with all the links:

Someone auditioned on the recently-concluded 16th season of America's Got Talent, singing and talking about their battle with cancer (their respective audition can be viewed here). This specific act uses the stage name 'Nightbirde', and their IRL name is 'Jane Marczewski'. They earned a Golden Buzzer (for those unfamiliar with the show- essentially a straight-pass to the live-shows rather than the prior round/a 'possibility' of going to the live shows) from Simon Cowell, but withdrew from the show prior the start of the live shows, saying her health, "taken a turn for the worse".

The original issue/debate was which name to use: stage name or IRL name. Respective discussions for that can be found at Talk:America's Got Talent (season 16) and all throughout Talk:Nightbirde. However, now is has apparently changed into, "Should a name be mentioned at all in the article (whether stage name or IRL name)". (I've now added a subsectioning header on to the AGT S16 talk page- start of that can be viewed at Talk:America's Got Talent (season 16))

At this point, I think it may be entering edit-warring/WP:OWN territory... I'm sure anyone that wants to can quickly look through the full history/discussions and figure it out, but most recently:
 * IP readded her name, along with three messages about readding it
 * GUtt01 removes name/sourcing in two 'Amendments' edits

All this reverting/removing+readding info by different users likely falls under edit warring, which yes, does become disruptive at some point...

I feel it is worth mentioning, I have had my own issues/debates with GUtt, some of which (I think??- haven't gone through and seen if my involvement ones are listed, lol) can be viewed in a past ANI discussion from this past July here. I honestly mean no ill-will towards GUtt, but it is likely worth mentioning at this point. Likewise...

I have no 'plans'/hopes for either the IP or GUtt to get blocked. While there does seem to be some behavioral issues (possibly coming from both sides?), what I will say is that both of them are very much the exact opposite of WP:NOTHERE. If this issue/debate is able to be resolved without any blockings required on either side, I'm all for it. Magitroopa (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Forgot part of what I had wanted to say... lol. Mainly just- I'm not sure why mentioning someone's name in an article really needs to turn into this whole big thing... If the show is at (let's just say) season 40 or something in the future where there's been dozens more participants/notable occurrences throughout seasons, someone could possibly be looking for this specific act and only be seeing, "a participant withdrew" with one source about it attached- A. This could occur more times in the future, and B. Although we editing here know to use/read through sources, not every viewer does.
 * Does it really hurt anyone that much if a name is simply mentioned in an article...? Magitroopa (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the honest opinion about me, and also appreciate you hold nothing against me - I approve of you highlighting that past ANI concerning me, and respect that. After a back-and-forth issue on the September 17, I concluded both myself and the IP had been irresponsible in this matter, regardless of whether each of us was right. My only concern though is that when I tried to advise the IP of my concerns on both of our behaviours, they didn't seem interested in trying to engage with me at all - they even deleted a message I put out the following night, trying to extend at least an olive branch in the matter. Whatever the dispute, I think I should have tried some discussion, but I don't think the other party shows any interest in at least trying to engage a discussion with me on the matter. GUtt01 (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Request ANI closure - I feel nothing will be resolved in the matter, so as nominator, I would like to ask for closure in this discussion. I've made the decision to end my involvement on Wikipedia as an editor. Whether the IP editor will do better if I am gone, I don't know. I thank the input from those not involved, as I think it has shown to me that staying here since my first block in 2019 is not going to be good. GUtt01 (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Sgweirdo's constant removal of contents without an edit summary
User_talk:Sgweirdo has racked up a large amounts of warnings regarding the removal of contents without an edit summary. The user has thus far refused to communicate, and is yet clearly aware of their talk page. They have previously been blocked for similar behavior.

I left a final warning on 16 September 2021, and yet the behavior persists, such as here and here in the removal of content while cleaning up pages.

While I am not requesting an outright block just yet as it's not strictly vandalism, I am hoping this report spurs them to begin to communicate with other users per WP:CIR. Seloloving (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, this guy again, I've warned him before in the past, I do find his edits irritating, he has been around awhile, but originally when he first turned up I thought it was a continuation of a banned/blocked user but didn't know who. Govvy (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , could you give diffs for a few edits that are actually bad? I'm seeing some that are perhaps questionable, and a lot that are entirely beneficial and within policy (such as the removal of an interminable number of "Mr"s from lists of names). this edit is probably mistaken (but see WP:INDICSCRIPT), but I'm not entirely sure that it justified an only warning. And yes, the lack of an edit summary is frustrating. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for checking up on the matter. I am aware that the user was cleaning up the articles in this editing spurt and had acknowledged that in my original report. That was why I was hoping that this report would spur Sgweirdo to respond to concerns rather than incur another ban.
 * As for WP:INDICSCRIPT, I was not aware of the policy but had issued it in good faith following the escalation of warnings by other editors, especially since many country pages do feature the official names, though perhaps in Romanised form instead of native script.
 * These are yet more examples of unexplained removal of content, which 1, 2, 3, 4. My original report had two same links, this was meant to be the second. 5 Seloloving (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The "only warning" is not due to a single diff, it is entirely appropriate escalation following months of persistent non-communication. There have been numerous other notifications and warnings. Edit summaries are one thing, this editor has not made a single edit to a talkpage, ever. This is despite having been blocked once before. Collaboration is required. CMD (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * These are yet more examples of unexplained removal of content, which 1, 2, 3, 4. My original report had two same links, this was meant to be the second. 5 Seloloving (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The "only warning" is not due to a single diff, it is entirely appropriate escalation following months of persistent non-communication. There have been numerous other notifications and warnings. Edit summaries are one thing, this editor has not made a single edit to a talkpage, ever. This is despite having been blocked once before. Collaboration is required. CMD (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

(User talk:Sgweirdo) 13:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey everyone! I would like to apologise for all the mess that I have did even though I thought my edits will be beneficial and helpful. Is it just my lack of edit summary bothering all of you or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgweirdo (talk • contribs) 05:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I noticed that you have begun to use edit summaries (Special:Contributions/Sgweirdo) and that's great. The main concern I had, and probably from other editors here, is your substantial changes/removal of content without an edit summary. Edit summaries help to allow other editors to better discern your reasons for your edits, especially when removing contents.
 * If you can begin to respond and communicate with other users who place warnings/advice on your talkpage, I see no reason to prolong this ANI any further and sincerely thank you for replying. Seloloving (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can begin to respond and communicate with other users who place warnings/advice on your talkpage, I see no reason to prolong this ANI any further and sincerely thank you for replying. Seloloving (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

User Yashamaga WP:NOTHERE
User is only be here to criticize Wikipedia's supposed bias on various talk pages. A few of their gems:.

It may also be time to protect Talk:CNN. Most discussions from the past few years are similarly disruptive comments/requests from IPs and new accounts, many of which are now blocked, and I'm not seeing anything productive coming from non-autoconfirmed accounts. On behalf of the Wikipedia arm of the Democrat party, ––dlthewave ☎ 01:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the jab "On behalf of the Wikipedia arm of the Democrat party" is really helpful here. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query Me!  02:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not. Dlthewave, please refactor that out of your statement; it comes across as provocative. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 06:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I've removed it. –dlthewave ☎ 12:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've restored it struck-out so that other editors can understand the discussion above (and in particular can understand that the first two responses are inane tone-policing of an on-point joke about the edits you're rightly complaining about). --JBL (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Been here for well over a year - has never made an edit to an article - every post is complaining about supposed left-wing / anti-white bias in Wikipedia (and, indeed, real life). Per WP:NOTHERE - "Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to use editing rights only to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance".  Blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Potential topic ban violation
I recently have come across Celebrities who have received the COVID-19 vaccine, which created and has been the primary contributor of. The user received a topic ban from biography articles in 2017 (which never got lifted) and was warned last February that continuing to violate it could lead to an indefinite block after already getting multiple blocks for doing so. Does this creation count as a violation of that ban? If so, then perhaps it would be appropriate to close Articles for deletion/Celebrities who have received the COVID-19 vaccine with a speedy deletion of the list. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 22:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Light Show's tban was reiterated to them on this noticeboard not even two weeks ago, let alone February. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 22:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Blocked for a year. They can't stay away from bios. Feel free to reduce or lengthen as desired. And I deleted the page and closed the AfD. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the block and closure. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 15:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Vanebbe
is very likely another reincarnation of the indefinitely blocked user User:Zerolandteam385. The editing behaviour is identical, and I have already added the Vanebbe account to the ongoing sockpuppet investigation page (Sockpuppet investigations/Zerolandteam385). This doesn't seem to bother the person editing with this account (which is typical Zerolandteam385 behaviour). Virtually every edit done by this editor is disruptive and has been reverted, I actually believe that the editor fails WP:CIR. @User:Sandstein, User:Mr.choppers, User:Druschba 4. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support for discipline: Vanebbe has recently created two articles about truck models belonging to The Autocar Company, namely Autocar A and Autocar 64 which are riddled with incorrect information. Speaking as an expert on this topic, I couldn't even begin to edit them. They should be deleted entirely. Sedimentary (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC) I just found a third article, Autocar_Xpeditor and deleted all the text except for a simple factual statement I added. The article may be deleted, IMO. Sedimentary (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support sanctions - an indefinite block would not be out of line. Vanebbe has made only one user talk page edit and (effectively) one article talk page edit; in the latter case, showing complete indifference to the gravity of a copyright violation. The user does not show any indication of heeding the concerns that multiple editors have raised regarding their editing.<P>I'm not certain that Vanebbe is a sockpuppet of Zerolandteam385, as the editing does seem somewhat more sophisticated. I would've opened an SPI long ago if I had confidence of sockpuppetry being involved here. But, in any case, this is probably a CIR issue as mentioned above.<P>Additionally, per Sedimentary, all of the articles created by Vanebbe are suspect and deletion should be considered. --Sable232 (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support This seems like an easy case for sanctions to me. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I am very much assuming that the account is a sock puppet. The editing behavior has remained the same in its basics, even if it has changed slightly here and there over time. I've been following the whole thing for several months, especially because of the many, very poor quality new articles on Russian vehicles. As an expert in this field, I would have liked to have many if not all of them deleted, unfortunately my time and my expertise in the en.WP are not enough. Regards, --Druschba 4 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I've been paying attention to this user for a while as their articles often end up in the new pages feed and usually have little to no citations and are usually copyvios or made up unsourced material. I thought I would spare them and not bring them up here because they had potential to improve, but it's just disruptive at this point as the user doesn't communicate with other let alone even acknowledge the messages on their page. <b style="color:white">Waddles</b> <b style="color:white">🗩</b> <b style="color:white">🖉</b> 01:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per above. dud  hhr  Contribs 19:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

108.249.25.71/16 persistent vandalism, POV, and BLP issues
This IP range has persistent WP:VAND/WP:TEST, WP:OR , WP:BLP and WP:EW  issues. Why would we keep this IP range as a project contributor given that they are a net drain on resources? Editor and admin time are wasted here over countless reports, unattended vandalism, etc. This has gone on for several years, without any blocks applied that I can see. The IP range includes consistent edits from a white nationalist POV, removing content or vandalising in leftist articles, adding unsubstantiated BLP material, etc. Am I missing something about this range? It includes many different geolocations, companies, etc (Verizon, AT&T, Comcast). Is it a set of proxies? ProxyChecker suggests no. Regardless, I recommend a block. Notifying the IPs I've referenced above.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Rogue Admin?
has unilaterally and inappropriately blocked me from accessing my own user talk page without warning or rationale.


 * "This attack, this revert where you prevent Valjean from fixing their own typo, and this revert + baseless claim of an insult, repeated here, all here on your own talkpage, are unbelievably petty, separately and together. Please note that Wikipedia including this very page are supposed to be for collaboration, not an opportunity for frustrating and abusing others. You have been blocked from this talkpage for 12 hours. If you wish to request unblock, I suggest either WP:ANI or WP:UTRS or appealing directly to me. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)."

In the process, it also appears he has also blocked me from all editing. As such, I cannot contact him on his talk page. No policy was cited. No warning was given. Just, bam, a block for removing content from my own talk page.

'''WP:REMOVED clearly states "Policy does not prohibit users...from removing comments from their own talk pages...", which is what I did. I am not obligated to keep snide/disparaging remarks on my own user talk page. It was under this criteria I did so despite hounding from another editor who wants to interject his commentary.'''

Had a conversation ensued, perhaps we could have talked about it and/or resolved it. Blocks should not be given out in this manner.

I am asking for the block to be overturned and editing privileges restored. Buffs (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "In the process, it also appears he has also blocked me from all editing." How did leave this post then? Also, you're required to notify  on her user talk page when you file a complaint here, even if it is ungrounded. Cabayi (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I can post here on ANI. I cannot post on his talk page or anywhere else on WP (otherwise I would have talked with him there). That's why I tagged him/pinged him above; it's the best I can possibly do. Buffs (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What happens when you to try to post to Bishonen's Talk page (Bishonen is a she)? --Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * shows that your own talk page is the only page from which are blocked. Cabayi (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC x bazillion) It appears to be working now and I was about to post and instead got an EC (thanks TNT for the notification). Buffs (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between just removing someone else's comment from your talkpage and doing that while leaving a personal attack behind, which is the reason Bishonen blocked you from your talkpage temporarily. Isabelle 🔔 18:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I find "User of unreliable sources" to be quite insulting and, if we're being this loose with the definitions, a personal attack. At a bare minimum, that's subjective and I'm entitled to my own opinion on the matter. I do not have to keep disparaging remarks on my talk page. I don't need to keep whatever headings and remarks people put on my talk page, especially someone who is gaslighting me. Even if you find that such a remark is (inexpicably) acceptable, a warning would be MUCH more in line than a block. Buffs (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Buffs, long time. Rogue admin? That nomenclature brings me back! But in fairness, you can't just do whatever you want on your talk page (i.e. if it is to expressly berate someone). So, while it is unconventional (new to me), I don't see an issue with the action itself if it is meant to prevent further disruption. As for block weirdness, that partial block targets your talk page only, so I'm at a loss as to why it would affect any other page. BTW, I've internalized your point (from years ago) about keeping detailed WP:ECP protection summaries (despite my dumb, reflexive protestations at the time), you'd be pleased to hear. El_C 18:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is clearly the easiest way to gain adminship. A lot easier than running the gauntlet of RFA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * El_C, Is that little snide remark really needed? Indeed, you did go rogue and your block of me was overturned...feels like a continuing grudge... Buffs (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Buffs, I'm not sure what you mean. Snide how? Complimenting you? Being friendly? Me not hearing the term Rogue admin in literally years? Not sure I know how to phrase any of that better. Also, I unblocked you myself, that block was not overturned (I think you mean at AE, where indeed, my non-block sanction of you was overturned, overwhelmingly, and embarrassingly so, for me). But, back to the now, you trying to clutch onto a faux typo of great offence, well, that's a major hmm from me. Self awareness and all. El_C 18:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, me as the rogue admin in relation to you. Of course and indeed. But, no, I meant that nobody uses the term Rogue admin anymore, it's very old school. Nowadays, it's just admin abuse — I know, boring and plain. El_C 19:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, point taken. We'll just go our separate ways with a shrug and a simple fist bump. Later. Buffs (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Dig it! El_C 23:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The last few edits before the block are remarkably petty, and it is decidedly disruptive to prevent another editor from copy-editing their own post, so a block from a single talk page for 12 hours is actually quite reasonable. I double checked the block log, and I'm not seeing anything there prevent Buffs from editing anything besides User Talk:Buffs. The justification of their edits based on WP:REMOVED is also quite silly, and entirely contrary to the basic spirit of WP:TPG and WP:CIVIL. If Buffs would recognize that they were being a bit much, I'd be willing to unblock. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As stated above, if this isn't allowed, I'll just delete it. It wasn't just copyediting their post, it was changing the meaning entirely from "this is how WP treats unreliable sources" to "you are a user of unreliable resources". And yes, he indeed is gaslighting the situation by pretending I'm somehow reverting in violation of WP:BRD when, in fact, he was the one who reverted. These comments are my opinions/assessments of the matter; they are no more personal attacks than his. Buffs (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll take you up on that. My intent at this point is to just delete it. Buffs (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's not going to fly, sorry. this was clearly a typo, but even if you're not extending that level of good faith, you reverted in the content containing the disputed source. Describing it as post-hoc revisionism isn't reasonable. You can challenge Valjean's characterization of the situation if you like, but your response was utterly disproportionate. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we have some wires crossed here. My assessment of his actions of gaslighting/WRT WP:BRD is in response to his OTHER edits, not those on my talk page. Buffs (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but the other conduct is irrelevant; your conduct on your talk page is why you were blocked, and your refusal to address it is why you remain blocked. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've stated both above and below that I will simply delete such remarks from anyone in the future as is directed by WP:REMOVED: "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages". Likewise, I'm not going to respond to Valjean. I'm completely disengaged from him from this point. The block no longer serves a purpose. Buffs (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ^7 Based on the diffs you've provided, you didn't simply "remove comments", though. If someone tries to fix their own typo to ensure they communicated what they intended, reverting that person's typo fix out of spite (I'm struggling to find a good faith alternative) doesn't fall under simply "removing comments". There's also the message you used when redacting, accusing Valjean of "gaslighting" and characterizing as "insults" things that don't really look like insults to me. That said, I think we usually give users a lot of latitude to, for example, redact comments (as long as it's clear they've done so) and vent on their own usertalk, so a block without warning seems a bit much IMO (and FWIW I'm not someone who typically says "but there was no warning!" for long-time editors who should know better -- it's my impression that this isn't all that far outside what many people expect to be able to do with their own talk page, so a warning seems like a good idea here). It's also not excessive enough (12 hour partial block amid disruption) to really object much either, though. PS: pronoun is your friend. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Rhododendrites. Buffs (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Block review

 * Endorse block  Perhaps OP should read WP:NPA Twelve whole hours? Talk pages are not our own. They are the project's and are to be used within such policies as WP:CIVIL.  -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 18:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A block without warning is excessive. "In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking, and it may be particularly desirable to communicate first with such users before blocking." Buffs (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * non-admin comment I would like to basically state what Deepfriedokra said about talk pages above but in my own words (That might be easier to understand). The Wikipedia project is the only thing that owns any talk page. They are simply letting us use user talk pages as a way to communicate with other editors on the account of us not violating any policies on them. If we violate a policy on a user talk page, the project can get rid of our ability to use it for any amount of time because they are the only ones who own talk pages. Technically, not even the founder of Wikipedia owns their own talk page. Blaze The Wolf &#124; Proud Furry &#124; Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorse block The policy against personal attacks applies everywhere, and the brief and lenient block prevents Buffs from engaging in personal attacks on the page where the attacks were taking place, and we can all hope that the attacks will not resume. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  18:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, so when I find something insulting or someone is gaslighting a situation, what exactly am I supposed to do? Do I just leave it there? Or is this a one-way street. Buffs (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not engage and definitely do not do the same thing back. Try and remain calm and take a break if you feel like you're getting mad. Blaze The Wolf &#124; Proud Furry &#124; Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Simply removing their message(s) and asking them not to message you again is perfectly fine. Such removal is even explicitly exempt from the edit-warring policy. Persistent messaging towards a user who has made such a request is usually treated as harassment when reported at ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So, I could hat the conversation, delete the conversation, but removing it and saying I find this insulting isn't acceptable? Buffs (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Endorse block per above.--Berig (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorse block per above. It's only 12 hours, why do you have to accuse Bishonen of being rouge?  dud  hhr  Contribs 18:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I reacted to that as well.--Berig (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Drama, drama. The section is gone, the block is endorsed by enough others to be kept until automatic expiry, should probably avoid messaging Buffs again and that's it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If Buffs had appealed the block to me (which was one of my suggestions) with something halfway decent such as "I was angry with Valjean, but I'm over it; I promise to use my talkpage in a collaborative manner", I would have happily unblocked. (Note that I do not by any means suggest they apologize, or admit they did anything wrong. No forced apologies for me.) As I would also have done, for that matter, if they had posted a decent unblock request here on ANI. But in response to this doubling down, no, I will not. I will say, though, that if any other admin feels like unblocking, they should feel free to do so without consulting me, or waiting for anything else. The block is so short that an unblock would need to be pretty quick to be meaningful, so just unblock if you want to. Bishonen &#124; tålk 19:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC).
 * As stated to the top of this page, I was unable to do so, or I would have talked to you personally first; I don't go to ANI. I suspect a transient system issue. Explaining what I did is hardly "doubling down", just giving my perspective on the subject. If it makes a difference, I found Valjean's comments to be offensive and gaslighting, but he isn't replying and I don't intend to use my talkpage for anything other than collaboration. In the future, I'll just delete remarks without commentary. Buffs (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Buffs way of communicating isn't ideal, but I'm not sure it warrants a (partial) block. At any rate, I think should have warned  Buffs first. If a warning would be ignored that could be followed up with a block, potentially for more than 12 hours in that case. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Claiming @Bishonen to be a possible rogue admin is a bit over the top similar to some of the nuances surrounding the talk page edits. It is wholly unnecessary to categorize them in this way whether you agree with the block or not. She acted out of necessity to stop a potentially escalating situation that was quickly becoming uncivil and disruptive for both editors involved. If both editors would remember that civility is not just a request but is policy and there is an expected etiquette when dealing with user talk pages then this wouldn't have been necessary. While all articles and pages here belong to Wikipedia and not the subjects or editors for which they represent, we do make allowances, such as if an editor requests that someone not comment on their user talk page or blanking a user talk page. I would hope that @Buffs would realize that the petty responses and small digs they are making at fellow editors is not really the way we want to approach building a collaborative encyclopedia. Likewise, I would expect that @Valjean will realize that @Buffs didn't take kindly to their remarks left and will refrain from doing so going forward. Even if they are justified in leaving remarks on the user talk page it has clearly been disruptive to the point that we are here discussing it over a 12 hour talk page block. This is just a genuine reminder to remain civil and show a little kindness and understanding towards each other, that's all. -- A Rose Wolf  19:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (repeat remarks as to address the correct person...) I did not "claim", I questioned whether she was going rogue. Obviously, several people here agreed that a warning was more appropriate, though it's not unanimous. Likewise, she did not act "out of necessity to stop a potentially escalating situation that was quickly becoming uncivil and disruptive for both editors involved". Both of us hadn't spoken in nearly 24 hours. A 12-hour block was unnecessarily punitive when simply talking to me would have been more productive and/or a warning would have been more appropriate. Buffs (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I read most of your interactions with @Valjean including the comments on other user talk pages besides your own. You both have been taking shots at each other. It was reasonable for Bishonen to conclude it may continue. I am not them so I can't speak for them and I may have acted differently or I may have acted the same. "Claiming" or "questioning" whether she has gone rogue when you at least had some understanding that wasn't the case by their response to you is just more of the continued goading and taking shots that has been going on here. Its not an effective way to collaborate and it is disruptive. Of course there are some that are going to disagree with the block. If there are a thousand human beings in a room you will get a thousand and one opinions. Everyone can have their opinion and they are all valid. All I am doing is reminding everyone to remain civil and show a little kindness.  -- A Rose  Wolf  20:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Most importantly, we've found something El C and I can agree on. "Rogue/rouge admin" takes me back, too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not "claim", I questioned whether she was going rogue. Obviously, several people here agreed that a warning was more appropriate, though it's not unanimous. Likewise, she did not act "out of necessity to stop a potentially escalating situation that was quickly becoming uncivil and disruptive for both editors involved". Both of us hadn't spoken in nearly 24 hours. A 12-hour block was unnecessarily punitive when simply talking to me would have been more productive. Buffs (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I also don't agree with "a potentially escalating situation that was quickly becoming uncivil and disruptive for both editors involved". As far as I can see, Valjean was civil throughout, and Buff's nonsense about Valjean "gaslighting" him is IMO just that: nonsense. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC).
 * Are you serious ? Valjean is being "civil"? Let's look at just his most recent remarks about me here at ANI:
 * "I have encountered skunks many times."
 * "so unpleasant"
 * "most unpleasant editors I have met here"
 * "leaving a misleading situation"
 * "This development is unexpected, but not surprising. It's karma at work."
 * "Unpleasant [person] who push[es] fringe and unreliable sources" (NOTHING I posted wasn't verifiable from other sources. NOTHING I put down was a "fringe" view in the slightest)
 * Right...and I'm the one being blocked for removing insults from my talk page. And Valjean doesn't even get a warning for calling me names (in this case a skunk..among others. This seems appropriate/civil to you? Buffs (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh... you think when I described, above, the interchange on your talkpage and Valjean's civility in it, I should have taken into account the comment Valjean would post here on ANI, below, eight minutes after my description? Really? I'll acknowledge that no, I don't think it was appropriately civil of him to mention skunks in the way he did; in fact, I wish he hadn't thought it necessary to post here at all. But that has little to do with what I said above. No, you didn't remove insults from your talkpage. That remains nonsense. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC).


 * Why are you arguing with me? I didn't say you claimed anything.  Indeed, I'm not contributing productively to the actual discussion at all.  While I'm here, though, I'd like to officially announce that "gaslighting" has joined "stalked" and "harassed" as words that no longer mean anything on Wikipedia, due to extreme overuse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing with you because I missed the spacing...arg...my bad. Buffs (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to ToBeFree for pinging me. This development is unexpected, but not surprising. It's karma at work. Unpleasant people who push fringe and unreliable sources tend to get blocked for any one of many possible faults. This all comes down to honesty and AGF, something Buffs repeatedly failed to do. They deleted my comment, leaving a misleading situation for later readers to see me in a bad light. I also made a typo in the heading of my comment and didn't notice it until later. When I tried to fix it, Buffs refused to allow me to fix it, which was another serious failure to AGF. AGF is a very basic and important policy, and admins should hand out more blocks for its violation. I have encountered skunks many times. Once one sprayed our dog in the face right in our open bedroom door in the middle of the night, whereupon the dog ran through the house desperately trying to rub off the thick yellow dripping spray on everything! We couldn't sleep in the house for two months and stayed in our travel trailer. I have also encountered porcupines in the High Sierras not far from Mount Whitney and stepped on a sea urchin at Brindisi. I now stay away from skunks, porcupines, and sea urchins. My point? When I encounter an editor who is so unpleasant and aggressive that I sense they are too emotionally inflamed to be worth approaching, at least not until later, I tend to back off and cease engagement. I wanted to apologize for misunderstandings about the BRD issue, a point I obliquely conceded ("It appears that the point is moot now, as the unreliable source has been deleted again."), but I could see that any attempt would just be rebuffed with more personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, so I stayed silent. That's where we are right now. It's unfortunate, but c'est la vie. I can survive without engaging with Buffs anymore. I can place them easily within the top ten most unpleasant editors I have met here since 2003 when I started here. Talk pages are for communication, preferably collaborative and explanatory discussion, but that quickly became impossible because of Buff's insistence on portraying me, and what they allowed to be seen on the talk page, in the worst possible light. That form of dishonesty and uncollegiality I can do without. -- Valjean (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , You can't tell me that you telling them they should not only not use the source they were using but also that they shouldn't read the source they were using wasn't going to be viewed as ill intended. That doesn't foster collaboration. If you want to say that the source isn't reliable then that's fine. That's based on policy. It's the extra stuff that is unnecessary and seems unkind. -- A Rose Wolf  20:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Like calling me a skunk? Analogous also to porcupines and sea urchins? Will someone at least put a warning on his talk page? (note that I'm NOT advocating for a block) I'd happily do that, but I don't want to be accused of any more ill-tempered acts. Buffs (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no. It doesn't work like this; these are unacceptable personal attacks. I've blocked Valjean for 12 hours; when writing the block notification, I stumbled upon their editnotice, which currently includes the text "This talk page is my territory and I assume janitorial responsibility for it. I may, without notice, refactor comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more accurately." I'm not sure if there's anything left to be said. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't endorse this block of Valjean. I'm not here to go tit-for-tat. I think a warning is sufficient. As stated below, I'm not going to engage with Valjean, but I also think a warning is warranted prior to a block (unless he's been warned prior and I missed it) and what's good for the goose... Buffs (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Warned prior... blocked prior, that is. I understand that this action doesn't make you happy either, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The block has been resolved amicably; to avoid further fuel on the fire, I have recommended Valjean to sleep a night over the whole situation before addressing it in hindsight. This is explicitly not enforced in any way, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Point of clarity I'm not going to engage with Valjean from this point forward. I ask that Valjean do the same by mutual agreement. A block from my own talk page serves no purpose at this time. Buffs (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Buffs says they're going to change their way of dealing with things they don't like on their talk page, and isn't going to engage with Valjean anymore, so I suppose there's some benefit to lifting the block before it expires, even if they aren't letting go of the "I was gaslighted" approach. I admit to admiration of the sheer out-of-normal-process-ness of the block, and note it does have support here, but it seems to have worked to some extent, Buffs seems to have learned what the community thinks of the behavior that led to the block, and seems to be getting increasingly annoyed that it is still in place. I doubt any further epiphanies are going to happen in the next 6 hours.  Since most admins are scared of Bishzilla, I suppose I'll be the brave one and undo Bishonen's block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Bishzilla? Isn't that a PA? Platonk (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Platonk, FYI: Floq was talking about the terror that is Bishzilla. El_C 23:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I know I'm late to this party, but I put a post (below yours). This spat about Buffs' user talk page is only the tip of the iceberg on what has gone on in the last 24-48 hours. It all started when I was editing articles to remove dailywire.com citations (GUNREL), and Buffs took offense to some of them. Valjean noticed the edits (how or why, I don't know) and Buffs started to attack . He tried to attack me and I just doubled-down on documenting why I removed the dailywire edits. Other editors also discovered and reverted Buffs edits. Buffs escalated his aggressions and I wanted to write something up (to where or whom, I didn't yet know) when I discovered this ANI. So there you have it. Can of worms opened. See all the shenanigans. And stop focusing on just a tiny spat about a single user talk page. Platonk (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Oops, forgot to ping . Platonk (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For some reason the ping didn't work, but I saw this anyway. I'm "focusing on just a tiny spat about a single user talk page" because that's what was presented in this thread.  I can't consider stuff you've posted after I've unblocked.  If this has calmed down - it sort of seems it has - then I don't know if further ANI action is useful.  If it flares back up, then make a separate report. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Endorse block and recommend BOOMERANG for repeated disruptive editing, edit warring, personal attacks, and deliberately and defiantly ignoring reliable source guidelines. For the last 24-48 hours, Buffs has been engaged in edit warring on these articles: Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant, David Horowitz, Scooter Libby, and Trump administration family separation policy. He has fought with on V's and Buffs' user talk pages, as well as on my user talk page. Despite several editors (including me) reverting his edits and pointing out to him the guidelines about unreliable sources, he has continued to remove reliable sources and replaced them with unreliable and marginal ones on the WP:RSP list. In addition to the fighting on user talk pages, he has been aggressive through edit summaries such as:
 * "accurate article does not need to be removed" (referring to a Daily Wire citation Buffs reinserted after I removed it)
 * "If someone publishes a statement using an "unreliable source" it is still viable as a source to corroborate that statement" (as Buffs reverted my edit where I had removed a GUNREL Daily Wire citation, and content that had already been covered elsewhere in the article)
 * "You don't get to suppress conservative views" (as Buffs reinserted 3 dailywire and 1 NY Post citation I had removed)
 * "Undid ... (suppression) by Valjean ... you showed your intent is suppression ... Repression of Joy Behar's insanely ignorant remarks are particularly galling/widely panned as idiocy/advocating random lethal violence." (as Buffs re-reinserted the same content Valjean had removed, while adding 10 more citations, OVERCITE)
 * "it's important to include how detached from reality her opinions are." (as Buffs changes my well-chosen citation-replacements and re-re-replaces his CITEBOMB)
 * Several other editors also discovered Buffs' reverts to be off-policy, and reverted them. I'm pleased Bishonen discovered some of Buffs' shenanigans. I would definitely vote for a BOOMERANG on Buffs. Platonk (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * If it had just been sources that were removed, you'd have a point. However, it was also content that was removed. My intent on dropping so many sources was to simple give a list to pick from; clearly it was taken as something hostile or stubborn... not my intent and perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been. In hindsight and with corrections since then, we have an article with the same text and better/more rounded sourcing (sourcing from ALL sides). If this result is to your satisfaction, then we're good. Buffs (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, "we" are not good. The place to discuss 'options' on citations is the article's talk page, not repeatedly reverting good faith edits and slamming in 10 citations into an article "so I could pick". See BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. And the point of NPOV is not to offer the reader 10 citations à la "primary source, left source, right source, and primary occupation source", but for the Wikipedia editors to present a NPOV wiki article based on what coverage is out there, appropriately balanced/weighted. Your alleged correction of the article is still wrong; I just haven't gotten around to documenting it on the article's talk page. You have already wasted a horrendous amount of my time over what seems to be your POV-pushing. Platonk (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Platonk, please take it down a notch. I think everyone is pretty spent with all the animosity. Throwing more petrol on the embers isn't the way to go. Rather, what's called for is de-escalation. El_C 23:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't patronize me! So let's see if I got this straight. Buffs goes on a two day edit war rant, repeatedly reverts a bunch of edits, refuses to follow wiki guidelines, posts "fighting words" over and over and over again, provokes Valjean and me and others, until Bishonen sees something and gives Buffs a slap on the wrist. Then Buffs escalates his tirade into this ridiculous ANI, tells his own side of the story, all of you others participate in an "lively discussion" where in the end Valjean is again provoked and revictimized, and at no point was the underlying issue discovered or mentioned... until I found this ANI... but because you're spent you want me to... to... what? I can't believe you wrote that dismissive utterance. Comments like that are why efforts to stamp out wikibullying never make any headway. Platonk (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Platonk, the intent wasn't to patronize you, that is your reading of it, which is in error. What I tried to do was to gently caution you exactly against continuing in this way. Everyone else seem to be disengaging, so why not you? I'll be more blunt, then: I, myself, am not spent, but my sense is that many here are. And, if you keep going like this, I will temporarily revoke your access to this page. Clear enough? El_C 00:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is it necessary for the community to endorse a block that's going to expire that would have expired in a few hours anyway? Mlb96 (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Which block? One was reversed hours ago on one editor while another was imposed on another editor. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Buffs's block would have expired a few hours after this section was created, it seems kind of pointless. Mlb96 (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Both editors are now unblocked. GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , if the community refuses to endorse a block it's a sign for the blocking admin that they should handle similar situations in the future differently. In really bad cases (which this wasn't), it could be grounds for a desysop procedure. For those things it doesn't really matter if the block will expire soon or even if it has already expired. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Late to the drama as they are already unblocked, but the block seemed excessive, a stern warning would have sufficed, kind of like the one above - if you keep going like this, I will temporarily revoke your access to this page. Clear enough?.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black">(talk)</b> 04:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering the number of early ECs, if nothing else, I guess writing an ‘enticing’ section title like “Rogue Admin” is a good way to get participation at ANI, regardless of merits. So that’s good to know, I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that's fifteen minutes I'll never get back—thanks for writing that rogue admin was the title—I kept scrolling back, but not that far, and not finding rogue admin. Guess there are a million ways to make ANI a time sink. N eonorange' (talk to Phil) (he, they) 18:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It's the Wikipedia version of clickbait. Mlb96 (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

backlogged AIV, one rampant IP
Hello. The AIV is backlogged, and no admin seems to be looking at it. There is one particular IP which is vandalising continuously like this edit. Would someone please take a look at it? My button to block the IPs seems to be out of order again. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Pitzzaboy
This user has continued to disrupt Wikipedia through copyright violations and disruptive editing. Pitzzaboy has been warned countless times by other users, such as, , and , for copying within Wikipedia without attribution. Most recently, they have created Draft:Tropical Storm Ana, which was a blatant copy-paste from 2021 Atlantic hurricane season without attribution. Pitzzaboy has also edit warred recently on the Typhoon Chanthu (2021) article, while claiming that his article should not be deleted because it was his work and his work alone. This comes after at least one warning regarding edit warring. Finally, Pitzzaboy's talk page contains of nearly one dozen warnings spanning from August 2021 to the present. At least one ANI report has existed in the past month, as well as one 3RR report. Enough is enough, and this warrants an indefinite block. Destroyer (Alternate account) 15:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on reading their contribs and their user talk page I tend to agree with @Destroyer. It may be that they don't understand how to be a constructive editor here but they also don't seem to be willing to or are unable to learn from past mistakes even to the point of doubling down on them. I would hope that they could accept constructive criticism and guidance but history says otherwise. If anyone sees how this could be remedied without a block I would be in favor of that. The disruption can not continue. -- A Rose Wolf  16:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * An alternative is mentoring, but I honestly don't that that that will help based on this user's responses as well as their actions on my talk page (partially blocked from editing it). Destroyer (Alternate account) 16:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be worth directing them to WP:REUSE which seems to be the most pertinent policy here; if they have any trouble with it then CIR applies but it's worth giving them a fair shake at seeing the difference between public domain and our licensing on contributions. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 16:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea . Thank you! -- A Rose Wolf  16:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Gave the editor a final warning. Will not hesitate to indef as he clearly did not learn from the prior block. Star   Mississippi  20:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Pitzzaboy
has been repeatedly creating and re-creating inappropriate articles, despite several warnings. They have created multiple poorly-referenced and unreferenced stubs about WP:MILL topics, including 2021 Pacffic Coast heat wave [sic], List of Campgrounds in California, July 2021 California wildfires, and Rutherford Beach, Louisiana. They are currently edit-warring their latest article, 2021 California floods, out of draftspace despite three editors (,, and myself) telling them it is not ready , , ,. They are already partially blocked from 2021 California gubernatorial recall election and User talk:Destroyeraa for disruptive editing. At this point, a full block is warranted. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * By my quick count, Draft:2021 California floods has been moved 7 times in its short life. That's the editing aspect of Pitzzaboy's contributions that I am familiar with. This seems to be a recurring problem among some editors with incidents seen as weather/environmental emergencies. I don't think an indefinite block is the answer but maybe a limited one so that the editor sees that move-warring is never a smart move. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 21:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , to be clear, I'm not advocating an indefinite block. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's another section about this editor allready open above: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Merged, thanks. Pinging, who threatened to block above if disruption continued. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be barred from moving drafts to article status. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I had protected 2021 California floods for a week before deciding on a one week block. I have no issue with that being shortened if there is consensus and the editor starts to communicate that they understand how to edit collaboratively, or extended if they double down. this is notable enogh and AFC allsow isn't for natrual disasters shows they both misunderstand consensus and Wiki policies as I can't find anything to indicate AfC is limited to one category or another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Mississippi (talk • contribs)

Serial sandbox spammer
This IP editor is spamming the sandbox with an external link to a game and trying to block bots to prevent having it automatically remove. IP was reverted once by an admin but restored the link shortly after. Several IPs over the past few days have been removing the links added by this IP and others yet the spam has continued. Can someone please limit the spread of this spam? 2600:1003:B8DE:FBCA:5DBF:2823:5829:56D9 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the report IP - I have blocked and reverted them ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's more than 1IP, there's been a whole range of them doing this spamming for at least a week. see also 176.59.11.52, 176.59.21.9, 176.59.55.254, 176.59.54.143, 176.59.55.228, 176.59.67.15, 176.59.83.76, 176.59.73.52 etc. 176.59.7.0/16 seems to get them all but that's quite a large range, someone with more skill with IP addresses might be able to figure out the exact range they're in. Perhaps a partial block from the sandbox would be appropriate? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Alternatively perhaps stick the site in the spam blacklist? I don't think there's any legitimate reason to be linking to it. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good idea... I've dropped a report at WikiProject Spam which will at least generate some automated reports on its use etc. Will follow it up shortly with a SBL listing ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Could use a partial rangeblock of the /16 from the sandbox if they come back. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

IP with nothing better to do
Hi administrators, I would like to request your to block this four IP (211.198.20.71, 211.198.20.145, 220.121.35.62, and 220.121.35.39). All four points to Incheon, South Korea when checked with GeoLocate feature. These four IP has been going around articles such as My Little Old Boy (majority) and List of My Little Old Boy episodes (partially), and other articles such as Start-Up (South Korean TV series) and changing wikilink linking to correct article to disambiguation page or to the wrong article. These has been happening for months, in which 211.198.20.71, 211.198.20.145, 220.121.35.62 has been blocked before for the same thing. Below are a partial list of diff I have compiled.

211.198.20.71

220.121.35.39

211.198.20.145

220.121.35.62

If possible please help to block the whole range, as they already spawn 4 IP, hence it is highly possible, the same person behind these 4 IP will keep coming back. Thanks and regards  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  01:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Non admin Comment Comment 2 separate range blocks would have to be imposed because 220.121.35.0/32 and 211.198.20.0/32 aren't part of the same range. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#0001 01:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Blaze The Wolf Yup need to block two seperate range.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  15:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I blocked 220.121.35.39. The other IPs have not edited recently. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Johnuniq Thanks you for the block. If the same person return back with new IPs or using back the old IPs, what is next course of action I should do? Do I re-open this report or create another report referencing this report?  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  04:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * On the talk page of the article most affected, put a brief and neutral statement (don't abuse the IP) explaining what recent edits are problematic and briefly why. Ping me and I'll have a look. If I don't respond in a day or two, post on my talk. Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Johnuniq Ok understood, will do post on the most affected article talk page (most likely would be Talk:My Little Old Boy) if the same issues arising again. Thanks you for the help.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  06:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz block

 * Blocking admin.
 * Blocking admin.

It appears that user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was blocked by Sandstein for WP:PA and/or incivility. Multiple editors have posted reservations about the block:, , , , and all appear to have concerns about the block. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has posted an unblock request. Those involved can provide the details. Perhaps this is something the community can resolve. I will notify Sandstein and HW now. — Ched (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * As blocking administrator, I remain of the view that the block is appropriate. As I wrote on the user's talk page:
 * On 22 February 2021, blocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for six months "per consensus at ANI, violation of civility-related editing restriction". This block and the ANI closure that led to it  was uncontested, which establishes that the civility restriction (contested by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) was and is in fact in force, as described in the ANI closure.
 * About a month after that block expired, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz notably made the following personal attacks at Articles for deletion/Mary Lee's Corvette: they accused the AfD nominator of "institutional misogyny", of "careless, destructive editing that shames Wikipedia yet somehow never seems to embarrass the editors who commit it", and of "sloth" . These are severe and unacceptable personal attacks. It is quite possible to express disagreement with an AfD nomination without resorting to such slurs.
 * In light of the existing civility restriction and the previous six-month block, another block of at least similar length was required and appropriate. I oppose unblocking Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at this time because their unblock request reflects that they still do not understand and will not abide by Wikipedia's civility policy, which makes the block an appropriate preventative measure against such misconduct.
 * In my view, personal attacks do not need to cause visible drama to be sanctionable. It is enough that they create an uncollegial, confrontative atmosphere that dissuades others from contributing to Wikipedia. I've been closing a lot of AfDs and I see a trend of people increasingly viciously personally attacking AfD nominators for supposed faults with the nomination. This disrupts an important Wikipedia process and stifles discussion, and I will continue to take appropriate action if I witness such misconduct as AfD closer.  Sandstein   14:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Unblock statement:
 * First, I did not make a personal attack on the AFD at issue (which Sandstein did not have the courtesy to identify in the block notice). I I specified and criticized the AFD nomination; the sharpest comment was that the nominator "didn't perform the most perfunctory WP:BEFORE search". That is a comment on nomination practices, not a personal attack, and similar comments are made in XFD discussions regularly.


 * Second, a six-month block for what was, at worst, a borderline comment that is routinely deemed acceptable is plainly abusive.
 * Third, while Sandstein did not mention it in the block notice, his block log entry indicates that the block is based on a purported community "civility restriction" that was never imposed (or even properly proposed). No such restriction exists. Sandstein is apparently referring to this 5-year-old interaction ban, which was logged only as an interaction ban, after being proposed only as an interaction ban ("I propose that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be banned from interacting with SimonTrew"). All other logged community editing restrictions which incorporate such a civility-related editing restriction are logged as a "type" including an editing restriction. The supposed "civility restriction" was not imposed by the community, but was merely a unilateral comment by the admin who closed the 2016 ANI discussion. The closer had no authority to add his own preference to the community decision. For five years, no one treated the "civility restriction" as anything but a single admin's opinion -- because it was only a statement of opinion, not an enforceable sanction. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo).  Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC) (copied from talk by — Ched (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC))
 * My goodness. Can we please get'em to shorten his signature? GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess "filth" would be longer than "dirt". But, as for Hong Kong, that ship has already sailed, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Good block - those were clear personal attacks from an editor who has a history of being blocked for personal attacks. Others should stop excusing the behavior. Levivich 14:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Decline unblock Does not address the reason for the block. And this is unfortunate, as I had hoped to unblock. We are all under a civility restriction. I'm afraid appellant needs a clearer understanding of WP:NPA. One can disagree with another editor without proposing character flaws as the reason another has done something one disagrees with. Appellant might wish to review the WP:GAB.  -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 14:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Overturn Reading the AFD comments in light of it being an AFD (and in light of the 2016 incident that led to the restriction), I'm having a hard time seeing the comments by HW as being directed towards the person of the nominator rather than the intentions/behavior/contribution of the nominator, which is something that can be discussed and dissected in that manner. HW's concern is not about the editor themselves, but the broader factors of how WP policy impacts articles related to women (which is fully valid). That said, in terms of HW's comment above, I don't think its right to dismiss the 2016 civility warning as "never imposed". It is logged on that page, part of the closer's statement and is supported in a few of the !supports in the original discussion stressing the need for civility. --M asem  (t) 15:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Since when is it acceptable to comment in an AFD on the intentions/behavior/contribution of the nominator? Levivich 15:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen cases when it's appropriate to say: "malicious nomination", "revenge", etc. (Please don't read it as support for unblock!) — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  15:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If it were the case that the nominator was a user HW had a previous known and ongoing tussle with, I would agree that these specific comments in the indicated AFD (like "institutional misogyny") could be read as personal attacks. I just don't see clear evidence that there was any interaction issues that had existed previously to make that judgement call. It's definitely borderline in how it could be read, but I'm finding it really hard to find that the intent of HW's comments were meant directly at the specific editor and more a general frustration at AFD and sloppy nominations. --M asem (t) 16:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact a restriction exists should make it clear and obvious to HW that coming remotely close to any civility line is likely going to get him blocked. "It's borderline" isn't a good enough defense in such a case. --Izno (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good block Per Levivich's comments and the apparent history of HW.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 15:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could yas get'em to shorten his signature signing? We're talking WP:SEAOFBLUE, folks. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * He was brought here a LONG time ago for that reason, ended up being closed with either no consensus, or, consensus that he did not need to change it. I think. If someone else wants to find the report that would be nice.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 15:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But it was without the Hong Kong part then! — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  16:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It breaks no rules? Can't actually yet be seen from space? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to reinforce something that came up here. It's been argued that there was no "stir" after the alleged personal attacks, and nobody complained, thus there was no need for action. I want to strongly reject that idea. It doesn't take working with many new users to find one that stops editing a page, is scared off of editing it to begin with, or quits Wikipedia because of tolerated open hostility/aggression (from someone who is so aggrieved that they wear their anger in their signature, in this case). I say "new users" because it's relatively common in my experience, but I also know seasoned contributors who would feel extremely uneasy when confronted with that level of hostility. No, we should not require people to stand up to people acting inappropriately in order to identify inappropriate behavior. That said, we have a policy against personal attacks, not hostility and aggression...Bringing accusations of misogyny into the argument was a bit much (it wouldn't be an issue IMO to make a point about systemic bias and even institutionalized misogyny on Wikipedia, but it was directly aimed at the nominator/nomination), and it's there that I think some sanction may be within admin discretion. But most of that style of !vote, which goes after the nominator in this way, is not unusual. We have an entire project whose members do this routinely, with little or no sanctions over the course of years.So I find myself torn. It was a bit over the top, but one could be forgiven for thinking we typically allow nominator-focused comments at AfD. Perhaps a reduction (without calling it a bad block). What I'd like to see from Sandstein, who I think as a rule exhibits excellent judgment at AfD, is a clear statement that this approach won't be tolerated anymore, perhaps even at WT:AFD, so we can avoid this ... confusion? in the future? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I partly contributed to that argument you reject, I think it's worth clarifying my intent. I agree that in general we don't need to look to how a comment is received in order to evaluate whether it crosses the line. I brought it up because it struck me as strange that it sat for two weeks collecting dust with no one saying anything about it. That just doesn't feel like the situation where blocking on-sight is the ideal solution. I'm not saying we need to stick our heads in the sand and pretend HW is any random AfD contributor who gets a little overzealous, but given the lag between comment and admin action it's worth looking at the statement in context, and (lack of) response is part of that context. Like any part of context, it's hard to generalize, and in plenty of cases it may well be useless for various reasons. Ultimately, I think we reach the same conclusion by different means, and I strongly agree with your last paragraph. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good block I agree with Levivich. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment- The distinction between "the nominator is sexist" and "the nomination is sexist" is pedantic, a distinction without a difference, particularly since there's nothing in the nomination to suggest there actually was any sexism. I agree with Sandstein: I'm seeing more and more attacks against the character and motivations of the nominator- the goal isn't to discuss the merits of the article but to make people feel bad and guilty for even thinking of nominating at AfD. And I respectfully disagree with part of Rhododendrites's conclusion: just because the community has historically permitted insults and smears provided they're prefaced by the word "keep" doesn't mean we're required to keep doing so. This would be a good opportunity to draw a big red line through this odious practice and say that there'll be no more of it. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 16:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good block. If this was a one-time thing, maybe we could cut him some slack. But HW has a tendency to dance around the line between civil and uncivil comments at AFD somewhat regularly by commenting on the nominator, not the content, in contravention of WP:NPA.      -- Calidum  16:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am with Sandstein and Deepfriedokra that this appears to be a good block and to decline the unblock. -- The SandDoctor Talk 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good block, and I was tempted to raise the fact that HW almost immediately violated his civility restriction when he returned from the most recent block here, where I found his behavior egregiously in violation of it and WP:NPA in general. Grandpallama (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The more I learn about this, the more I move towards the idea that the block was correct. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the block. I was one of editors heavily bullied by HW a few years ago and wholeheartedly supported his 2016 ban. (Do I remember the year correctly?) It is still obvious that HW sometimes struggles to behave politely and avoid showing his contempt to fellow editors. But the incident in question was of such a negligible gravity – this type of comments are a standard (an unfortunate one, but still) at AfD forums – that I have hard time finding any rational justification for such a heavy-handed sanction. Even further: I fully agree with  who reminded that HW's words, even if not overly polite, were directed at an editor causing significant disruption to Wikipedia. Overall, thus, I view the block as unjustified. —  kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  16:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. As a non-admin I am not sure if I can vote here, but I too oppose this block under these circumstances. The comments made at Articles for deletion/Mary Lee's Corvette were precipitated by making rapid nominations of many articles at AFD without enough time in between nominations to indicate any sort of WP:BEFORE could have been done. The accusations made at the AFD were largely justified in my opinion; although they could have been expressed more calmly and kindly. Further, these sort of comments are routinely ignored and accepted AFD, so singling out Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for behavior we normally tolerate in others (no warnings, etc.) seems to be hypocritical on the part of the community.4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Were they only nominating articles on woman? Unless that is so the accusation of misogyny is undefendable? Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I am somewhat sharing the sentiments expressed by 4meter4 above as I did on HW's talk page. While I can see why Sandstein took issue with the comments, I don't know if a 6 month block so soon after the last is proportionate. Some of the phrases and tone is inappropriate, or at best, ill-conceived and it's perhaps touching the line of incivility rather than incontrovertibly crossing it. I don't think a 6 month block is going to achieve much, frankly and it feels more like dusting something under the carpet to deal with later than actually considering a resolution. I am not an advocate of HW and I do not really feel strongly enough to forcibly oppose the disproportionate sanction, but I do wonder whether the considerations should be based around a long-term resolution even if, when factoring in wider concerns beyond this AfD, that leads to something indefinite, but not irreversible. If just expressing a view on the comments in the AfD alone, then I couldn't express support for the sanction imposed. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to throw in a bolded opinion here but it's worth noting for those who feel that the comments were perhaps mild or not enough to warrant action, this comes after editing restrictions have already been put in place and subsequently breached prior to this. Surely once bitten, twice shy—or, several time bitten, even more times shy—should really be the approach for an editor who's already been sanctioned for this before without us needing to debate where the line is every time. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 17:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the block was clearly within administrator discretion given the previous restriction. --Izno (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: Are editing restrictions only imposed by ArbCom or community consensus? Because I'm not seeing a community consensus for the original editing restriction; out of the 14 editors who gave support for sanctions in the original 2016 ANI discussion, I only see two editors suggesting such a thing. I'm struggling to see how nobody protesting the close comment equates to community consensus in favour of it. – 2 . O . Boxing  18:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorse due to the accusation/personal attack made in the AfD. Number   5  7  19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose block. A block made SIXTEEN DAYS after the comment was made? Nope, sorry, regardless of any edit restriction.  Purely punitive after that amount of time. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Even if one concludes that the comments were not a personal attack on the nominator they go against the pillar of civility we are all expected to edit under. Civility covers much more than comments obviously considered direct personal attacks. The fact is that one could get their point across without resorting to saying the things that were said. The comments were unkind and divisive. They weren't meant to be instructional or helpful. They were meant to ridicule and tear the nominator down. I am a woman. I believe women are misrepresented. I see it. I believe women do face body shaming and are judged based on appearances and appeal in some cases. I've experienced it. But tearing into a fellow human being on this encyclopedia isn't going to change that. The fact is that the comments directed at this nominator of this AfD did no woman any favor anywhere in the world. It only created an unkind, uncivil and toxic situation that was extremely unfortunate and does not represent the type of collaboration I believe we want as a community. -- A Rose Wolf  19:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not thrilled with the previous 6 month block and this one is also questionable IMO. But yes, for sure HW has serious civility problems and seems unable to keep them under control.  A claim of misogyny had damn well better be clearly documented otherwise it's going to be purely a personal attack.  Given the prior 6 month block, I can't really claim the duration is crazy.  Still, I think one week or one month might be more appropriate.  I don't know that it will result in change, but it's easy enough to block again.  As I note, I rather like HW and largely agree with them on nearly every issue.  So maybe that colors my view. Hobit (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I also don't think the basis for the block, a community consensus for an editing restriction, is really in existence per SCB. Wrt Black Kite, I think this is more a pattern of problems and this AfD was just one.  I would normally agree that 16 days is far too long, but I've seen similar problems from HW in the last month, so I'm more open to the latency than I normally would be.  Hobit (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , can you really look at this discussion (and the previous ANI discussion) and assert that it would be "easy" to block this particular user again? If blocking them generates this amount of drama, better we have it every six months instead of every six days.  Sandstein   20:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get it. But part of the uproar is that 6 months is a long time.  Overall they have a very light block log (much shorter than I'd have expected honestly).  Last block was at least a community discussion (though I don't agree with how it was closed).  This one seems out of proportion for the offense. Better to have another community discussion than a single admin blocking for 6 months. Hobit (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose block - if the lad hasn't been vandalising articles, edit-warring or socking. As for WP:CIVIL, NPA, etc? I'm not one who supports enforcing them. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose block - whether it's a personal attack or not is questionable, but two weeks and change after the fact? How is this not punitive? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , it is not punitive because it does prevent further personal attacks in AfDs for six months. These would otherwise be very likely, given the lack of recognition of the problem in the unblock request, and similar recent comments by the same user, e.g. "you're not contributing intelligently to the AFD process and should stay away (...) sloth is not the secret sixth pillar of Wikipedia" . What would be punitive would be to block or to keep the user blocked after they recognized their error and promised not to repeat it. That is still an option open to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, but the fact that they have not chosen to take it confirms that the block remains a preventive necessity even at this time.
 * As an aside, there's also this: "The AFD process would be greatly improved if any NOMINATOR who cited NOTINHERITED without understanding it was topic banned for a month, length doubling with each subsequent offense." So, given that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is of the view that AfD comments to which they object are bannable offenses, and that sanctions should double in length each time, I should maybe have blocked for 12 months instead of 6...   Sandstein   20:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's incredibly disingenuous under the circumstances. I think you know full well what HW meant there and the overly clever sarcasm is unbecoming. Everyone should object to disruptive AFD nominations that intentionally misinterpret or misrepresent policy and guidelines. And editors who do so repeatedly (and to make a point) should absolutely be blocked. Calling that bahaviour out should be the stuff of barnstars, not blocks.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose block if you want to change someone's behaviour, modeling the desired behaviour is more effective than sanctions. Sanctions at this point just prove that aggression will be met with retaliation. Is that the behaviour that we want people to learn from observing how other editors behave? Of course not. Vexations (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to change HB's behavior, I want to protect everyone else from it, which the block accomplishes. Sanctions aren't about reforming the offender (WP:NOTTHERAPY), they're about stopping the offender's disruption. In this case, the disruption was personal attacks. Levivich 22:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorse and their response is also an endorsement. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Given my comment on the unblock request, it's worth noting that my thinking has changed somewhat since Sandstein's reply to me. While I wouldn't go so far as to say I endorse the block, I certainly view it as within the realm of admin discretion. I agree with Rhododendrites above that reducing the duration might be worthwhile, but I do not believe this was a "bad block" per se. I also don't buy into the wikilawyering about "community sanction"; WP:CIVIL applies to everyone and we shouldn't need to hold someone's hand through that. As practical matter, every editor is under a "civility restriction", we just list it as an editing restriction because some people seem to forget that the policy applies to them. So even if we removed the line, it's not some technicality that allows HW to evade consequences. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose block - A block made SIXTEEN DAYS after the comment was made, purely punative, as per Black Kite. Bit sorry to comment really as there are users that have said that they would vote against anything I supported but this block is excessive. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to seem like I'm singling your response out but it's just the latest of a few to mention the time frame. The block was clearly issued by an admin who saw the comment when they were closing an AFD two days ago, there seems to be no sense of deliberately waiting to act. We seem swift to lose sight of AGF in that regard yet are happy to assume it in spades for an editor who has clearly already been made well aware that they need to watch their civility and are not even close to their first infraction related to it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks, I accept your point but it is also true that no one had complained about the comment for sixteen days. Govindaharihari (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect people don't complain about personal attacks at AfD because, although "user:suchandsuch is motivated by misogyny" would be considered a personal attack, experience has shown that commentary like "keep- nominator is motivated by misogyny" is exempt from WP:NPA. When I've raised objections to ad hominems at AfD I've been ignored by the closing administrator probably 90% of the time. So I wonder if complaining about such comments would do any good or whether I should even bother. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 08:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose block while the comments were a bit aggressive they were also a bit misplaced as I don't think he realised he was accusing a female editor of mysogyny and he probably meant tabloid coverage should not be needed for female artists which is a valid point. Perhaps a warning to avoid adhom comments which if broken could be followed by a topic ban from AfDs is a way forward, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose block per my comments on HW's talk page. I made my comments there (partly) in the hope that the blocking admin would reconsider, resolve the issue there, and that would be the end of it. C'est la vie. I said, there, that the more I looked the stranger it seemed. We're talking about a block two weeks after the infraction, with no suggestion of the sort of disruption this block is supposed to prevent in the intervening period. The comments themselves were (in part or in whole, including by me) endorsed by other editors within the AFD itself. I actually went back to check if that disruptive nomination had been closed and instead found struck comments and notes about HW having been blocked. To be clear, the "institutional misogyny" was apparent to me too, regardless of the gender of the nominator. We're talking about an easily notable band with a female lead singer, but the article was described as being "promotional" despite clearly not being so. The reality is that the nominator in question has an absolutely terrible track record of drive-by nominations, zero regard for WP:BEFORE, and incredibly lazy nominations that rarely accurately reference policy (in fact, a full 30% of their deletion nominations are closed as Keep). But nobody seems interested in addressing that. I commented in another AFD that every one of their nominations should be met with a wall of copy-pasted "Keep per WP:BEFORE" until they finally got the message or were blocked. Instead, those who call out and openly oppose their disruption are blocked. That's some pretty misdirected mopping.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 10:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * oppose block purely because it came too long after the offending comments - if it had been done sooner then I would fully support. Given HW's history, I suggest we make it clear that any further personal attacks, whenever they are made, will result in indef. Also get them to shorten the signature before we unblock. GiantSnowman 10:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good block. This is a user who has skirted the line (and crossed it) many times after having many restrictions placed, explained, enforced... Two weeks is not that long in my opinion, given that, per, the block was applied at the closing of the AfD, when all comments were read. Maybe it would have been out of order if it had been weeks after the AfD closed, but this is just a ban applied to a PA made when the discussion had ceased. The added context of the discussion close likely helped determine the merits (or lack thereof) of the block, and thus it was imo entirely appropriate to block when closing. If the admin had blocked prior to the close, others may have seen it as a retaliatory stifling action, preventing HW from participating in an ongoing discussion, and attempting to influence the result! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether it affects your !vote is something I have no way of knowing, but the AfD seems to have been closed at least a day after the block was issued (at least that's what the time stamps indicate to me). It also appears that additional comments specifically referring to the block were made in the AfD, which is something that wouldn't seem possible if the block happened after the close. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would call it "peri-close" in the same sense that we refer to "peri-operative medicine" AKA "at the time in and or around the closing action." Clearly someone was reading the discussion in anticipation of closing it. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is accurate either. The admin in question relisted the discussion. Then, a few minutes later posted a block notice on HW's talk page, then a few minutes later returned to the AFD to strike HW's comments. Two days, and four additional keep !votes later (including one from an admin reiterating that WP:BEFORE had been ignored by the nominator), it was closed by someone else .  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on this very accurate reading of the events (thank you, I had not gone back in detail, only skimmed the AfD and the struck comments), I would just say that the block was applied after discussion had largely ceased or slowed. So I don't think the block had any substantial effect on the discussion itself, which is the important point imo. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I said on HW's talk page that it looked very strange and I wasn't kidding; I think the block fundamentally changed the balance of the discussion. It was 4 keep !votes to 2 delete, with agreement among the keep !votes that the nomination itself was deficient. The admin relisted the discussion and then struck one of the keep votes (along with substantive criticism of the nomination, effectively re-validating the nomination). So the admin relisted a 4-2 discussion that probably should have been closed, and then made it 3-3. But whatever the intention, they closed the same discussion just 2 days after relisting, now at 7-1, citing support for sources that were in the discussion when it was relisted.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I said on HW's talk page that it looked very strange and I wasn't kidding; I think the block fundamentally changed the balance of the discussion. It was 4 keep !votes to 2 delete, with agreement among the keep !votes that the nomination itself was deficient. The admin relisted the discussion and then struck one of the keep votes (along with substantive criticism of the nomination, effectively re-validating the nomination). So the admin relisted a 4-2 discussion that probably should have been closed, and then made it 3-3. But whatever the intention, they closed the same discussion just 2 days after relisting, now at 7-1, citing support for sources that were in the discussion when it was relisted.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * support block his first interaction with me was a belittling, cliquish remark about “wasting our time” here: Articles for deletion/Borderlands 5 and he has a history of political soapboxing and generally being extremely abrasive and loudmouthed without showing remorse. I don’t think he should continue to just get away with behavior like this. Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The post HW made in that AFD was this which seemed to have been supported in principle by the others !voting in that AfD. It might have also been a reflection of some of your other AfD nominations you made around the same time like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian James Freeman. Whenever you AfD articles, you're going to often be expected to demonstrate you done a reasonable amount of WP:BEFORE; this is particularly the case when you're AfD multiple articles from the same genre around the same time. So, going through all of the steps in WP:GDBN is a good idea because "WP:BEFORE" comments (even "waste our time" ones which are fairly mild as such comments go in my opinion) happen a lot and usually it's because of WP:NEXIST types of reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose block To block for six months for comments made two weeks previously it would have to be an unequivocal personal attack, and I do not believe HW's criticism of the AfD nomination cross the line, as Masem says above. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure I agree with the length of the block, but I also don't think the blocking admin necessarily acted in a punitive manner just because of the timing of the block. The blocking admin doesn't seem to have been WP:INVOLVED in the AfD and it appears that he just came across it in the normal process of closing discussions. The blocking admin did strike through the AfD comments that he felt were NPAs as part of the block; so, it's clear he felt something beyond a warning needed to be done. Perhaps the thing to do here would be to shorten the block with one last clear and final warning than any repeat will not be tolerated. I get that some might feel that enough WP:ROPE has already been given out, but I also get that some editors get really ticked off when they believe articles are ending up at AfD for the wrong reasons. I do think such concerns, however, need to be expressed in a more WP:CIVIL manner and after some point an editor shouldn't need to keep being told this. So, maybe a shorter block (two-week perhaps) and one final community warning might be in order which clearly states that either the inappropriate behavior will need to be modified once and for all (even if it's only done begrudgingly) or WP:OFFER will effectively be the next outcome. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel this is a reasonable block and length given the previous history. There's a strain of institutional misogyny underlying this nomination is a pretty clear attack on the nominator. It is those kind of comments that create chilling effects at AFD and that get ignored far too often. That it wasn't reported earlier or that there was a delay in enacting the block doesn't really seem to be much of an issue as it appears clear the blocking admin blocked soon after they came across the comment. The fact that it wasn't reported early and the defending of these comments above to me highlights the major issue we have with civility here. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Block - Coming From the tp of HW, I believe expressly noted the block is due to incivility / WP:PA. I think the block is only logical. I I believe this isn’t necessarily about a comment made in an AFD. Rather, due to an aggregate of repeated offenses. I’m not particularly good at diff finding so I’d just reference this particular ANI discussion which involved  filling a case of Wikihounding (I believe that was even the name of that entry) In that ANI thread, One1 makes a proposal which HW refers to as “nonsensical” I warmly tell HW that calling Onel's proposal “nonsensical” isn’t polite and quite uncivil, what did they do? They replied me with calling my comment (analogy) “silly”. For an editor who has edited here for 15 years that is rather alarming and worrisome. Having read entries made here, it seems as though their incivility at that ANI thread isn’t an isolated behavior, rather, I observe a pattern of incivility which is indicative of an editor who is incompatible with a collaborative project. In-fact in that ANI I observed their custom signature was somewhat passive aggressive. I believe this is a good block, I’m also  echoing  Celestina007 (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Decline unblock. That HW was correct about the underlying issue--that the band's notability was easily established--in my view bolsters the case for a block. Low-information AfDs are a regular occurrence. To the extent that they're a problem, you deal with them by educating the nominator about WP:BEFORE, and addressing the problems with the article. If the nominator doesn't get a clue, then you might restrict them from deletion discussions. Accusing them of misogyny creates a distraction and does not help the encyclopedia. You could argue that Sandstein acting on the comment created the distraction, but I would suggest two points: (1) we don't know how many editors silently refused to take the bait, or walked away, and (2) if HW keeps making such remarks, eventually someone will publicly register their offense, and then we're back here again. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Take the bait" of the nomination? We want nominations like that to be speedy closed and snow closed so that they don't waste the community's time. We want editors to walk away and refuse to participate in nominations like that. What we don't want is reinforcement of the idea that when you make a disruptive nomination (or hundreds of them) you'll be protected by admins from those who call out your disruptive behaviour.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1
 * I apologize for the lack of clarity. I was referring to editors responding to perceived inflammatory remarks. You can't assume that no harm was done just because no one publicly responded. Mackensen (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, except plenty of people publicly responded... and several endorsed them.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Block - Having just returned from being blocked for incivility, you would think that one might be more careful about their tone. Which does not appear to be the case with HW. Incivility does not only mean personal attacks. I don't think the timing of the block in terms of when the comment was made is relevant. Incivility doesn't have a statute of limitations. If a comment was an attack and/or uncivil two weeks ago, then it remains uncivil today.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 00:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment While I don't have a particular view either way if the block was right or not, I do think that six months is too long. FWIW, I'd support reducing it to one month. Maybe this should be on the table if Wolfo makes another attempt at requesting an unblock.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The block length can be reduced to zero, all HB has to do is tell us he'll comply with civil and npa policies. Given that after a six-month block for incivility he was repeatedly uncivil again within a month of the block expiring, this block should have been indef. Wikipedia sanctions aren't an internet justice system where we mete out block lengths in proportion to the severity of the offense; the point--the only point--is to stop the disruption. If six months didn't stop it last time, there is literally no reason to believe that one month (or another six months) will stop it this time, especially in light of HB's response to this block and the last one (that's also why 16 days isn't a long time in context). Unless HB can edit in compliance with WP:CIVIL, they should not be editing at all. Levivich 19:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good block regardless of whether that particular AfD !vote was uncivil, this editor, coming off a six month block is incivil John Pack Lambert is engaged in a personal jihad on Wikipedia, thinks a nom should be topic banned for making an argument s/he didn't make: The AFD process would be greatly improved if any NOMINATOR who cited NOTINHERITED without understanding it was topic banned for a month, length doubling with each subsequent offense and believes AFD has become a cesspool of internal politics. This is not an editor whose conduct is conducive to collaborative editing. Star   Mississippi  01:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to quibble, Star, but HW's account of JPL's off-wiki activities was accurate and "struggle" pretty accurately describes JPL's stated motivations for some of his recent conduct (see "Mormon" drama), that nominator absolutely did make that argument (and got zero support for their misinterpretation), and holding a view of the way a particular part of Wikipedia is currently operating (and not an inaccurate view, really) isn't uncivil. In fact, it's rather ironic that HW was blocked here for calling out conduct that kinda proved his point.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Good block AfDs are not the proper place to litigate or resolve wider systemic social problems. The lack of representation of women, gender non-conforming people, Cambodians, or any other group that is under represented on this platform will never be solved by people name dropping said groups in AfD discussions. In the meantime, calling out nominators about it does nothing except create a toxic, hostile work environment. Anyone who contributes to either should be blocked for doing so. Especially if they are as unwilling to tell the community they will comply with the civility and NPA policies in the meantime as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been. I'm willing to support a shorter block period or no block if Hullaballoo Wolfowitz takes responsibility for their actions though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good Block - their unblock request basically mimics their sig, administrators treat me like dirt, so how can I be at fault? HW is a long term user and knows that WP:CIVIL is policy. If they want to be unblocked, submit another unblock request, acknowledge the communities concerns, and give a commitment to change, or in the alternative, sit out the six month block.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black">(talk)</b> 07:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

AceUofT - refspam and copyright problems
In June, was cautioned about WP:SELFCITE, warned about copyvio's , warned about WP:REFSPAM   , and eventually brought to ANI (thread). However, they were eventually rather blocked for sockpuppetry (SPI). Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, they were unblocked by on 19 August.

Since they resumed editing on 9 September, they have been engaging in the exact same behavior that got them to ANI in June. Being an 'ace' on the UofT or the University of Toronto, all 16 of their edits since being unblocked add bits of information sourced to a work by University of Toronto professor Shafique Virani.

Like before, some of these edits are good, but many of them are also clear violations of WP:SELFCITE in that they are putting undue emphasis on Virani's work and research interests. It's not always clear if it's relevant, and taken together, they're certainly excessive (cf. some of my revert rationales  ).

Moreover, they also engaged again in a blatant copyright violation.

One of the problems is that they're not communicative: the only edit they ever made to their talk page was blanking a warning message. I think we need an indefinite block, if only to get them talking. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 04:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * to be fair, if it is their own work it isn't a copyright violation (they simply need to release it via the proper channels). However, their behavior looks to be disruptive - not saying they're WP:NOTHERE as I could see why they're doing what they're doing to try to improve the encyclopedia (goodness knows we could use more actual experts) - but it seems like a block is necessary if they refuse to communicate (though I wouldn't support any permanent sanctions as long as they address the concerns raised). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Elli: Yes, I'm largely with you: they're not exactly NOTHERE, and the most important thing is that they address the concerns. Two things, however: 1. I don't think they're Shafique Virani himself (the quality of their edits just isn't up to par), but rather some kind of 'fan'. 2. Even if they were Virani, he has already handed over the copyrights to the publisher: except in open access and the like, academics generally don't hold the copyrights anymore over their own published works. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 13:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I apologize that you found my edits to be disruptive. If you have any issues with particular edits, I would be willing to discuss on my talk page. I also appreciate your undertanding that I have not been editing in bad faith. Overall, all edits were posted with the intention to improve the quality of the encyclopedia for its readers. As you noted, the incident of June 2021 was investigated by the arbitration commitee, who resolved to unblock my account. Thus, I do not believe that the systematic reversion of my edits is warranted. Regarding the alleged copyright violation, I do not want to create unnecessary issues over a single edit, so I have no problem with its removal. Dr. Shafique Virani is one of two living scholars whose research focuses on the Post-Alamut period of Ismaili history. The other such scholar is Dr. Nadia Jamal. Any research on this and related areas is heavily dependent on the work of these scholars. I will also be adding contributions from other authors in the near future as well. I hope you find this to resolve any concerns. Thanks. AceUofT (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello AceUofT! Thanks for commenting here. I too believe that systematic reversion of your edits is not warranted, and have in fact gone to considerable trouble to make sure that your good edits were re-reverted. But the single-minded adding of blurbs combined with a ref to Virani is problematic: not only are there other scholars who deal with post-Alamut Isma'ili history (Farhad Daftary and Daniel De Smet are just two names), most of your edits are not to pages about post-Alamut Isma'ili history, and what you are adding is often irrelevant and out of context. Also, could you please clarify whether you have any personal relationship with Shafique Virani or not?


 * With regard to the copyright violation, what you need to understand is that this is not just a regular editorial decision whether to remove or not: adding copyrights-violating text to Wikipedia is potentially damaging to the project, because it could lead to legal issues for the Wikimedia Foundation. It also takes considerable effort for other editors to keep Wikipedia free from such text. It is a serious violation, and we need to be clear that you will not do this again, not even once. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 18:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Apugsama. Thank you for your efforts in re-reverting some of these edits. As I mentioned previously, I intend to add information from other authors in the near future as well, including from those you refer to. Again, if you take any issue with particular edits, I am more than willing to discuss these on my talk page, or on the talk page for the relevant article.


 * Regarding your question about my personal relationships, Wikipedia is a public platform and there are obviously privacy and other concerns with disclosing information about any personal relationships, or lack thereof. I do not expect you or any other editor to publicly disclose any information about your personal relationships, regardless of your editing activity, and I hope you will extend the same courtesy as well. I will add that even editors of reputed academic journals do not expect contributors to disclose information about personal relationships (or lack thereof) with the individuals they cite. I appreciate the effort of many editors on Wikipedia to keep the information free of copyright issues. I do not intend to post any copyright-infringing materials on the encyclopedia. AceUofT (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , have you read the guidance at PAID and at COI? If not, please do so, and indicate that you have understood and will abide by it.
 * Contributors have a right to privacy, yes. However, they are obliged by the Terms of Use to declare if they are editing as a part of their job, or in the expectation of receiving compensation. Furthermore, if they are editing about subjects that they have a personal connection with, they are expected to declare a conflict of interest, and are encouraged to use edit requests on talk pages rather than make edits directly.
 * So, in other words, you are not expected to disclose information about any personal relationships unless those personal relationships overlap with the subjects you write about here, in which case, you are expected to disclose that. I maintain my privacy by refraining from editing about subjects that I have any personal connection with. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  12:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to note that the unblock from ArbCom was simply a judgment that the rationale for the previous block—namely, that the user had abused multiple accounts—was mistaken. We advised AceUofT that they could restore some of their reverted edits, but that this must be done as part of the normal editorial process. That includes being responsive to fellow editors who bring up good-faith concerns, and adhering to conflict-of-interest policies. AceUofT, I echo the good advice you've been given above. --BDD (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

History of Iran
History of Iran kept on using he/his pronouns 1 after I openly stated 2, in a discussion involving History of Iran, that I prefer they/them pronouns after History of Iran had already used he/his pronouns addressing somebody they don't even know several times, including on this page.3. After said discussion, I also put it as a preference on my talk page. Further, although they once 4 corrected themselves later on, History of Iran has remained aggressive with me, even after a heated discussion took place and administrators were involved. If they don't want to say sorry, I would like if they were at least less aggressive, stayed civil *and of course called me the way I asked to be called.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is getting tiring now., sorry for bothering you again, but you seem to know this user, could you look into all this? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * HistoryofIran in Wikipedia there seems to be a pursuit of justice, and it is not a bar were you call your friends to help you against someone. The fact you "know" El C or are more experienced than me doesn't give you more rights, either. I think you have to understand that not everybody can always agree with you, and that not all who disagree are "vandals" or "against democracy".--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. No diffs or anything of the behavior being complained about? Just one instance of HistoryofIran correcting themself and the ANI thread they started earlier as evidence of aggression? This looks like wp:BATTLEGROUND to me and probably deserves a WP:BOOMERANG.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ermenrich, I did provide diffs. Or you can call males females and females males in Wikipedia? I mean, is that etiquette?--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You provided only one diff of HistoryofIran misgendering you, and also added an ANI thread where it has already been discussed. The only other diff is HistoryofIran correcting themselves. You have now claimed History of Iran has remained aggressive with me despite providing no evidence of this. One diff of being misgendered is not enough to bring a case to ANI, and evinces a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, especially when considering you are already under a topic ban for personalizing disputes in another area.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally link #3 above is for an edit that happened before you stated a preference on pronouns. I agree that no one should assume anyone's gender, and that's something a lot of editors are trying to learn so I cannot apologise for them,. That being said most editors would likely assume a user with the name of Haldir is male, since it's a male name. However using a link from the day before you indicated a preference doesn't support anything. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 22:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't assume bad faith. Some users make genuine mistakes, and it is better to talk it out with them before opening an AN/I thread about the matter. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't use he/him as a default. It used to be acceptable in English, but it has stopped being okay in recent times (for good reason).


 * Re to Ermenrich: I forgot to provide the most recent diff (showing the misconduct) in my first post [1], so I don't get you. I added the link to the thread to show that a)they used he/his pronouns and b) I asked them not to do so. The diff that I had forgotten show they did it again, after I asked them not to. There is no WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I'm seemingly not able to get History of Iran to be less aggressive and cooperate, and the lest time I tried to talk with them they reported me here (I guess that was reasonable?), so I came here.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Editors have no gender. Humans behind the wiki-accounts do have gender. If it really bothers somebody about having a certain pronoun used on them? Then merely request that you be 'always' addressed by your user-name. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Canterbury Tail well, technically. But yes, I get it. Okay User:MJL, got it. Thanks for the intervention and sorry to have disturbed you all for this.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To all: this, again, is the forgotten diff [1] User:GoodDay that'd be just fine, the fact is I asked to be (always) addressed a certain way and also published my preference to be (always) addressed as such on my account and it was ignored. I shouldn't have given up on discussing it with them and shouldn't have come here this quick.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Man (man?), I'm glad I missed this one. It almost certainly would have been unpleasant (again). El_C 10:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hahahhah, El C... Not even mass-murder Che was that biased tho. What has become of Wikipedia? Incredible, discussion was closed. You "missed" this one, yes. I used the sentence "No man," which is what we call a "frase fatta" in Italian. Or maybe I don't understand English that well? Because I heard several times women say "hello guys" and "No, man" to other women and to men in English. Regardless, I asked History of Iran, and all others, to use specific pronouns, and they failed to do so.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Uh huh. El_C 11:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's all fun to you, always joking even in edit summaries. But (I don't know how, when, who) you are an administrator, and it should be no fun. It's something  very important.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. Anything else? El_C 11:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes: why you wish to discuss so much? For example, this matter was closed, and you could've intervened earlier, just as you could intervene in the above incident involving same users. But you "missed" all this. I don't see the point of coming when it's all done and reopening discussion when it was closed.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion was not closed. Closed = / . And you, as the OP, are pretty much excepted from determining such closure, in any event. El_C 11:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? Cool, also elsewhere? If so, please tell Iran as well. If the discussion wasn't closed, then you shouldn't have made "fun" and ambiguously throw a stone (criticism/provocation) and walk away. You should've taken a formal position, and explained it.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd rather tell you something, Haldir Marchwarden: don't go out of your way to be unpleasant to folks and there'll probably be less ANI threads which feature you in some way or another (though my sense is that there's probably still WP:TE conduct accompanying this, never a good mix). El_C 11:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) El_C, I already told you, I think, that I look forward be advised by most admins, but I do not care for your advice. How is my editing tendentious? And what it has to do with History of Iran using wrong pronouns after being asked not to do that? Am I in the wrong section?--Haldir Marchwarden (talk)
 * I look forward be advised by most admins, but I do not care for your advice + Am I in the wrong section? Wait, are you or are you not asking for my advise? I'm getting conflicting signals. El_C 11:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Haldir is legit reverting me for the sake of reverting me now. Is anyone watching this?   --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, pretty much textbook WP:HOUNDING, even if singular (?). El_C 11:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It is not for the "sake of reverting". Please, do keep good faith. I disagree with your POV and your additions. You reverted me as well at the same article and I immediately used the talk page. Why you can't just do the same? Also, this has nothing to do with this section.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not. I wish that you steered away from me. But if you are to get involved with me and intervene in matters like this, when your friends call you up, no less, thus apparently hurting yourself as well (we sharing the same feelings) at least do it properly. You had avoided to get involved so far. Then you came for a dig after other editors/admins had their say and the thing was pretty much settled.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I'm exposed. And it also looks like this in response to "I do not care for your advice" indent above. In any case, for a user whose response to me suggesting they acquaint themselves with "the basics" was: I am not able to study them now and in the future, you sure have a lot of advise for others. And are edit warring. And WP:HOUNDING your content opponents, and otherwise trying to get them in trouble (this thread). Your propensity to escalate for naught may not have been picked up by some participants above, I suspect, though. El_C 12:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:HOUNDING? I'm watching that page, there is a discuss going on, user edits after their POV, I disagree, and I am WP:HOUNDING? But Iran was right in following me to Avicenna from Sogdia and disagreeing [1], right? You are using two weights and two measures. And why you are making this personal against me? "No user is innocent" and whatnot, but you have not once addressed the matter at hand. What is it you want to do here?--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * More projection from the individual who responded to me above with Not even mass-murder Che was that biased tho. What can I say? It sort of speaks for itself. El_C 12:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, now blocked, didn't see that when writing the above. Anyway, while Che obviously isn't a pronoun, on 11:50, 7 September 2021, I told Haldir Marchwarden that: the C in El_C does not stand for Che (indeed, easy mistake to make, kind of like the name "Haldir"). They acknowledge this on 11:57, 7 September 2021, writing: sorry for the misunderstanding, then. But then, on 20:15, 8 September 2021, they write: I just hope Wikipedia is in good hands. Or at least not in Cheguevara's and Ahmed's hands. Again, it rather speaks for itself. El_C 12:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have strong assumptions about their political (reactionary) views if they are not hesitating to bring those views into this discussion. Whatever your beliefs are regarding Che or anything else related to politics, this isn't the place to express them @Haldir Marchwarden. maybe you should focus on the ANI case instead. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ZaniGiovanni, Haldir Marchwarden has been blocked, so they are unable to respond here. El_C 13:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * El C I didn't notice the block, my bad. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to have assumptions about their political beliefs: Haldir has user boxes against communism and "all Marxist thought". While it's good they've been blocked for edit warring, the kind of tendentious, wp:UNCIVIL behavior we've seen here leads me to believe this is not the last we'll see of this individual on ANI and that some further sanction will be needed.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It all comes back to the direction Wikipedia is going in, concerning gender-pronouns, userboxes, trans, binary etc etc. Be it editors themselves or articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @GoodDay: You aren't being helpful here. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I've said it once before and I will say so again; no one on Wikipedia gets topic banned for no reason. User:Haldir Marchwarden received a topic ban less than two weeks ago . What does that tell us? It tells that said user's recent editorial pattern is marked by WP:TENDENTIOUS edits. It becomes apparant that they haven't quit the tendentious way when one takes a proper look at said users recent spree of edits at the Sogdia, Talk:Sogdia, Avicenna, Talk:Avicenna pages, and the general way of speaking to other users (including admins). Looking at the compelling evidence, it appears said user tries to force other users into kow-tow in order to shove WP:UNDUE weight into articles; RfC's, the undo button, and responding with tl;dr or out-of-context responses every single time someone writes a sentence. That's the general modus operandi. Now, evidently, when Haldir Marchwarden realized that the RfC at the Avicenna page was heading towards an undesirable outcome (i.e. the majority listing sound "oppose" arguments), they started to revert more edits that expanded on the long-standing sourced revision. Looking once again at the compelling evidence, I fail to see how making structural violations of WP:BATTLE, WP:CRUSH, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, etc. is a net worth to this project. Take a look at the dozens of similar users who have been indeffed throughout the years due to their disruptive behaviour and please tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The personal attacks and hounding which is very easy to see in this discussion has been compounded by the socking which continued that on other articles. When I issues the month-long block for socking is was just for that reason knowing that there is an ongoing discussion here. Haldir Marchwarden appears to be only here to disrupt and harass other editors (WP:NOTHERE) and so an indefinite block would be appropriate. If there's no disagreement in a little while, I'll block the account indef unless another admin beats me to it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Callanecc, sorta fair enough, I guess. But you didn't announce your block here, in this ANI complaint, until my objections at the SPI report. To sum up my thoughts there, both your recent blocks of this user seemed like a total disconnect. As if the user is some sort of a tablua rasa: first, a 24-hour edit warring block in isolation of everything, then a one month socking block also in isolation of everything (including the previously mentioned 24-hour edit warring block that was still in effect at that time). Do you need me to elaborate further? El_C 11:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Point taken absolutely! I've looked up to you as one of the admins who I feel does the job well, evenhandedly and with the right emphasis so I've absolutely taken your comments to heart. Other admins who've commented in this thread are and have been, of course, free to to take any action they see fit, the block log shows pretty clearly the two (limited) reasons I blocked them (EW & socking). It's not wheel warring, or in bad taste, to close this discussion at any time with an indef or to ask me about it for clarification, which you did and so I commented here with more detail. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Callanecc, flattery will get you... everywhere. Thanks, I appreciate your kind words very much and am otherwise impressed with your ability for introspection. El_C 12:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Awwww, I love it when I see two admins getting along in the wild and sometimes tumultuous environment that is Wikipedia. Watching all the flattery is just an extra bonus. ;-) Good show and thank you both for all that you do. I mean it, thank you. -- A Rose Wolf  17:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Just don't look at the subsection directly below, then, ARoseWolf. For the record, I actually didn't want a communication breakdown, but more often than not it's better than responding in un/kind. El_C 17:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Eyes averted! I see nothing! lol You both are intelligent, kind and respectful people. Sometimes the best thing to do is walk away from the conversation. It's also one of the hardest things to do. -- A Rose Wolf  18:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Sock?

 * This new user, who joined and immediately posted on Haldir's talkpage to give him moral support and support his talk of "mass murderer Che", , and then voted his way in the RfC at talk:Avicenna, , and has also made one more Sogdian related edit  looks like a sock of Haldir.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The new user voted the opposite of Haldir. Also, you must notify the user of this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I was unaware that that applied for ducks. I also didn't realize they voted the opposite of Haldir - however I'm still fairly certain they're Haldir's sock. They've also voting against calling Avicenna "Persian", which is the very point of Haldir's edits, even if they've also voting against calling him Sogdian. They are therefore only superficially voting against Haldir. Also: why would a "brand new user" show up to give Haldir advice and defend them in exactly the time period that Haldir was blocked?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The oppose vote at the RFC, can easily be an attempt to throw off suspicion. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * From previous experience with a potential sock, I noticed that sometimes socks wouldn't sign their comments, and later edit explicitly stating in their description “signed my comment” or "signed comment". Hmmm, new innovative ways I guess to throw off suspicions. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You might have missed this, but Haldir explicitly stated their pronoun preference at the start of the main thread. Please stop misgendering them. --bonadea contributions talk 14:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * IF this turns out to be a sock of Haldir's? The they/them pronoun would take on a new meaning. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Ermenrich I was gonna say that lol. I had 's talk page watchlisted, and I saw that reply from . I was confused, thinking who was that and whether to reply or not (they didn't even ping me). But upon checking the contributions and age of the account, it's most likely Haldir's sock. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Best get an SPI done. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Usually ANI is faster though.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23, I don't understand why you've shut down the discussion here, without an explanation save a link to the SPI report. What was the purpose and how did it help, if you don't mind explaining. El_C 10:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm actually puzzled you should ask, but I can see above and at the SPI that you've gotten what you wanted, and if undoing my close is yet another thing you want, I think it's silly but have no objection.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever. El_C 13:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Followup and proposal
I was not sure where to add my thoughts, so I just created a subsection. Given this SPI investigation confirming Haldir Marchwarden of sockpuppetry and all the previous issues, I believe an indef block is warranted.
 * Support as proposer - per my comments above, Haldir's personal attacks and subsequently no recognition of wrong doing (some might even say defense), the SPI confirming them as a sock , and @LouisAragon's comment above. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The incivility displayed in their interactions with El C, History of Iran, and others, as well as the use of multiple sock puppets means that an indef is warranted.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for the persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, including incivility and socking. Levivich 14:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Don't want to pile on per se, but this user took a series of wrong turns, from POV-pushing, to incivility, to sockpuppetry. I think all of these three should be met with indefs much quicker and cleaner on this project (just my general view, not criticizing any particular admin's actions here: I realize these are hard decisions to make, and that following up on a blocked user is hard and unpleasant work), but given the combination of them, the only appropriate action now is a full CBAN. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NOTHERE (which includes the recent show @ SPI). - LouisAragon (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm forgiving of many things on the 'pedia. Sockpuppeting, isn't one of them. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support this is a nail in the coffin of Haldir Marchwarden's activity on WP. It looks like pure trolling.  Wario-Man  talk 03:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"I am unambiguously accusing you of racial bias"
With apologies for coming to the drama board, this comment by ‎SteveCree2 appears to be far over the line of what's acceptable per WP:NPA: Yes, I am unambiguously accusing you of racial bias. 

I'm not even sure from the context whether they're accusing me of being anti-White or anti-Black, but in either case there's nothing they've pointed to that could begin to justify this remark.

For context, they're also in the midst of an edit war, currently at 4 reverts over the past 24 hours. I could certainly have brought this to WP:EWN but didn't want to forum shop –– and the aspersion seems like the more serious offense. Perhaps just a stern warning at this time? My concern is just that they need to understand that this type of behavior is incompatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia.

Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * For absolute clarity. @generalrelative is whitewashing the 'JamesFlynn' article, in my opinion, in both senses of the word. They are the only editor which has commented at the article who does not feel that the notions that black people make inferior parents, and inhabit an inferior sub-culture, are controversial enough to be included in the article. Their comment here implies, disingenuously, that they have come across an edit war (see "they're") in order to convey the impression that there is consensus against my edit. There were edits and discussion; all at Page Talk. SteveCree2 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I mean, it's obviously over the top, but doesn't seem out of the blue to me. The context seems obvious to me. Generalrelative, as well, you are substantiating yourself poorly in that discussion. You say it's WP:UNDUE — why? I'm not really liking seeing WP:ONUS used as a blunt instrument to stifle normal editorial work. El_C 17:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * SteveCree2, please take it down several notches. Also, please review WP:INDENT. Your comments on that talk page do not flow well because, like here, the threaded structure of the conversation is absent/broken. Thanks. El_C 17:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that Generalrelative's editing is "racially biased", but I can understand why his removing this from his article (which is a reliable source based on Flynn's own words) may be interpreted as whitewashing. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * El_C and Black Kite: Fair enough. I’ll leave off editing the page for the time being if others think SteveCree2’s addition is DUE. As to whether their remark merits a formal warning, I think my view is clear but I will respect your decision if you feel it’s unwarranted. Generalrelative (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It's 'obviously over the top'? Black people make inferior parents and are part of an inferior sub-culture? It's over the top to call that out? Fuck off. I've changed it back because that's the right thing. I really don't need fucking charity. And have a word with yourselves. SteveCree2 (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Considering the preceding comment and this from the talk page, I think a block is warranted. - MrOllie (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * SteveCree2 continues to edit war on the article, repeatedly reinstating the new content he added. I think I was the third editor to revert it. Levivich 21:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd just like to congratulate everyone involved on that one. Good work, people *rolls eyes* Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean: an account with 300-some-odd edits added controversial information to a BLP sourced only to one source, was reverted by multiple editors, edit warred, was uncivil, reported to ANI, and blocked (thanks Bbb). Pretty typical stuff for a DS area, and the disruption was handled efficiently. What am I missing? Levivich 22:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I feel bad about how this turned out. I wish I'd been more patient and tried harder to see where SteveCree2 was coming from. I still agree with Levivich that the addition was undue (and probably misrepresents Flynn's view by taking phrases out of context), but I see now that it came from a place of genuine concern. I hope that when SteveCree2 returns we can work together to address issues of anti-Black bias in the encyclopedia. Not because I think they need fucking charity but because that's something I'm also profoundly motivated to do to improve the project. Generalrelative (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Although at the same time, I think you shouldn't have to put up with unambiguous accusations of racial bias because you think something is WP:UNDUE. Levivich 22:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe Bill Cosby got into some kinda trouble years ago, commenting on roughly the same thing. Can't remember his exact words, though. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Need a block
Per this edit and username, def WP:NOTHERE. Not sure if a revdel of that edit is required or not, but I'd suggest one considering the racist overtones.  He  iro  06:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeffed and revision deleted. In future, WP:AIV is thataway. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  06:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll try to remember that the next time a similar situation arises.  He  iro  06:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

User:This is me Jarvis
100% of this user's edits are disruptive, especially removal of sourced material without adequate explanation. (The true explanation seems to be that they are aggressively whitewashing and promoting a particular POV regarding various Indian media figures.) A quick glance at their contributions shows repeated edit-warring. They've been warned multiple times, and blocked twice (most recently for 2 weeks). They have never attempted to discuss any edits. I request an indefinite block.

(Anyone who would like to see diffs of their behavior: please click the "contribs" link above and select literally any edit since their last block: every single one is either part of an edit war or removes sourced content.) --JBL (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, blocked. That was an easy one. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 12:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Perfectgupta and Dare2Compete




User Perfectgupta seems to have started editing on 14 September and is doing nothing but moving around pages that are about Dare2Compete, an Indian platform that was previously promoted by, a user who was blocked in 2018. Perfectgupta may have hatched out of a duck egg that was laid by Dare2Compete. Request an administrator to block the user and to dispose of the feathers. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Why dispose of the feathers when you could make them into a nice pillow? In all seriousness, if they are really only moving pages about Dare2Compete then this might be a single purpose account/single purpose sock. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#0001 16:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that making the feathers into a pillow is a good disposition. I agree that the account is a single-purpose sock and have opened an SPI.  The sock can be stuffed in the pillow along with the feathers.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Request that User:EEng provide an image. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Perfectgupta blocked indef by User:Athaenera. Thanks.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's User:Athaenara actually ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#0001 18:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked IP might need talk page access restricted
The IP 50.200.92.120 (who was blocked for disruptive editing) might need their talk page access restricted because of some of the edits they've made to it. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#0001 16:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Done by Widr. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * THank you! THey simply just popped up in recent changes while i was doing anti-vandal work and I saw that some of the comments they left on their talk page after being blocked weren't exactly all that nice. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#0001 16:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

IP 204.174.106.14
IP is clearly WP:NOTHERE, as evident by his/her tendentious editing which has been ongoing for a whole year;

28 August 2020 - Removed the Georgian and Kurdish connections of the dynasty, kept the Armenian one

26 October 2020 Added 'Armenian' and replaced 'Iran' with 'Armenia'

5 December 2020 - Replaced 'Persian' with 'Armenian'

12 March 2020 - Replaced 'Iranian' with 'Armenian'

12 March 2020 - Replaced 'Iranian' with 'Armenian'

13 May 2021 - Removed information regarding the Parthian connection with the Armenian god Aramazd

20 June 2021 - Removed mention of other ethnic groups from the Caucasus, added Armenian

6 September 2021 - Replaced 'Iranian' with 'Armenian'

6 September 2021 - Replaced 'Iranian' with 'Armenian'

6 September 2021 - Added 'Armenian'

13 September 2021 - Replaced 'Georgian' with 'Armenian'

15 September 2021 - Replaced 'Iranian' with 'Armenian'

15 September 2021 - Replaced 'Persian' with 'Armenian'

15 September 2021 - Removed mention of Persian culture

18 September 2021 - Replaced 'Iranian' with 'Armenian'

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * . A history of long term disruption from this IP. El_C 12:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

IP edit warring
An IP editor is edit warring at United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. It's believed to be the same editor that was blocked several months ago and has occasionally sought to IP-hop to reinstate changes to some specific sections of the page. A previous investigation identified a couple of the IPs and the article was protected. As there is now extensive edit warring can the IP address please be blocked:. Another editor has requested page protection as the individual has hopped IPs a couple of times over the last few days. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 16:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Cambial and your likely meatpuppet FDW777 are the ones edit warring. I'm just adding to the article to improve. I would point admins to Cambial edits all reverts of anyone that disagrees with him which is everyone but his meatpuppet FDW777. If you can say what's factually wrong in what've I've added but ye probably can't wee fella as you just want the article to remain in stasis as if you own it.


 * Seems a bit wobbly grounds for a sockpuppet claim, just everyone they don't agree with they claim is a sockpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.2.89 (talk • contribs)
 * Please refrain from aspersions of other editors. If you have concerns about Sockpuppetry or Meatpuppetry then file a claim against the one you suspect, provide evidence and let a CU and/or admins determine this. Claiming another editor is doing this is a very serious charge. Please use it sparingly. Please stop the edit warring and disruptive editing. According to WP:BRD if you add something and it is reverted the next step is to take it to the articles talk page to try and prove your position. Please do so and cease trying to re-add the edits. -- A Rose Wolf  17:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it's so hard to be kind to others and not immediately assume the worst. Try to exhaust every option of resolving the dispute before coming here. -- A Rose Wolf  17:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting support.svg Semi-protected&#32;for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. My protection summary reads: Per Roy, but for longer. Sock or not, too much WP:BATTLEGROUND from multiple unconfirmed accounts. Anyway, I remember this (vaguely). IP, I can personally attest that Cambial Yellowing and FDW777 are not MEAT editors, and that their contributions span far beyond this page or even general topic. El_C 17:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . -- A Rose  Wolf  17:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, but all i've seen is them making the exact same revert of edits, there's no difference in approach, just wholesale reversion of any edit they haven't made. They seem like friends. When I saw Jimbo Wales talk about wikipedia he said every editor is treated equally and that everyone owns wikipedia and no one owns any article they for everyone to contribute to. Why keep supporting people who just gatekeep articles reverting any updates or changes. As you've locked us regular folk out. you should update the page to include more recent analysis I was planning to do it tonight. Lots of good stuff in there fella. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/uk-internal-market.pdf.	 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.2.89 (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.2.89 (talk • contribs)
 * IP, I'm not going to do that. This isn't a subject with which I am familiar or even that interested in. In any case, it's best to be straight forward: WP:ASPERSIONS are unwelcome and are, in fact, prohibited. In a broader sense, content dispute are expected to be resolved on a respective article's talk page. If that effort reaches an impasse, there are dispute resolution requests (like a Request for comment), that one could avail themselves of. Not sure there's really much to add to this explanation; straying from this crux seems kind of pointless, tbh. El_C 18:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding request for comment or similar, we had Talk:United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 where the current lead was agreed. In fact, the key fact regarding the lead (that the only way the act can prevent internal trade barriers is by restricting the power of the devolved governments to create them in the first place) was never refuted. FDW777 (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to see the discussion. I'm sure this can be resolved on the article talk page and if there are changes they can be added at the end of the protection phase. I left a welcome message and some helpful hints for the IP and they have been instructed of the proper way to resolve disputes without edit warring. Not sure there is much more needed at this time. Thank you for the quick action, El_C. Happy editing everyone! -- A Rose Wolf  18:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * El_C I'm didn't start throw aspersion around now did I? Has FDW777 made any constructive edits to the article or have they just done the exact same reverts Cambial has? look at the article history page fella, its clear FDW777 has literally continued edit warring by reverting the article yet again. If you are not interested in the article why lock it so only FDW777 and Cambial can edit it? and isn't that unhelpful since they never update the article or correct its problems and even delete tags others place to help in the improvement effort. Seems a bit one sided fella, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.2.89 (talk • contribs)
 * Please WP:SIGN and WP:INDENT your comments, IP. I've been doing it for you for a while now, so maybe it's your turn to account for your own comments...? Otherwise, I'm finding you to be unresponsive and evasive and I am not inclined to repeat myself again, sorry. El_C 20:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * IP, the aspersion was calling a fellow editor a "wee fella". I understand that may be a cultural thing where you are as you have continually used "fella" to refer to many other editors, myself included, but its important to note that not everyone comes from the same location or has the same experiences in life. For me it was not necessarily the fact you called them this but the way in which you used it that made it an aspersion. You were talking down to them when all they were doing was upholding Wikipedia policy. You may not like it but WP:BRD is non-negotiable with the only exceptions being noted in the policy. You MUST take the edits you want to include or remove to the article's talk page as you were the one that initiated the changes to a stable article according to the history. -- A Rose Wolf  11:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fairly obvious this is PlainAndSimpleTailor (eg previous IP: ) and this is block evasion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Whomever indeffed PlainAndSimpleTailor, they are not to be trusted! El_C 12:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , Exactly! Now we are getting somewhere. -- A Rose  Wolf  12:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

204.109.64.0/19
Please revoke talk page access for 204.109.64.0/19. Please see the filter log for 204.109.64.87, which resulted in a bot report at AIV (which was immediately removed, because this range is currently blocked) and this edit. Johnj1995 (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

IP Back just making disruptive edits
I previously had reported IP Ranges 88.232.168.0/21 and 85.107.107.46/21 for disruptive editing where they will change the size of non free logos or delete/change history dates of clubs. The ban appears to be over and you can see edits under range 85.107.107.46/21 for have all been reverted. I also found which I'm suspicious off and seems WP:QUACK because its the same edit and what brought them to my attention to these edits before. Not sure what can be done here, can the range be banned again?— NZFC  <sup style="color:black">(talk) <sup style="color:black">(cont)  17:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Renewal6 and Bkatcher being disruptive and uncivil
Renewal6 disruptively closed a deletion discussion not one but two times (see history of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_notable_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_II_(2nd_nomination) and Bkatcher blatantly insulted me on the former’s talk page: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Renewal6) Dronebogus (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Renewal6 has been on WP for 4 days and only made edits on that one AFD, I smell a WP:SOCK. Mztourist (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dronebogus: Just a reminder that you must post a warning at the users' talk page when you open a new thread about them on ANI. I've done so for you. Isabelle 🔔 17:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I was just doing so but you beat me to it. Dronebogus (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I sincerely and humbly apologize for calling Dronebogus a jerk. Bkatcher (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's better, . Thank you. We have to be careful to address the actions of other editors without directly addressing the editor's character as a person. It's hard sometimes because we get very frustrated and angry but WP:AGF and WP:CIV are non-negotiable policies here at Wikipedia. Kindness, especially in the face of adversity, is crucial to the collaborative goals of the community. -- A Rose  Wolf  19:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies @Dronebogus, I didn't mean to ping you above. I had one of those moments in life. It was corrected but I wanted to explain. -- A Rose Wolf  19:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you used the ping template you have to add a new signature in order for the user to be notified. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#0001 19:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that I hadn't this time. -- A Rose Wolf  19:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

User:SlimJim20013 and The Manorial Society of England and Wales
This is a SPA pushing links to this newly created article and organization https://www.manorialsociety.co.uk/. A quick search of Google finds it is a front for a scam operation selling fake Barony titles (section 4). They are also creating fake history on Wikipedia to support their fake titles: Barony of Eye is debunked here (search on "Barony of Eye"). I'm reverting in mainspace but need help deleting the article and draft they made and whatever else is appropriate. Royalty for a fee is similar to vanity awards. -- Green  C  19:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * SlimJim absolves knowledge it was a scam operation or having a personal connection, they may in good faith be the victim of the scam themselves; their entire history on Wikipedia is adding content surrounding to this organization. -- Green  C  19:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We've had issues over the past year with a couple of phony UK Barony titles, one of which had existed for several years. Maybe we could enlist folks from WikiProject British Royalty to give new articles some additional scrutiny. I've posted a notice on their talk page. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 22:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Dineshs01102000 using many IP and account to edit
Today 2401:4900:606f:e05:1062:e32d:eacc:6d29 deleted content of her corruption of J. Jayalalithaa two times.12. The page protected because of his vandalism and now User:Dineshs01102000 came to delete the same content with account by telling untruth "Already Given below in the section".3 It is untruth because no info about her corruption is given in the section below. He is reported before for doing this in Jayalalithaa page with same IP address.4....2409:4072:782:9FF8:FBEF:CC5B:926:F96D (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What? There's a whole section . Also, if you report someone here, you have to warn them on their talk page. This AN/I report seems premature. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 18:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Some content must be at top about it. He is using many accounts. 2409:4072:71F:882A:9B35:7175:9B8:8C20 (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack (claims about extra-WP activities)
has made a personal attack against  at Articles for deletion/Execution of 42 policemen in Achaia (Greece, 1944) (Kalogeropoulos is an admin at el.WP, the one who closed the deletion proposal in Greek Wikipedia with deleting the article). Skylax30 wrote: "Yes, and I have to add some about the deletion of the Greek article. The user/administrator who deleted the greek article user:Kalogeropoulos just today deleted the greek translation of the article Russian political jokes few hours after I published in the Greek WP, arbitrarily, without any discussion. He is a known advocate (see WP:ADVOCACY) of communism by authoring articles in the communist internet site (greek) https://atexnos.gr (search for Kostas Kalogeropoulos). He is involved in a team who declares that they pursue the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the rest. Normally, and according to WP rules he should declare that, and abstain from administrative acts on articles related to communism, greek civil war etc" I wouldnt call Kalogeropoulos and "advocate" of any kind of dictatorship, certainly he is not "a known advocate". A Gsearch at atexnos.gr using the term "Kalogeropoulos" yields 5 results about "Nikos Kalogeropoulos". Searching "Kostas Kalogeropoulos" yields one result, an article that mentions a Kostas Kalogeropoulos (apparently not the same person). Skylax30 is an experienced user and should know that WP shouldn't be a battleground. Making such kind of accusations is not constructive to say the least. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 20:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Kalogeropoulos got frustrated when I translated from english to greek an article about ... jokes! He deleted the greek article within hours of its publication, without calling for a discussion or anything. This is the first time I see this phenomenon in my 15 years presence in WP. The fact that the jokes were a kind of resistance against the formern soviet regime, says all. Previously, he hastily deleted the greek article about the execution of 42 policemen by communist guerillas, although there was not a consensus for deletion (User Diu also criticized this).


 * I would call the above user to explain what makes him think that "apparently" Kostas Kalogeropoulos of the communist site is not the Kostas Kalogeropoulos of w.p. (his real name became publicly known because he participated in a public trial related to w.p. in Greece). If, however, is not the same K.K., he doesn't need any intermediates to clarify this in this discussion. Where is the "personal attack"?


 * As for the "extra-wp activities", yes, we have life outside wp, and wp is not a regime. Wp is actually part of modern life, wp community is part of the wider real peoples' community, we have citizen's rights to discuss whatever we like, and anybody can discuss and criticize it in the public sphere provided he/she doesn't violate any laws. To be exact, I discussed about this user with a third person only once, some years ago and that's all. Kalogeropoulos himself had give me his mobile telephone number about 10 years ago and proposed that we meet, which I declined because I didn't care to know more about him. May I also remind everybody that Kalogeropoulos was not elected as an administrator, but appointed by one user with the consent of one more.


 * Although this is not the issue in this discussion, I would appreciate a brief commend by any other user or administrator on the fact that an english article was translated to another language and was immediately deleted with no discussion. Could someone delete without discussion the english article Russian political jokes, too?--Skylax30 (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to delve any more into the background, but would point out that what happens to Greek Wikipedia articles is no business of the English Wikipedia, and that this is an encyclopedia, not a place to exercise "citizen's rights". Phil Bridger (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Of course. This had been pointed out to certain ruf.. users in the Greek WP (not by me), but they wanted to verify it.--Skylax30 (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Making things worse, is utilizing a Greek insult, ruf which stands for rufianoi (rufianos-ρουφιανος in greek- means an unethical kind of informer to the authorities). He striked the the word though, I wonder why...<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 06:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * For the meaning of the above-written  ruf.. , cf. ρουφιάνος. ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Possible sock/meat puppetry or block evasion on AfD
Could we please have an administrator have a look at Articles for deletion/Rockin Rose? There seems to be several socks with no or few other edits to the encyclopedia - mostly IPs, some who share specific behavioral similarities with the indef'd article creator. Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I've struck the disruptive keep !votes.  dud  hhr  Contribs 18:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, . I wasn't sure if it was ok for a non-admin (which I am) to do that. Netherzone (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's still more for an admin to do here if one wishes—I've requested on the WP:AfD that as the article has not a snowball's chance in Hell for surviving the entire process, it need not be run through the entire process, which will just invite more abuse of the process; also sending a message that this abuse does not help bring about its aims. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 22:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The AfD has been closed by Ritchie333. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editing
There has been, and continues to be, disruptive editing - mostly falling just short of vandalism - at Hess toys, and by apparently the same IP-hopping editor (locating to Enola, Pennsylvania) on a variety of other articles. Examples of IP accounts used below, but I'm sure there are others.

Can an admin look at this and take some action? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC) PS: Seems to be identical to blocked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

TCssss34, NOTHERE block required
This user removed comments at a FAR review, I reverted and gave a warning on their talk page per policy WP:TPG. However, after looking at their contribution history they did this on another talk page eg. They appear to be targeting 's contributions, and have posted a frivolous warning to their talk page. I presume the warning was from this revision referring to WP:LTA. I believe a WP:NOTHERE block is required. WCM email 07:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Part of a current quite significant backlog at WP:SPI. I believe Checkuser applications are being looked at, so hopefully it will have more help soon, but my understanding is any uninvolved administrator may block on a behavioural basis with or without a technical check. CMD (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinite. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for a partial blocking for User:Assifbus
User:Assifbus,On User talk:Jimbo Wales. Assuming bad faith on other editors, politics promoting, keep disturbuting on the page and attack other editors even Wikimedia Foundation and even after more than one editor trying to persuade him to stop.

This user was already banned recently in zhwiki for his disobey the principle of wp:civ and happened here again.

Hope some sysops could take a look of User:Assifbus, thanks. Pavlov2 (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I declined a report filed by Pavlov2 against Assifbus at WP:AIV. I see no reason to take any action against Assifbus, who hasn't edited in the last couple of days, based on a discussion at Jimbo's Talk page, which, compared to some discussions, is relatively mild, and whatever issues there are at zh.wiki should not trigger any action against Assifbus, whose behavior here has not been sanctionable.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My English is not great to explain the things clearly. Could I ask some editors involved in the discussion to summarize this incident? Pavlov2 (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * While I may believe that Assifbus's comments and actions on Jimbo's talk page are uncivil, I have to agree with Bbb23. Jimbo wants his talk page to be a place where people can vent a little. Personally, I think its good as long as they don't engage in personal attacks. I don't think it should be the business of admins on en.wiki to be sanctioning someone for actions mostly pertaining to and surrounding zh.wiki. Jimbo gives more leeway for discussions on his talk page and that is his prerogative. I just don't see enough on en.wiki to warrant a block or ban of any kind. -- A Rose Wolf  14:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What I want to say is that if nuisance appears again, then actions should be taken at that time. I do not expect to explicitly express anything if I have done nothing related to that before, so I actually don't have much comment on this issue. Sorry again for disturbance. Sanmosa Outdia 14:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That exchange at Jimbo's talk page (of which Jimbo is aware since he's responded to Assifbus' OP) is ordinarily mild as far as personal interactions go. Also quite mild as far as CCP propaganda goes. Perhaps it'd be actionable if there was something like Uyghur genocide-related (GS) denial and so forth, but this is extra meh. If anything, Wikipedia would look layers-of-irony silly for taking action on the basis of Assifbus' comments there, as the levels of bias/advocacy are, in fact, the most damning thing in that discussion, which sanctioning them would work to diminish. El_C 15:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing (and seeming vandalism) by IP User:142.247.123.180 at Haplogroup E-M123
An IP (142.247.123.180) keeps deleting sourced information (sourced in the body of the article) from the infobox if Haplogroup E-M123 regarding the origin of that haplogroup, each time with no explanation for their changes. I reverted them twice explaining why but they continue to edit war. Their first deletion here: [] And their second deletion (after reverting my restoration of the material and ignoring my explanation): [] They then reverted me again here: [] (still ingoring my explanation). I warned them that I would file a report if they continued.

I have just left a notice of this report on their personal Talk page here: [].

Here is the page's edit history for reference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Haplogroup_E-M123

Any help is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I semi-protected the article for a week. If further issues arise, please put a new section on article talk with a brief explanation regarding why the article content is correct and why the changes are undesirable. Don't mention the IPs. Ping me from the talk page (if needed) and I'll have a look. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, this could be an LTA. We’ve been tracking a group of editors coordinating off wiki and this is - broadly speaking - one of their known areas of operation. If the chance presents itself I’ll look closer at this later today, otherwise if you want to reach out to the spi people I can give them what I suspect may be one of the two LTA accounts editing from this address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:b114:32a1:b16d:eb1:284:b30c (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I took a look and though the M.O. is similar to what I'm looking for, it doesn't match enough to warrant a follow up or additional surveillance at the current time. In a look through the history though I did find one suspect isp address which edited some time back, and I've checked the contribution history of User:Skllagyook and found nothing in their contributions to suggest a good hand / bad hand account. I note for the record that the Arbcom authorized Discretionary Sanctions for the Horn of Africa area (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn_of_Africa) are still active, so if this problem comes up again you may consider placing the page under DS to help curb this kind of behavior. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * and Hello. I just received a ping/notification and am a bit confused. Am (or was) I suspected of some kind of abuse or violation? (The IP user above mentioned the SPI people). And what is a good hand / bad hand account? When they mentioned tracking "a group of editors coordinating off wiki" who does that refer to? Have I done something wrong? I am neither a sock nor a meat puppet. I have never had any account but this one, and I don't coordinate with anyone off wiki and never have. I'm a little alarmed and confused that I was mentioned (Maybe I'm overreacting or misunderstanding?). Any explanation is much appreciated. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Johnuniq, Also, as you instructed, I have posted an expanation (with quotes from the sources) on the article's Talk page of why the article content is correct (and also made some changes to more closely follow the sources, having reviewed the sources). (I posted it also partially in response to a new account who had posted in the Talk page seemingly defending the disruptive IP's edits, who did not seem to be aware or WP:NOR - perhaps the same person as the IP?). My explanation to them here: []. Skllagyook (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I noticed the gratuitous mention of your username. My assumption is that TomStar81 has in mind some LTA who has used good/bad-hand accounts and therefore investigated. I would have written the conclusion in a positive sense, for example, that Skllagyook is an established editor in good standing (which implies not connected with the LTA) without any suggestion that such a connection might exist. Re the article, thanks. The new editor is standard for these kinds of events—it might be a sock but it's possibly a meat puppet with some off-wiki site promoting a fringe idea. There is no need for any further comment you add to be as long—just stick to "need a RS" or "that is not an RS" etc. Let me know if disruption occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * . I see. I thought that might be the case but wasn't sure. I will do what you suggest. Thank you again. Skllagyook (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize if the original post of mine was confusing, I don’t get a lot of free time these days since I’m classified an essential worker so it’s essentially eat sleep and go back to the grindstone. as Johniq stated, you are an established editor in good standing and nothing I see in your contributions shakes my faith that you are net positive to the project. In this case, based on hard learned lessons from the past, we’ve learned to look at both the account or isp address being accused and the account or isp address doing the accusing in order to ensure that the two are separate entities and not one person attempting to bolster stock in one account at the expense of another. I don’t see that in this case, and I see nothing that is or should shake my belief that you’re an honest editor working to further the goals of the project. In short, keep calm and carry on :) 2600:1011:B114:32A1:2D17:DFEE:8C1F:BD35 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. That makes sense. Thank you for the explanation. Skllagyook (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Editor keeps uploading high-resolution non-free content
A new editor, persists in uploading non-free images at a resolution far higher than is necessary for the article or justified by the FUR (see WP:IMAGERES). These are the files affected:


 * File:AsphaltUrbanGT.jpg
 * File:Asphalt Urban GT.jpg
 * File:Cars 2 Poster.jpg
 * File:Cars 2006.jpg
 * File:Paddington poster.jpg
 * File:PaddingtonPOSTER.jpg
 * File:Paddington2POSTER.jpg
 * File:SummerSlam (2021) poster.jpg

He has been asked not to do it on his own talk page and at mine, but yet he continues to do so. Betty Logan (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem worthy of ANI. They did something that they thought was helpful, and you reverted, and I haven't seen them reinstate the changes.
 * The only place where they have reverted more than once is at File:PaddingtonPOSTER.jpg which isn't an imageres issue - you support different images (they support a portrait one, while you support a landscape one). This is made clear by them saying, so it seems like they're completely willing to avoid high-res files, they simply prefer the portrait oriented image to the landscape one.
 * Also please keep in mind that there is a bot that automatically reduces image resolution so when someone uploads a new file, the resolution they upload it at does not matter (and the images they uploaded would've been automatically downscaled in a day or two anyway). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They are being disruptive by continuing to upload images are far higher resolutions than is justifiable for non-free content. They have repeatedly done this several times despite being asked not to do so, most recently at File:Cars 2 Poster.jpg. We don't need multiple versions of non-free content scattered all over place. An editor who shows completely disregard for copyright policy is not being helpful. I have no preference for a landscape or portrait versio; I simply restored the original FUR compliant versions, regardless of their portrait/landscape format so you are not being particularly helpful by mischaracterising my actions. Perhaps it would be best if we let an administrator review the situation. Betty Logan (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like they're intentionally disregarding copyright policy to me, merely that they didn't understand the policy. As long as they stop - which I think they will, or at least will once they understand the policy clearly - I don't see any need for an administrator to implement sanctions here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They are aware of the policy as I have explained it to them and provided a link to it on their talk page. Therefore they are choosing to ignore it. Just because a bot will come along at some point and provide a technical fix, that does not address the behavioral issue of violating it in the first place. Also, I have not requested sanctions, I have requested administrator intervention. Personally I would block them from uploading files for a couple of months and see how they progress, but that's for an admin to decide. Betty Logan (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Being linked a policy doesn't necessarily mean they understand the policy. On their talk page, before linking to WP:IMAGERES, you linked to
 * 1 2 explanatory supplements
 * 1 2 3 4 5 guidelines
 * 1 2 help pages
 * 1 2 3 4 other information pages
 * 1 essay
 * 1 policy
 * and a few other project-space pages I didn't count, such as the Teahouse
 * considering this is it really a surprise that someone might take a while to understand exactly what policies and guidelines they must read? Given what they've said, I don't think they are intentionally disregarding the policy here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 06:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you really believe they don't understand the policy then I suggest we take the necessary actions to help them understand. Betty Logan (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 has sock-blocked them indefinitely (just after I put a capsule explanation on their talk page, hey-ho). NebY (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * considering this is it really a surprise that someone might take a while to understand exactly what policies and guidelines they must read? Given what they've said, I don't think they are intentionally disregarding the policy here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 06:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you really believe they don't understand the policy then I suggest we take the necessary actions to help them understand. Betty Logan (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 has sock-blocked them indefinitely (just after I put a capsule explanation on their talk page, hey-ho). NebY (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 has sock-blocked them indefinitely (just after I put a capsule explanation on their talk page, hey-ho). NebY (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Isn't a bot taking care of non-free too-high resolutions these days? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We should not expect editors to rely on the bot to fix images because that still creates work that an admin has to go through and delete the high res image after the fact. A one-off mistake of an oversize image is not the problem, but here when the user has been told multiple times, and their response is "but these are better quality" and not referring to policy, is an issue. --M asem (t) 13:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I was beginning to wonder if I was over-reacting, or at least becoming outdated in my views. Looks like it has been resolved by . Not surprised: . Hopefully this will be a useful reminder that technical fixes are not behavioral solutions. If somebody shows such disregard for copyright law and fair use policy then we cannot be sure these problems do not manifest in other activities, such as copyvios. It's been a very weird day on Wikipedia so far. Apart from this case I am puzzled by another editor with a highly respectable editing history making very out-of-character edits by restoring super-old versions of articles. Could be a case of account hijacking so I'll wait and see... Betty Logan (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * fyi, there is an admin bot that already does this too. The process is entirely automated. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 14:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Even though we have bots that are meant to handle all that automatically, this should not be taken as an implicit sign to uploaders they can upload images at any resolution they want. We still want editors to think and carefully consider all NFC elements on uploading - the bots are there to handle missteps in the process, and not meant as general purpose cleanup. As I mentioned above, for this specific editor, they clearly seemed to ignore the policy in that they wanted to keep the higher resolution images, so they were purposely uploading against policy. --M asem (t) 16:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Noting that I ECP'd File:PaddingtonPOSTER.jpg for one week independent of this report (by way of WP:RFPP), of which I was unaware at the time. El_C 16:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Heads up everyone
Not sure if I'm posting this in the correct venue, and apologies if it isn't. There will probably be huge off-wiki collaboration and influx in AA area because of this. Don't read too much of the comments if you don't want your day to be spoiled.

A new reddit account spamming same post in different subreddits, instructing others how to edit and "Spreading POV". They're also asking others to vote in "big" RfCs. My guess is an experienced user that was/is banned couldn't hold the hyper-nationalism for a lot longer, so they just went full on off-wiki collab and meatpuppetry mode. The post is getting high traction and is also pinned in the subreddit itself, which has over 55K users. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There's a chance that this guy is simply just bluffing and is saying he's going to have people do these things but really he won't. However in case it does happen I think people should be on high alert. The ban hammers might need sharpening/polishing though. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#0001 15:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Blaze The Wolf I think there is already one. User has made 20 edits this year and is now edit-warring in one of the mentioned pages in that post, see Shusha and diffs:  . There is an ongoing discussion in talk which I told them, but to no avail. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a chance that's just coincidence unless we can somehow tie them to seeing it from the reddit post. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#0001 17:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This would be better at WP:AN. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for Intervention against Vandalism by User.


Moved from AVI ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#0001 22:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keeps on blanking sections and/or deleting content from the Kisii people article without providing adequate explanations and keeps on repeating despite efforts to undo his destructive edits. His edits are destructive in most of the other articles he has edited. He has continuously edited without leaving edit summaries despite being warned about that. His edits for most articles constitute vandalism as he changes or deletes content without providing good explanations for doing so. For instance, he has attempted to interfere with languages families by creating new non-existent language families within the Niger-Congo/Bantu languages articles which he has edited. He keeps on repeating such actions even after his edits are reversed. User needs to be stopped from vandalizing articles and all his edits need to be reverted as they are all fraudulent. This user seriously need to be blocked indefinitely from editing to stop his destructive editing activities. It is disturbing that he has not been blocked yet. Serious intervention needed to stop this actions. He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather clearly vandalizing articles as shown by his edits on the "Kisii people" article and other articles. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wojak6 seems willing to discuss the content dispute on the article talk page. Maybe you should try that first? 2601:5C2:200:BEB:51B1:1AFD:9FA5:5EEF (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wojak6 abruptly started editing the Kisii people article yesterday and has never edited the article before and/or has only edited a few times. He suddenly started blanking sections of the article without providing sufficient explanations. I reverted to an earlier version to take care of the damage and then reached out to him on his talk page suggested that he provides edit summaries with clear and logical rationales and stop vandalizing article. I also noted that some other editors have reached out to him and he ignores them and repeats the same. He also ignored me and repeated the same thing of blanking the Kisii people article today and I went back to the article is reversed his destructive edits and still reached out to him on his talk page and he still ignored me and repeated the same later today before the page was put on full protection and I still reversed to an earlier edit also before full protection was put on the Kisii People page. I'm sure, if the full page protection was put on the page he could have still repeated the blanking actions. Wojak has done the same mistakes on most of the other articles he has edited. I don't believe that Wojak6 is willing to discuss content dispute because he has ignored me on his talk page and has also ignored some other editors with similar concerns on his talk page. Its Wojak who started the whole issue by blanking the Kisii people article and ignoring the concerns on his talk page. Wojak seems to have started a thread on the article talk page that the Abagusii are Bantu and seemed to have some misconceptions which I have tried to clarify. Refer to the thread for more information. some of his claims are misconceptions and lack of understanding what the article is all about. Some of his claims about the article are not true and the article has been edited by many people and not just me. Wojak has done destructive edits in most of the articles he has edited and there is no way he is willing to discuss a dispute which he started. An intervention is needed to stop him from vandalizing articles because he is going to continue doing so since he has done that to other articles. He has mostly done destructively edited articles and most of his edits are reversed several times for most of the articles he has edited which will cause more editing wars with other people in the future. Wojak6 needs to be blocked. He has done enough destructive edits and most of his edits cause an edit war due to multiple reversions by other editors and his lack of willingness to stop his destructive editing. Please block him.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Leave me out of this please. I've only moved this from AIV and do not wish to be part of this discussion. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#0001 23:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I thought you are the one resolving the issue. Is there someone else resolving the issue then?Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at the moment. Wait for an actual admin to assess the situation. I'm not an admin. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#0001 00:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. How long does it take for the administrator to resolve the issue? Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No clue. Best to just be patient. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#0001 00:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The page at Kisii people has been fully protected three days by User:Liz due to the edit warring. Please use the talk page to work on the dispute. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * pinging ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#0001 20:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You said you are not an administrator, when is the administrator resolving the issue? Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I requested for intervention to stop Wojak6 from Vandalizing not only the Kisii people article but also other articles he has edited. I cannot resolve a dispute that does not exist. The editor was vandalizing the Kisii people article and I reversed his edits to earlier versions and even reached out to him on his talk page requesting him to stop vandalizing articles since he has repeatedly done that for many articles he has edited. He ignored me and again repeated the same mistake which I had to reverse again since he was literally blanking the article which is vandalism and still reached out to him to stop vandalizing the Kisii people article. He still ignored me and repeated the action of blanking the article which I reversed again and then User:Liz intervened by reinstating the full protection of the page which was necessary since the editor was going to continue vandalizing the article. I was simply trying to safe the article and not engaging in any edit war with the editor. The AnomieBot also tried reverting his edits without success as the editor was simply ignoring everything and repeating similar mistakes. Wojak6 has also ignored other editors expressing concerns about his edit habits on most articles which could be considered vandalism since he deletes content and/or makes changes on articles without providing any summaries for most of his edits and if he provides any summary, it is very inadequate to justify his destructive actions. Temporarily protecting the article is not a solution because once the protection is removed, he will still repeat the same mistakes. What about the many other articles he has vandalized? did they get any protection? Protection is not the solution. An intervention is needed to stop Wojak6 from vandalizing articles. This editor needs to be blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia articles. That is the only way to protect Wikipedia articles. The editor is still going to run into more edit wars with other editors given that most of his edits end up being reversed several times due to his destructive edits. An intervention is needed to stop Wojak6 from vandalizing articles. This user needs to be blocked urgently. There are no disputes to resolve here. Help is needed to block the user. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Repeated removal of cited material by user:Homogenie

 * Reverts:, ,
 * Reverts:, ,

Repeated removal of cited material. Need help with this behavioral problem with this editor. I tried to restore the cited text twice, giving the rationale in edit summaries and in the user talk page , but the editor would not listen. The relevant issues could be WP:EW, WP:IDHT, WP:OWN. The editor has also been made aware of the IPA Discretionary Sanctions. Chaipau (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Gaming auto-confirmed for promotional edits to Qnet
made exactly 10 edits, adding periods after some entries on disambiguation pages, then immediately went to Qnet and tried to edit. This led to this edit request, which shows an obvious COI with an article that his a history of such edits. It seems they may not have been aware of the time requirement as well. Additionally, their requested edit was a direct copy/paste from the company's website. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If they're attempting to autocon-bust, see if XCP is viable. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 18:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Might be worth temporary page protection on the talk page, since this is the second copyvio edit request this week from a recently registered account. <span style="background: linear-gradient(gray, #111111); color: white; font-family: Times New Roman, Georgia;">Politanvm talk 18:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the larger picture, I have indeffed Business Facilitator as an advertising only account since his goal is promoting official messaging. Star   Mississippi  15:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a ton. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sockpuppetry, or maybe sockpuppetry?
I'm bringing this here because I'm not clear if it is sockpuppetry as in active block evasion, or just plain disruptive editing. Yesterday I spotted a number of accounts that followed a naming pattern (all beginning with an Asian-sounding name and ending in a couple of numbers) and the same contribution pattern - pasting large amounts of Tamil language content from what looks like some sort of academic paper on horticulture onto their individual user pages. I discussed this with admin @Longhair on his talk page (link to discussion) and later put them to WP:AIV when @Materialscientist blocked one of the users and put a sockpuppet tag on the user's page. However none of the other users were tagged and no SPI case was created. Today another tranche of accounts has been created.

Materialscientist's possible original sockpuppeteer account registered in 2011 with no contributions to date:

Yesterday's accounts:
 * (this is the one Materialscientist blocked and tagged as a sockpuppet of a very old account, and the only one to re-create the user page after CSD)
 * (this is the one Materialscientist blocked and tagged as a sockpuppet of a very old account, and the only one to re-create the user page after CSD)
 * (this is the one Materialscientist blocked and tagged as a sockpuppet of a very old account, and the only one to re-create the user page after CSD)
 * (this is the one Materialscientist blocked and tagged as a sockpuppet of a very old account, and the only one to re-create the user page after CSD)
 * (this is the one Materialscientist blocked and tagged as a sockpuppet of a very old account, and the only one to re-create the user page after CSD)

Today's accounts:

Not something I have seen before. I'm not an admin but am a reasonably experienced vandal fighter and sometimes sockpuppet spotter, but this has me beaten. Really odd. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: I just added three more to today's list --10mmsocket (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: And another one --10mmsocket (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: And another highlighed by @Extraordinary Writ --10mmsocket (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: And another one --10mmsocket (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * SANKAR and SNEGAN might be connected because of how similar their usernames are. However I"m not sure about the others. If their edits are similar enough then we might have a duck that's quacking quite loudly here. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#0001 15:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The content added all looks like it is from the same paper (or website) but because it's in Tamil not English it's hard to pinpoint the exact source - it's detailed information about horticulture and science of seed propagation. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * follows the same pattern, with more userspace-based Tamil horticulture. Not sure what's going on here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They are clearly all connected, but I think this might be a rather misguided wiki-ed like thing? --Blablubbs (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone tried talking to any of these accounts? And I don't mean posting a template, I mean actually talking. Could it be an edit-a-thon? Could it be a class? Even if it's one person, has anyone explained to this person (or any of these accounts) what the problem is? Deleting the pages and blocking the accounts might be what's causing new accounts/pages to be created: the person(s) might think their edits aren't being saved, or it's a technical problem. I'm also confused about why the pages are being deleted... not a webhost? I mean, if people want to draft an article on their userpage, that's allowed, isn't it? Is it copyvio? (I couldn't find a putative source for the text on Google, but then it's in Tamil.) I don't really see disruption here, but I see a lack of WP:AGF and some seemingly heavy-handed responses to what may just be confused new user(s). Levivich 15:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I keep monitoring new accounts as well, spotted a few more users-



Noted them to be botany/biology articles upon translating a few. I was under the impression that it might be some kind of informal WikiEdu project that a professor might've instructed students to complete, but having it in Tamil on the English Wikipedia doesn't make sense. This is just a guess though. MT TrainTalk 15:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

These PDFs uploaded to Commons yesterday and today could be related. However, none of the users have edited the English Wikipedia. File:Anusuya tamil ass.pdf, File:Kokila sree tamil assignment.pdf, File:Sheela tamil assignment.pdf, File:Shifanaa tamil assignment.pdf, File:Urmila tamil assignment.pdf. Johnj1995 (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm actually concerned that the user pages may actually be copyright violations. They're clearly not typed user pages, but copy and pastes from textbooks. Is it a class teacher's notes that are being inserted, or is it copy and paste from a textbook source? Dunno. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 23:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. I ran some of the user pages above through Earwig's Copyvio Detector, a tool I believe a number of Wikipedians use, and it came up with nothing, i.e. 0% copyvio 10mmsocket (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Are the PDFs related? All of the PDFs include "translation in Tamil" in the file description and were added to the Commons category "Translation". If they are related, does this indicate that the user pages are translations from a textbook? Johnj1995 (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Additions 21 September: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10mmsocket (talk • contribs) 12:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Try  -- Cabayi (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * appears to be a part of this. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * New PDF upload, File:Ravindhran tamil assignment.pdf. Also see my previous comments for more information. Johnj1995 (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * added another --10mmsocket (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Still no closer to sorting this. I see today (Wednesday lunchtime (UK)) that has re-created his/her deleted user page with the same type of content. I have asked them why but have received no response as yet. Ditto the same question on those who posted files to Commons. --10mmsocket (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I've found some breakthrough on this— these users appear to be students at [specifics redacted] This does appear to be some kind of misguided academic project. MT TrainTalk 12:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Really interesting. Any idea what to do, or how to stop it? They keep coming b.t.w. --10mmsocket (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Two new ones 22 September


 * Added File:Naveen tamil assignment.pdf. Johnj1995 (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Please see my comment above. Is there any way an admin or folks at WikiEdu can get in touch with the university to guide them in the right direction and stop the influx of these (potentially copyrighted) articles on EN-WP? There's an email address at the bottom of the webpage at [specifics redacted] to contact them, since the articles are relevant to this department. Thanks! MT TrainTalk 14:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point, copyrighted or not, it appears that the PDF files and the user pages are just using Wikipedia as a webhost and should just be deleted. Sorry if this messes with a class project, but I find it doubtful that this university assignment, if it is indeed, is going to be creating good articles in English on the English Wikipedia. It seems that they may well be in the wrong place, or at least the wrong project. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 15:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

We don't know how many more users are there, so at this point contacting a person in authority at the university to notify them seems better. Few more detected- An admin can advise if CSD is the way forward. MT TrainTalk 16:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Satheeshkumar MV(083)/sandbox
 * User:Deepak0910/sandbox/ஈரமான நிலப் பயிர்களுக்கு நாற்றங்கால் வளர்ப்பதற்காக
 * User:Satheeshkumar MV(083)/sandbox
 * User:Jashwanth2003/sandbox/பல்வேறு நீர்ப்பாசன முறைகளைக் கவனித்தல்
 * User:Krishore0508
 * User:Nivethitha Munusamy
 * User:Vasundraramajayam(112)
 * User:Sarumathi.k(083)
 * User:Aakash Kamal

And another two --10mmsocket (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest opening a SPI report on the oldest account. WP:DUCK applies, it is obviously the same individual, and furthermore some of them have CU blocks by Materialscientist which means there is technical evidences allowing to connect them. When CUs make a block, they don't always open a SPI, but given the amount of accounts you are documenting a SPI is the way forward. It is also obviously a copy of something (possibly offline, possibly machine translated to Tamil), it is not being typed up this fast. A single CU check might be able to whack the bunch, and then G5 the creations.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 14:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I have a couple of concerns. I realize there's a good chance that no productive articles in English might come of this, but maybe they will. Aren't we kind of micro-managing how other people choose to edit here? Shouldn't we wait, see if anyone answers the questions being asked of them, and see what they do next before trying to "resolve" this? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Some of these editors are blocked. If this is by now clearly a class of some kind, shouldn't they be unblocked?  I strongly disagree that this is "obviously the same individual".  Pinging, since it is a checkuserblock and maybe I'm missing something.
 * 2) If there is a legit copyright issue (is there?), then I can understand deleting the pages and leaving explanatory notes on their user talk pages, but otherwise, there's currently no reason to believe these pages aren't going to be used for eventual translation or something. Certainly doing no harm right now (unless, like I said, it is a copyright issue).
 * 3) I realize it's done in good faith, trying to be helpful, but... isn't User:Mark the train's research and apparent discovery of the actual class and associated names outing? We certainly wouldn't let someone identify User:John Doe as the John Doe that lives in Ames Iowa and goes to ISU, if they didn't do that themselves.  If someone doesn't give me a good reason not to very soon, I'm going to have to revdel a whole bunch of versions of this page.  Or more likely ask Oversight to do it.
 * I agree with Floq. When I wrote up above three days ago asking if this was a class I had already googled the names and figured that much out but didn't want to violate outing by revealing that. It is very obviously not the same person, it's a class, clearly some kind of assignment, which means it's almost certainly not copyvio. Also, they're not mainspace articles, so it's not that kind of disruption, and I don't get how anyone thinks this is using Wikipedia as a web host (hosting what? Class assignments?), especially since user pages aren't indexed and the PDFs aren't OCR'd. In other words, no offense, but a lot of the speculation in this thread is just wrong. There's no need to block users or delete these pages. Reaching out to them (as has already been done) is the right move, let's just see if they respond. Remember: what they're doing isn't harmful. Levivich 14:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with both Floq and Levivich. They haven't harmed any article in mainspace to this point. There doesn't appear to be any copyvio issues and its a serious stretch to label it web hosting. Is it misguided? Perhaps. I guess that depends on what the real intent of the assignment is. Regardless it appears to be harmless at this time. -- A Rose Wolf  15:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I must say that a few people do not seem to be applying WP:AGF to editors from South Asia. Some of the editors above are looking very hard for a policy that may have been violated rather than looking for a way to help. The user page creators should get the same respect as editors from the US or the UK. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Close reverted
Yesterday, I closed this RM with consensus not to move. A few minutes ago the proposer reverted my edit with edit summary "Sorry but consensus is not clearly obvious as yet." Regardless of the underlying merits, this seems to me clearly irregular, but I am not sure how to proceed. Havelock Jones (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Username006 for a week for disruptive editing. They are under an indefinite community move ban for past behavior in this area, and while their edit was not a direct violation of that sanction, it is clear boundary-testing in continuance of the disruption that brought about the ban, that must stop. This isn't a first-time issue. with them, there have been other disrutions to move discussions along these lines. This is a normal admin action, not enforcement of a community sanction..  Acroterion   (talk)   11:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * it's subpar to have the closing summary just be an announcement of the outcome and nothing else. Next time, please aim at providing some sort of summary, even a very brief one, that accompanies the result. Thanks. El_C 16:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

CIR disruption at Adrian David Cheok
Above is persisting in adding a reference to a junk paper (which doesn't even appear to have gone through basic copy-editing and makes a farcical claim of "double blind peer review") in a predatory journal from a publisher which is listed on Beall's list (as explained on their talk page). This is despite being reverted by me and other editors. At this point, given their latest edit summary seems to not acknowledge this issue at all, it's either a case of CIR, or NOTHERE, or both; and someone should probably at least hand out a partial block from the relevant page (which is also a BLP). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Now coupled with a very obvious 3RR violation, despite a previous warning on their talk page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  21:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Surely an undeclared COI, as it has been going on for literally years. Indefinitely page blocked from the article. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC).
 * Very likely that Special:Contributions/2001:8003:A082:EC01:39A2:D98A:5714:666B is block evasion by the same person. Mind giving semi-protection to this page AND a rangeblock for that IP? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected&#32;for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Third sock semiprotection in the span of a year or so. El_C 12:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC) Already semi'd by El C. I've partial-blocked the 2001:8003:a082:ec01::/64 range from Adrian David Cheok for six months. If there's more disruption from either the account or the range, they can be blocked sitewide — please let me know if you see something, RandomCanadian. Bishonen &#124; tålk 13:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC).

List of Grand Designs episodes
Can someone restore Series 21 and Series 22 to List of Grand Designs episodes? A lot of work has been lost. It was only the summaries that needed to be deleted. Khiikiat (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * please address this directly with the administrator who deleted the copyright violations, at User talk:Justlettersandnumbers. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already done that, but the administrator has not responded. Can someone else deal with it? Khiikiat (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You waited 24 hours. This isn't a super-urgent issue, please give them another 24 to respond before asking for outside assistance. Daniel (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * it wasn't really necessary to wait for here: revisions containing copyright violations cannot be restored, period. This article had copyvios going back to July 2020. We can't selectively delete content from a revision, so it's reasonable and a normal approach to simply restore the newest revision before the copyvio occurred, which is what happened, although that does result in some lost work. I've reviewed just now and took a different approach: I've partially restored the most recent revision but removed the episode summaries which were copied from the show's website, which also includes the series 21/22 tables. I think that should get you to where you need to be. Anyone please feel free to review my work. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , please excuse me for not answering you promptly; I did in fact look at this, saw that it involved a good deal of editing, and delayed replying. Please thank for doing that work (thanks from me too, of course). Oh, and please don't bring this sort of routine matter to this board, which is for serious stuff. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Oh, and please don't bring this sort of routine matter to this board, which is for serious stuff" - kinda exactly the point I was trying to make. Daniel (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Carmena Seoul
Carmena Seoul has repeatedly made edits capitalizing job titles contrary to MOS:JOBTITLES and has persisted even after I directed them to the guideline and explained how it applied to their edits. Wallnot (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration, but edit-warring against what's been established at/by WP:JOBTITLES won't get you anywhere, accept a block. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit warring “against what’s established” by JOBTITLES? When did I do that? Wallnot (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My indenting mistake (after all my preaching), I meant Carmena Seoul. PS - Be prepared for his possible ips, socks. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also known as User_talk:74.221.181.177 & User talk:66.18.33.12. -- Green  C  00:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes,, and now CU-blocked; please also see User:Kyle Simmens and User:First Lady of The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps User_talk:96.4.231.83 as well? Wallnot (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editor continues to add unreferenced content after multiple warnings
The title kind of says what the problem is. This unsourced addition followed yet another specific plea to use references on their talkpage. I have to say I don’t know if they are reading their talk page. They have never posted to user talk space as far as I can see.

The subject this editor seems to be a SPA towards is beauty pageants, under general sanctions. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright. If wishes to return as an editor, they can start by responding to talk page messages, to proclaim their adherence to our guidelines for sourcing, and to acknowledge that in a collaborative project they need to ... collaborate. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. I might be coming back ... we have many editors very much like this in 2021 pageants right now – most acutely Miss Universe 2021 – and Miss Earth 2021 and a strong history of sockpuppetry. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Persistent WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by user:Afroditeiraq

 * 1) Given a DS warning by admin
 * 2) Been already once reported at ANI.
 * 3) Given separate warnings by me,, ,  and -
 * 4) Added "Iraq" to the Achomi language page. No source, edit summary or explanation.
 * 5) Changed "Saudi" into "Afro-Saudi" on the Mustafa al-Darwish page. No source was added.
 * 6) Added unsourced material to the Anti-Arabism page. No edit summary/explanation.
 * 7) Changed "Iranian" into "Iranic" at the Kurds page without WP:CON, sources or whatsoever. Also added unsourced figures.
 * 8) Moved "Kurds in Iraq" to "Southern Kurds" without using WP:RM, etc. Edit summary: "Because Iraq is our home and Kurds in Iraq makes us sound foreign"
 * 9) Accuses veteran editors of "edit warring with him" when they are reverted for adding unsourced figures and changing sourced content.
 * 10) Added "Alcohol in Iraq" to the Alcohol in Iran page. No edit summary/explanation.
 * 11) Changed "Zanj" on the Afro-Iranians page into "Persians" and "Shirazi people". No source, edit summary or explanation.
 * 12) Added "Arab-Kurd" on the Abd al-Karim Qasim page. No source, edit summary or explanation.
 * 13) Changed "Iraqi citizens of Persian background or descent" into "ethnic Persians from Iraq" without reason.
 * 14) Account created on 23 July 2021
 * 1) Account created on 23 July 2021

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that said editor's editorial pattern is not a net worth to this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * . I guess the warning didn't take. El_C 12:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Persistent overlinking by Nadhif Altafy
has been asked many times by several different editors (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here) to refrain from linking years, adding links in section headings or duplicate links. They have failed to reply to any of these messages (they've never edited an article talk page or a user talk page), and have chosen to continue the disruptive editing. FDW777 (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Warnings going back more than a year. I've blocked them indefinitely with a note on how to take care of that.  Tide  rolls  12:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Yogeshpahade9
This user is actively causing disruption on this article, from performing controversial page moves to making controversial edits, and now resorting to making cut&paste page moves on the subject. Talk page warnings from both me and have all been ignored, and the user has refused discussion. Jalen Folf  (talk)  18:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The user has been here for two years, their talk page is full of warnings, which literally ask them to stop disruptive editing, inform them that their edits were reverted because they did not appear constructive, promise that they get blocked if they continue disruptive editing, but I do not see many explanations why their editing is disruptive and why were the reverted edits not constructive. They are currently trying to perform cut-and-paste move, but nobody cared to explain them what it is and why it is a bad idea. Probably they get blocked anyway, still without much understanding why.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried to explain to them multiple times. Here I am asking them to write the article first, and then create a dab page. Later I specifically asked them what they are trying to achieve and implored them to stop disruptive editing and discuss. I asked them multiple times to stop the disruptive editing and discuss things, e.g. here and here. This does not even counting edit summaries in which they were asked multiple times to discuss things, e.g. 1, 2, 3. If they will not understand why they are blocked it is not by lack of trying to explain but because they refuse to engage. --Muhandes (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * the username sounds extremely familiar, but the talkpage history doesn't show my name. Can't recall where I saw them. —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 00:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, they continued edit-warring using IP which is beyond the pale in every situation. Blocked for a week, the page and the redirect semi-protected.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed
Hi, this has been posted to AIV for a while with no response. A rangeblock is needed for the IP range of. There is vandalism coming from the entire range, so a more narrow block would not be sufficient. Thanks! Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that per their contribs, they have a particular fixation on Fire Emblem characters, as well as General Mariano Alvarez and Reiven Umali. This has been going on all last night, and today as well. Action would be appreciated (each individual IPv4 address will only get used for a couple vandalisms and then abandoned). jp×g 04:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 1 year. That range just got done a few hours ago with a 3 month block by .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat
Could someone please deal with this legal threat? Thanks.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 15:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it. El_C 15:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE


Hi. This user has sent Federated States of Micronesia at the 2008 Summer Olympics (a Good Article) to AfD with their very first edit with the deletion rationale of Just completely worthless. Guessing it might be a block evasion too. Please can someone help with this? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Got itttt. El_C 16:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, El C. Gold medals all round.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Except for poor Micronesia (0 silvers and bronze, too, ever). But one day. I have faith! El_C 16:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, the real medal is the friends we make along the way. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * San Marino broke their streak this Olympics. Bkatcher (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody figures out AfD on their first edit. Even those of us who have been around 15 years+ still need to refer to the steps for what is a rather complex process. Smells a little. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 18:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Though it stands to reason that the public affairs officer for the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade would be adept at RfPP, because... army Marine stuff. El_C 22:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixing redirects
Today I noticed this edit where TMProofreader changed the link from Atlanta, Georgia (a redirect) to Atlanta, Georgia (a direct link). I looked through their talk page, and this editor has had numerous requests to stop fixing redirects: Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * warning
 * warning
 * blocked
 * blocked
 * warning
 * warning
 * warning
 * warning
 * warning
 * warning
 * It should be noted they've already been blocked twice for precisely this editing pattern. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 18:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Three times, courtesy of Ymblanter. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

"Happy Tree Friends" LTA
This IP is being used by the "Happy Tree Friends vandal" in evasion of several blocks, including 173.168.76.33, 144.178.6.34, 32.140.177.66, and 2603:9000:F407:8000:0:0:0:0/50 (likely many others but I stopped keeping track). Can an administrator please block? So far the only contributions under the IP address are from this user.

Prior ANI threads: March 2021, April 2021. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive and COI editing by User:Chrashley
User:Chrashley has admitted they are one and the same as Christopher Ashley, and has engaged in edit warring to change the page to a version they prefer, both with their account and with an IP. They have been warned multiple times but just refused to get the point. At this point an indef block is needed to get them to stop their disruptive editing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They have continued to edit war since I posted this here: . Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I semi-protected the article to start with--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this seems like a case of refusal to listen. They were told how to handle this at the Help Desk and in -en-help and refused to accept it. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 21:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Jauerback has blocked the named account on the basis of their username. Wikignome Wintergreen talk 22:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest situation
For the past several years at Barry Peterson (cinematographer) there would be an IP editor that would swap out the city Peterson resides in despite this going against what is said in the source. I would restore it back to what was in the source. Recently this started back up again and the most recent change, the IP editor wrote in the edit summary I live in Los Angeles, not Edmonton. Of course it could just be an anonymous person claiming to be Peterson to try to get their switch to stick but I thought it might be worth having it noted Peterson might be editing their own page. Rusted AutoParts 15:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree it's hard to know whether this is actually him. I guess the thing that occurs to me - which is not really what RAP is asking, and is a problem on many, many articles like this - is that the reference doesn't show that Mr. Peterson lives in Edmonton, it shows that Mr. Peterson lived in Edmonton 13 years ago. I'd be inclined to just remove "He resides in Los Angeles" and "He resides in Edmonton", as one could make a case that we don't really have a source on where he lives now, and it's not really useful info anyway.  But in the absence of proof this is actually Mr. Peterson, I understand the hesitation to look like we're just taking some random IP's word for anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this being not useful information anyway. It's up there with how many dogs someone has, and whether they own their own home. Where their address is isn't particularly important unless there's a strong connection to the community and it's an important part of who the article subject is. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 15:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Over-finite detail in a BLP article, including the exact community in a metro where the BLP subject lives, is really something to be discouraged for privacy reasons.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 16:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Zero issues with the residence being removed on my end. Rusted AutoParts  16:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Completely agree about the relevance of the information. Since we can't prove the IP is Mr. Peterson and since we don't have a source it seems logical to remove. On another note, we have 42 dogs. That isn't really relevant either but there it is. -- A Rose Wolf  17:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 42? Of course! Narky Blert (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good reference right there. Yes, it's actually 42, 30 of which are Huskies. The other 12 are Malamutes. Our trainer, who was my fathers wilderness guide, is former competitor in the Iditarod. -- A Rose Wolf  18:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO, anyone who competes in the Iditarod falls in the (British English) 'mad sod'#2 category. Narky Blert (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)>
 * Oh, he's a nut so I agree with you. He'd agree too. But he's saved my life a time or two so I guess he can be a nut all he wants. -- A Rose Wolf  20:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We have far too much "resides in" cruft for small (and large) places, which is of no possible interest to anyone except close family and friends unless the subject has done or did something relevant there. Such places forever keep turning up in Disambiguation pages with links. In general, the only problems which are easily solvable are US state politicians, who tend to reside somewhere in the constituency they represent. Narky Blert (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I removed the content, as well as the source, which was an opinion piece and thus shouldn't have been used, especially in a BLP. Levivich 17:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

IP 92.4.183.64
IP 92.4.183.64 has been adding unsourced material as well as poorly sourced material to Jakob "Jackie" Gerlich. I have asked them multiple times to stop adding unsourced and poorly sourced info to the page. Geni is not an acceptable source per WP:RSP, which has been pointed out to them multiple times. Admin OhNoitsJamie warned them on their talk page they could be blocked from editing they added the material back, yet they did anyway. --Kbabej (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * . El_C 21:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate it. --Kbabej (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

79.66.209.148 making multiple weird edits on multiple articles
Please could someone have a look at this IP's contributions. They've been doing bizarre things at Sebastián Sichel for which they've been warned, but I suspect they don't know about talk-pages. Unfortunately they've also been editing a lot of other pages, and the problem is that some of their edits look quite sensible at a glance, while others are clearly outright vandalism, so it's very hard for anyone outside the subject matter to know whether they're inserting complete rubbish, or improving, or what they're doing. I'm worried they're leaving a trail of semi-disaster behind them that's going to be hard to clean up. Since they're editing multiple articles, page protection won't do the job. Sorry about this. Elemimele (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

IP hounding me
Hello! An IP, 24.104.193.125, is hounding me. After they were apparently displeased with edits I made to Sukumizu, they removed a talk page warning I had made on another user's page (diff). When I reversed this, they did it again with a mocking edit summary (diff). Now they have reverted two of my recent edits, apparently for no other reason than that I made them (diff and diff). I suspect this behavior will continue unless action is taken. Thanks for your help. I'll go add the necessary notice on their talk page now. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * for harassment, including hounding. El_C 23:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Comtinued disruptive editing and POV pushing by HypVol
I previously reported this user's disruptive editing in the thread linked above, where they were attempting to get some IP users that were reverting their edits blocked. User:Shibbolethink responded saying that they found the edits troubling, but ultimately no action was taken. Following this they seem to have developed a case of the ANI flu and vanished for a couple of weeks so I didn't press the issue further, but now they're back, re-inserting their disputed edits into a number of categories, articles and templates.

A review of this editors contributions will show a distinct pattern of disruption and POV pushing with regards to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan that demonstrate that they are WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopaedia with regards to those topics. For convenience here's a small sample of some of the problematic edits this user has made (partially copied from the previous report, now updated with extra diffs):


 * Replacing neutrally worded 'see also' notes with ridiculous 'Hong Kong belongs to China' POV pushing in templates:
 * Replacing the flag of Hong Kong with the flag of china in a list of universities, next to the university of Hong Kong:
 * Systematically whitewashing articles to remove all mention of the Special Administrative Region status of Hong Kong:
 * Sorting a huge number of articles on various things in Hong Kong into "China foo" categories:
 * Recategorising people from Hong Kong into the categories for mainland china:
 * Across a huge number of templates removing all mentions of Hong Kong being a SAR and merging their topics into the sections on mainland china:
 * Changing a huge number of "Hong Kong Foo" categories from being "Foo by nationality" categories to being subcategories of "China Foo":    ]
 * Describing the flag of Macau as a "regional flag":
 * Modifying the location of Macau to imply it's uncontroversialy a part of mainland china:
 * Adding some rather POV-pushy leads to a couple of articles on Taiwan's international relations, stating how country X does not recognise Taiwan, it's part of china:

While individually some of these edits may be acceptable taken as a whole they demonstrate a distinct pattern of POV pushing with regards to these topics, at the minimum I think a topic ban from china related topics is required, but a straight up block may also be suitable. I also find this editor's use of their user page to construct a "hit list" of IP's that have been reverting them to be inappropriate. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd fully support an indef. Shilling for Winnie the Pooh and his buddies is an especially unpalatable way to be a POV pusher here. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the shitlist from their user page per WP:POLEMIC. – 2 . O . Boxing  19:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also a concerning post left on their talk page by another account whose only activity is reporting IPs to look out for to HypVol.  Slywriter (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: INDEF HypVol
Block for disruptive editing and POV pushing as described above. As far as I can tell, this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. They are here to remove any mention of HK as an autonomous entity from Wikipedia. They also appear to be (possibly) socking or meat puppeting with. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I think it seems pretty clear here this is blatent POV pushing with no regard for building a legit encyclopedia. indef ban seems appropriate if not a broad china-relate topic ban. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support (OP) Something like this is definitely needed. Could some uninvolved administrators weigh in here please? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've unarchived this thread so that hopefully it can get some kind of closure 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – would be nice if HypVol were to chime in themselves, given their sporadic editing it's quite possible this hasn't yet been seen by them, but the presented evidence to me is clear enough for that not to be a requirement.  Angry Harpy   talk 14:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support indef, the editor clearly does not seem to be here to build a general-purpose encyclopedia. BD2412  T 04:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support indef, editor has shown clear POV pushing. Link20XX (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, this is a long time coming... I do not feel that it is in the community's interest to continue to have to exert time and effort either teaching HypVol how to contribute productively (they appear teachable at this point) or cleaning up after them. No longer convinced that they’re here to build an encyclopedia. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive editing by User:Daiichi1
User:Daiichi1 repeatedly reverted the addition to Japanese Wikipedia, even though no agreement had been reached in Talk:Japanese Wikipedia which regarding the removal of statements sourced from credible sources. Daiichi1 have already been warned to be blocked the next time (User talk:Daiichi1), but this time reverted my additions: Special:Diff/1044842684/1045605795.(WP:DE) --UikiHedeo (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in my edit summary there has already been 2 lengthy discussion in the talk page with a clear consensus reached each time. This is not a matter to take to the Administrators noticeboard. If your going to continue with this your free to make your arguments in the talk page but as this has already been discussed extensively im not sure it would give you the results you want. This has likely been told to you countless times including on your other account where you were permanently banned from the Japanese version of Wikipedia but refrain from accusations against other users like you did in your edit summary where you insinuated I was a vandal. I've left a message on your talk page over this  and I'd like to request any administrator reading this to consider banning this user, temporarily at least over this history of egregious behavior spanning multiple Wikis and persisting even after a permanent ban. The block request and discussion on his other account can be found here (in Japanese)  for reference. This user has tried appealing this ban on the English Wikipedia here  which shows a complete lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, users there quickly informed him the two Wikis are separate and have no authority over each other. This coupled with him completely ignoring the talk consensus on Talk:Japanese Wikipedia even when informed of it and then immediately taking this to the Administrators noticeboard make this even clearer and indicate a lack of capacity to contribute constructively to this project. Daiichi1 (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason of reverting my addition about Oyamada's bullying with credible sources never discussed or mentioned in Talk:Japanese Wikipedia. So I regard Daiichi1's reversion belongs to WP:VAN. And about reverting of Yumiko Sato's criticism, we had never reached to a concensus that Daiichi can revert sentences with credible sources ignoring wikipedia's basic rule ( WP:CITE). I think Daiichi's editions are destructive and sentences in talk pages very agressive.(WP:DE)
 * The Japanese Wikipedia is administlated in different rules from en-wiki rules. They are very friendly with Netto-uyoku and very rigorous with whom criticise them. WP:DE is still not validated. --UikiHedeo (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC) Users easily banned by Netto-uyoku administlators. --UikiHedeo (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Tagging ettiquete
I added the POV tag to the header of the Nicholas Wade article and the FV tag to a sentence in the lead, which were removed, first with the accusation of "edit warring", and a second time with the reason being that there is "no consensus" to reinstate it. Yet there has been no discussion with consensus on if/how the sentence is due in the lead, and also how it is not supported by newer better sources. What is the relevant policy on how tags should be added and removed from articles? I have added many CN tags to articles over the years and editors usually just fix the problem instead of removing them. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's been discussion on the talk page, were you are in the one-against-many situation. Re-introducing tags at this point (and then running off to the dramaboard) seems like a WP:POINTY way to go about things. FWIW, this editor was warned about the DS in the topic area under their previous IP; diff. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * One against many? shares my concern. There are many earlier discussions on the page with similar concerns, some of which were successfully resolved. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thriley doesn't have quite the same concerns as you (and for one, they haven't been edit-warring to disruptively tag the article because they don't like it). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have similar concerns. I believe the article needs significant overhaul and oversight by more editors other than the core group who have largely determined the content and tone over the last year. Thriley (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you're free to follow the advice given by WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP (the kind of sources listed at WP:NOLABLEAK) instead of supporting the disruptive addition of tags to prove a point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , this is not the right noticeboard for sourcing policy. The main topic of discussion here is tagging policy/etiquette. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming that . I would like a senior editor or administrator to answer my question here about tagging etiquette. I always thought that the tags were supposed to notify readers of issues while editors sorted things out. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Tags are to notify editors that there is a genuine problem with the article. One or two persons disagreeing with a larger majority (and no, you can't ignore the larger policy issue surrounding the topic) are not good reason to put what are effectively "badge of shame" tags on an article; especially when it's an issue which happens to have been discussed multiple times in the past. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not just two editors by my count. I see many editors with concerns about the neutrality of this article. Feel free to tag the last twenty or thirty editors of the article here or there. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Think of a maintenance tag as a "wet paint" sign. If the paint is dry, if most editors agree that the paint is dry, and the overwhelming majority of third-party literature explains exactly why the paint is dry, the sign is not needed and you shouldn't keep putting it up. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There have been a few editors guarding this article who in my opinion have a specific opinion about Wade that has tarnished the encyclopedic value of the article. The paint is not dry. Thriley (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can't support your assertions by showing how the editors you are accusing of being biased are indeed so (for example, by showing good sources which were missed, or showing that some important elements from existing sources are not accurately represented), then your comments are not particularly helpful to fixing the perceived bias. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is very little detailing Wade’s actual writing/reporting. Much of the article is just rebuttal or criticism. For this article to be encyclopedic, much more work has to be done detailing what Wade actually said. You can tell me to go do that, and I may, but you and others have shown little to no interest in doing so. Thriley (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Thriley: Here's my suggestion: go find some indisputably reliable secondary independent sources describing Wade's reporting, paraphrase them, and then show how that content is WP:DUE for inclusion. (see also WP:RSUW).The way we write articles on wikipedia is based on what independent sources say about a subject, in due proportion to the mention of that content in those sources. We don't just write articles based on what we feel in our hearts to be true. The Wade article is based on what RSes say about the subject. You may not like it, but it is what RSes say. If you have a problem, you can find other perspectives, show how they are due in good RSes, and then add them. Even if you think other editors of the article have a POV, they very likely would not remove well-sourced content that is NPOV.Don't be surprised if others disagree with you about those sources being reliable, though. That's why I say "indisputable." 99% of the time, the reason why content isn't added when someone wants it to be added and everyone else disagrees, it's because the source is unreliable.@79.70.173.174 This board is not for content disputes. Don't bring content disputes here. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think you misunderstand. I am not saying I do not like what the sources say. I am saying I dislike that the editors who have added the critique and criticism have not bothered to detail any of the claims made by Wade. If the intent is to shine light into the subject, the best way would be to detail the claims as much as possible and then in a second paragraph, go through those claims one by one with specific responses by experts. Wade’s publication had a massive effect on COVID-19 coverage in the media in the United States and globally. It would make sense to flesh it out more. I think eventually a stand-alone article about the subject will probably develop as the years go on. Thriley (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I dislike that the editors [..] have not bothered to detail any of the claims So, you want specific material added. Fine. Then, to repeat what Shibbolethink wrote above, give us secondary sources which can be used for adding that material. If you cannot find them, tough. Wade's ideas are WP:FRINGE, and there is no compulsion to explain them in much detail, so there is nothing relevant missing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @79.70.173.174: The answer to your question is pretty simple. Consider the following facts: many articles concern controversial topics; tags are purposefully ugly; tags indicate someone's discontent with what an article says; editors will probably never unanimously agree about what a controversial article should say. Thinking about that shows that tags are useful when a passing editor notices a precise problem that they are unable to solve on an article that is not being actively maintained (if it has active editors, just put a note on the talk page). Tags are not a weapon that allow passers-by to permanently mark their discontent. If others don't agree with you, see WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for providing the requested guidance. I just found WP:TAGGING which seems to diverge from your advice, saying you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Since this page seems to be the consensus on this matter, please can you provide further guidance on this issue, as I think this article suffers from a problem. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , editors keep on removing the POV tag when there is a clear dispute on its neutrality. What is the policy here? Francesco espo (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please think about what I wrote above for a moment. Suppose I thought Donald Trump needed a POV tag. So I add it to the article and put a note on talk saying "I'm trying to improve this encyclopedic value of this entry by expanding it...", then I edit war to replace the tag when others disagree and add comments like "this article does not look like a balanced BLP" on talk. Do you think that is a sustainable approach to tagging? A tag is to alert uninvolved editors (people who aren't actively following changes to the article and engaging on talk) that there might be a problem that the person adding the tag is not able to solve at the moment. A tag is not a weapon to show dissent. When there is disagreement, participants need to focus on actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources—discuss content, not whether a tag is warranted. Then follow WP:DR and perhaps hold an RfC about an actionable proposal (not whether a tag should be added). Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Johnuniq. Tagging disputes, that is, disputes about whether an article should have a tag affixed, are mostly misplaced and sometimes stupid.  The purpose of any article dispute should be to improve the article, and tags do not improve the article.  If an editor thinks that an article is not neutral or has some similar problem, discussion should be about whether changes should be made to the article.  An RFC may be the way to resolve a dispute, and a successful RFC is normally one that asks whether to make a particular change to the article.  The purpose of any article dispute should be to improve the article.  If the editor who thinks that the article is unbalanced (or whatever) can't propose specific changes, then they aren't being helpful and should be ignored.  Does that answer the question?  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Brehmeme

 * User talk:210.50.218.147 have been requested for CheckUser. Grassium (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Checkusers cannot publicly connect IP addresses to accounts under the foundation's privacy policy. 2) Sockpuppet investigations/Blaine2020. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

136.52.102.173 vandalizing and POV pushing
Hello admins, this user is pushing a POV on Hong Kong and Taiwan related articles. This is similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1041325849 so may be a sockpuppet as well. Many of the IP's edits have been reverted and since this user is WP:NOTHERE I am supporting a block.

Some examples
 * Replacing Taiwanese and Tibetian chopsticks with China
 * Describing a plum as Chinese instead of Japanese and calling it mistaken
 * Replacing Taiwan with Taiwan Island
 * Removing Taiwan from an article

As far as I can tell, this user has no intention of contributing to Wikipedia and is here to shill a POV.

Blackdiamand (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP address doesn't seem to have edited since the beginning of August. At this point it's stale and blocks aren't going to do anything productive, it'll almost certainly have been reassigned to another person. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The article for Gitanos looks messy and is tag bombed with citation needed tags.
The Gitanos article should be deleted and recreated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.126.147.123 (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If an article needs rewriting then that can be done without deleting it first. And see the section above for advice about where to post your questions. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request of Saotura
As a courtesy I have transferred the unblock request of Saotura here. I make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. In late 2020, I was site banned by the community after an argument on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The ground of my ban was that since I was trying to push a political agenda, I wasn't here for building an encyclopedia and some other things on the same path. Now, when I look back, even though I denied them at that moment, I accept most of these accusations. However, my point is not that my block was unjustified. In this period of time, I changed. I see how and why what I did was wrong. After being banned from English Wikipedia, I started editing on Turkish Wikipedia. Since that time, I have made more than 5.000 edits and created dozens of articles on many different subjects. I also promoted [https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doki_Doki_Literature_Club! three] good articles, with another one currently waiting at nomination. I even created some articles that were directly related to the Armenian Genocide (one of the grounds of my ban at that moment was that I tried to deny it), for example, one about its terminology. My attitudes and the way I look at Wikipedia have widely changed since the date I was blocked, and I started using it to actually build an encyclopedia. I would be more than happy to return to English Wikipedia and this time start making constructive edits with the purpose of helping the spread of information, instead of trying to build a political agenda, and I appeal to your generosity about it. Thanks.--Saotura (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if a Turkish speaker could review tr:Ermeni Kırımı terminolojisi. Is it as neutrally worded as our own Terminology of the Armenian genocide? If so, I'm inclined to endorse a second chance in this case. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , for the most part it's a direct translation of the English revision, but there are two deviations that don't bode well: Saotura's Turkish version is missing the claims regarding historians' rejection of claims of anachronism (in the sub-section titled Genocide/Soykırım), and the line at the beginning of the English/İngilizce section Contemporary observers used unambiguous terminology to describe the genocide, including "the murder of a nation", "race extermination" and so forth has been translated as Dönemin gözlemcileri Ermeni Kırımı'nı tanımlamak için "bir ulusun katli" ve "ırk imhası" gibi belirsiz birçok terim kullandılar (emphasis mine). Other Turkish speakers can check me on this, but I'm fairly certain that this changes the meaning from [observers...] used unambiguous terminology to [observers...] used various ambiguous terms, inverting the meaning. signed,Rosguill talk 19:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll note that Saotura pinged me from their talk page to offer an explanation regarding the content I pointed out. signed,Rosguill talk 22:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * link to the original community ban discussion. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7 (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly it kinda reminds me of what happened with me after I was banned from Fandom. I got banned and about a year later I looked back on my ban and saw that they were right for banning me and so I requested I get another chance stating this and also that I had changed in that year. If the user has made edits that are within the rules of Turkish Wikipedia (which I suspect have some similarities to the ones on English Wikipedia) then I would definitely say they deserve another chance. The user definitely seems to have admitted that they were in the wrong (even though they denied they were in the wrong at the time of being banned) and they definitely seemed to have changed. If they do return I would definitely be willing to help them out. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#0001 19:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Saotura supplied links to four higher quality articles in Turkish Wikipedia, and they look okay to me. With the goal of seeking to confirm an improvement in Saotura, I wanted to see some other recent edits, ones that were not chosen to prove a point. I looked at tr:Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı Batı Cephesi which is represented in English at Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922). The first addition by Saotura added a massive 640,000 deaths of Turkish civilians killed by Greek regular soldiers and Greek rebels, cited at first to a GIF image of statistics hosted on Hawaii.edu, and also to a book by Justin McCarthy that says "From 1919 to 1922, about 640,000 Muslims died in the region", but doesn't specify that Greek fighters killed these people. In the English version of the article, the number is challenged by Konstantinos Travlos who says that Justin McCarthy "arbitrarily" assigned 640,000 deaths to the Greek sector of fighting, calling the figure into question. I'm concerned about an edit that was initially based on figures tallied in a GIF image, and I'm concerned that a much larger number is featured more prominently in Turkish Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Our version doesn't seem to try to enumerate civilian losses in the infobox at all, instead preferring to explain the situation in prose: . I agree that the situation is stated very differently on Turkish Wikipedia than in the sources which it cites. Given pinged Rosguill to clarify their comment here, a similar ping would be welcome for this one. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 00:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support unblock - the attitude expressed above aligns with the idea that blocks aren't punitive, and are instead designed to prevent disruption. Not only has disruption seemingly been prevented (as intended), the editor in question has undertaken some self-assessment, reflection, and rehabilitation. The interaction with Rosguill above (one mis-translation was highlighted and the response was an apology and pledge to fix it) is encouraging. Ultimately, if its all an act and they haven't changed their ways, a diligent mop'ist can turn their editing privileges off again.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support unblock Judging from the way he is requesting the unblock, I am for it. If he is involved in disrupting WP once more, he can be blocked again and "fooled me once, shame on you, fool me twice, the block will end when the sun gets cold". I haven't seen his articles in Turkish WP nor I think it is hugely significant. Everyone can build an encyclopedia, the q. is if he is causing mess/wars while doing so. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 06:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support unblock, Saotura seemingly understands why they were blocked and has also seemingly amended their behavior. The block no longer serves a purpose. -- <b style="color:white">Mike</b> <b style="color:white">🗩</b> 13:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * No support for unblock: considering the amount of tendentious Nationalistic editing leading to the original block I'm worried 9 months isn't enough for anyone to change their perspective that much, comments by Rosguill and Binksternet support this too. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7 (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support unblock: In reviewing what Rosguill and Binksternet wrote I see something completely different. I see an editor being bold and, yeah, making mistakes but willing to correct those mistakes. ANY dogmatic approach to ANY subject is bad no matter what that subject is. We have to get out of the mode that someone that may have a view we don't like can not learn from their interactions with us. They may still hold their views and thats okay but they must be willing to follow policy, collaborate and follow consensus. If the point is to educate through knowledge and experiences then we are seeing an improvement. If anyone has evidence to the contrary then please present it-- A Rose Wolf  14:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Basically everyone will have some opposing view to something on Wikipedia, but that doesn't always mean that they won't follow policies. There's a bunch of stuff on WIkipedia I don't necessarily agree with, but I follow policies regardless. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#0001 14:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ANY dogmatic approach to ANY subject is bad no matter what that subject is. I would like to propose that having a dogmatic approach to the subject of source falsification or misrepresentation, as in the example documented above by Binksternet, is definitely not bad. --JBL (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , that comment was in reference to the original dispute over a pro-Turkish vs pro-Greek POV and was more-or-less directed at the subject of this discussion and meant as a warning that a return to that type of editing could lead to further sanctions. That was not in reference to anything brought up by anyone else including Binksternet. I should have clarified that further. My apologies. -- A Rose Wolf  20:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not an admin, but, if it's worth anything, I'd be prepared to extend this editor some rope with provisos. A community ban, broadly construed, from the subject(s) that caused the initial problem, for six months or so. Not from Turkish-subject articles in general – clearly they have something to add here that we would benefit from. But genocide and mass-murder and Greco-Turkish relations and the like being off-limits for a period would seem a way of them proving they have grown up (I'm inclined to believe that this happens, having been an idiot, albeit not on WP, when I was younger) and for en.wp to benefit in a subject area we could use more on-the-ground editors. ◦ Trey Maturin 17:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable intermediate step to take; impose a topic restriction to give Saotura a trial period. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support unblock - Saotura seems to have been productive elsewhere whilst banned on en-Wiki. Unblock request seems genuine and a return to editing should be allowed. It should be understood that a return to past ways will lead to another CBAN which will be much, much harder to get overturned. Mjroots (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The original CBAN discussion focused on Saotura not being here to build an encyclopedia as shown by their POV pushing and persistent denial of the Armenian genocide. Since the ban, Saotura has contributed productively to another Wikipedia and even translated our content on the Armenian genocide while maintaining a neutral tone (I'm willing to AGF that the "unambiguous" -> "ambiguous" issue Rosguill brings up really was due to a translation error). These suggest that Saotura would benefit our coverage of Turkish topics and that the concerns leading to the original ban are largely resolved. For this reason, I'm willing to lift it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion of IP editor User:166.216.158.14
The above mentioned IP is making unconstructive edits to article Dr. John in a habitually abusive manner. They began as 166.216.158.150, and proceeded to ignore warnings regarding their disruptive behavior. This led to their being blocked. Not two hours later, an IP from the same range started contributing in the same non-conducive manner. Since the editing picked up within the 31 hour period block on the .158.203 IP, that's clearly a case of ban evasion. A third IP under the same range was also used by this same editor. A range block many be necessary, as it's clear they're intent on adding their unproductive contributions come hell or high water. Thank you. CosmicJacuzzi (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting info.svg Already protected by administrator . RIP Dr. John. El_C 18:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. The editor still did evade their block. Wouldn't that warrant administrative action? I'm not trying to make waves or anything, I just want to better understand the process of how this determination is made. That way I'm not clogging up ANI with unnecessary notices for administrative actions. CosmicJacuzzi (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * CosmicJacuzzi, I just brought to the attention of the noticeboard the fact that the page in question has been protected, is all. El_C 20:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Page protection is administrative action, and, given that the editor(s) at the IP addresses identified have only edited that article this year, and other innocent users may pick up those addresses, it seems like the best administrative action. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fair. Thank you for the explanation. CosmicJacuzzi (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Iván Zarco and text removal
In the article Iván Zarco the IP, who claims to be Zarco, tries to remove a piece of text claiming they have troubles. I was the one who has written the piece (though it has been edited afterwards), and it was based on reliable sources, but they say it is false. I do not mind the piece being removed or rewritten, since the guy is borderline notable, and courtesy removal could be an option, but I would prefer somebody else to have a look and take decisions. Ideally we also need Spanish speaking users to look at the sources (I speak some Spanish, which is enough for me to understand the sources, but it is far from ideal, and I might miss some details).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I asked the question at the article talk page what exactly is false in that section so hopefully they will respond. We can evaluate to see if that information is even important. Seems more to be content related but we need specifics. -- A Rose Wolf  16:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that the IP editor also threatened to "report" Serols in the edit summary here, not quite a legal threat as they didn't say to whom. Since the text that Ymblanter inserted doesn't reflect badly on Zarco, but does on Camilo Santiago, we have to satisfy ourselves that the IP editor isn't actually trying to hide the latter's scandal. If the bit that's causing family difficulties is the stuff about his parentage, then it doesn't seem necessary to the article and could be removed to be on the safe side. Elemimele (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The threats have to stop. We won't know exactly what the dispute is about until they respond but I agree with your assessment of the information @Elemimele. If we can help then we should as this is a BLP. -- A Rose  Wolf  17:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot everyone.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The dispute has been resolved through discussion on the article talk page. I'll try to relay the importance of discussion without making threats to the IP (presumably Mr. Zarco). -- A Rose Wolf  18:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

CosmicEmperor and Marvellous Spider-Man are same person

 * In his first few edits at Teahouse, Greek Legend and Marvellous ask the same question under the same section heading: Greek Legend (diff), Marvellous Spider-Man (diff)
 * Cosmic Emperor and almost all of his socks renamed their user account or signed differently: CosmicEmperor formerly LoverBoyInGarden, Greek Legend formerly as Captain Spark, Marvellous Spider-Man formerly as Rainbow Archer, The Avengers formerly Tarzán2000

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed

I want to use TW(Twinkle) Rainbow Archer (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=727193646

I want to upload a movie poster. Galaxy Kid (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=688973824

CosmicEmperor was banned by

And why made this edit Red Lotus 007 (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to direct you to the relevant SPI case, but very similar text has already been posted at (Sockpuppet investigations/CosmicEmperor/Archive) by . 89.241.33.89 (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of WP:RS sourced content by user:Stvs222


Said user keeps removing what seems to be well-sourced, long-standing content from the Farsiwan article on the supposed merit that these sources have turned the article into being incohensive and contradictory.
 * Removal #1
 * Attempt #2
 * Attempt #3
 * Attempt #4

Its specifically these WP:RS sources that are getting removed;
 * 1) Dupree, Louis (1982) "Afghanistan: (iv.) Ethnography", in Encyclopædia Iranica] Online Edition 2006.
 * 2) H. F. Schurmann, The Mongols of Afghanistan: an Ethnography of the Moghols and Related Peoples of Afghanistan. The Hague: Mouton, 1962: ; p. 75

While removing these sources, they add insist on adding this pdf file into the article. The file, from "publicintelligence.net", doesn't cite any references or whatsoever as far as I can see.

I'm always open to well-argumented proposals accompanied by reliable sources, but this appears to be just WP:TENDENTIOUS editing at this rate (e.g. removal of good sources, edit-warring, no consensus, etc.). I have warned said user before, to no avail, and they insist that their edits are an improvement. Good sources are hard to find, and their removal is the only thing I'm worried about in relation to the article. I believe the community should take a look at this and decide whether said edits are a net worth improvement to the overal quality of the article. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up, the correct URL for Encyclopædia Iranica is https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-iranica-online/afghanistan-COM_4803. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the article and editor on my Watchlist and was going to revert myself. I agree that there's a problem. Publicintelligence.net doesn't appear to be a reliable source in any case. Doug Weller  talk 15:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Can either of you explain to me how it is not a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stvs222 (talk • contribs)
 * Because it is a repository of primary documents sent in by unidentified parties. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok its fine. I understand now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stvs222 (talk • contribs)

Why is there no article for Romani people in the Netherlands?
Why is there no article created for Romani people in the Netherlands? There is a large Romani population in the Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.126.147.123 (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably because it doesn't merit a standalone article, or nobody has gotten around to writing it. There is an article on Romani people. And this question should have been asked at Help desk. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi 144.126.147.123, you're welcome to write one! Can I recommend that another good place to ask questions like this is the Teahouse or, when you want to discuss the content of a particular article that already exists, the talk page associated with that article. This location tends to be for people to argue over bad behaviour. Also, it helps if you sign your posts with 4 tilde symbols at the end ( ~ ). Thanks! Elemimele (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * A brief google found half a dozen or so useful reliable sources about the Romani in the Netherlands. Not enough to make a full article, but certainly more than enough to make a section in Romani diaspora and create a redirect from the requested title. There's a big copyvio in the middle of that article that I've reported (hamfistedly, I must admit) for revdel attention, but once that's gone, I'll very happily add a paragraph in the article and create the redirect. Hope that helps, 144.126.147.123. ◦ Trey Maturin 16:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

✅ Done. There is now an article. It needs more work but there are quite a few sources and a previous RFD discussion deleted the redirect for the specific purpose of encouraging creation.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And in case anyone was wondering why there might be a sudden interest in having an article, the king this week unveiled a new memorial which has been in the works for years.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

"Disruptive" editing by non-communicative IP
This editor seems to make productive edits except for where MOS:OVERLINK and WP:NOTBROKEN are concerned. In relation to those areas, they have a habit of either "correcting" links by the addition of piping, or the linking of countries in circumstances where such a link is not warranted. There are also some less explicit examples, such as in articles about radio linking the first occurrence of a year to that year in radio, but as we have examples that perfectly match the policy I don't believe we need to go into that.

Diffs of this include: June, first warning - Overlinking and Piping July, second warning - Overlinking and Piping September, third warning - Overlinking and Piping September, post-third warning - Overlinking and Piping

Many other examples exist, but I feel these are sufficient. These issues are minor, and I feel a little silly bringing them here, but despite that the real issue is the lack of communication; they have failed to respond to any of the alerts and warnings provided, and have continued to make these edits post-warning, including in the most recently two edits made an hour after the most recent warning.

As such, I feel the only reasonable response is to bring the matter here, in the hope that a change in forum will result in them communicating or that another remedy can be applied should that fail.

BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Long-term IP-hopping Hong Kong MTR editor
I am struggling with an edit warring, IP-hopping individual whose habit is to add slightly erroneous information about Hong Kong's MTR transit system and other Hong Kong topics. Based on consistencies in their editing behaviour, I believe they have been doing the same thing with other IPs for years, but will focus here on the latest batch:



Their latest pet project is to add links to a so-called "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" to various articles. (The tunnel exists – the name "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" does not. There seems to be one PowerPoint in existance that uses the term and that's the evidence that IP has provided that this is the tunnel's name.) I tried to resolve the problem by requesting protection of pages such as MTR and Modified Initial System but they keep moving to other articles, such as Cross-Harbour Tunnel. I would report them for vandalism but I don't think persistently adding slightly erroneous information qualifies as blatant vandalism. Citobun (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This edit is evidence of their intention to disrupt, as they are intentionally misrepresenting the nature of my edits to another user. Citobun (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe it's your (and indeed everyone's) duty to preserve what anyone would have to agree. That's how the Wikipedia project works. It's all about collaborations and agreeing with each other on whatever apparent. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As you've been told in my user talk page, what I referred to was something like a journal paper, not the PowerPoint slides. You may have a different opinion but everyone's duty on Wikipedia not to misrepresent what'd actually happened. Meanwhile there are many different editors who don't edit from registered accounts because of the situation in Hong Kong. From what I can tell they certainly aren't the same person. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * All you have to do is provide reliable sources that suggest that "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" is the established name of this tunnel. You haven't. Having been told that so many times, and having made no effort to produce such sources, it's clear you're just trolling at this point. Citobun (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You've been told in my user talk page that I don't agree there isn't reliable source, and that name has been on Wikipedia across quite a handful of pages for ages. It wasn't me who introduced that name to Wikipedia and the one who did so didn't do it just recently. That'd happened long time ago. You may have your different opinion but that doesn't mean you're always right. As I said you can probably tell from my recent edits that I am ready to use whatever names to refer to that particular tunnel until you are able to agree on anything, something which you apparently don't. All what you are doing is to revert all edits altogether, regardless of what those edits are. It's you who keep mixing things up. And you're the one to complain it's tiring. That's hilarious. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You haven't provided any reliable sources. Citobun (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why you would simply deny the existence of the paper, e.g.? 203.145.94.110 (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The established name based on the references/sources is "Cross-Harbour Tunnel". The IP's are making bold changes and they have been reverted, a few times now. Now it needs to be discussed on the article talk page. If the IP above doesn't agree that there isn't a reliable source that calls it "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" then provide the reliable source. That's all that is being asked and it seems a reasonable request. -- A Rose Wolf  15:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Cross-Harbour Tunnel is a road tunnel. The one in question under this section is a railway tunnel. Please make sure you are able to comprehend what's going on before you chip in. As for "If the IP above doesn't agree that there isn't a reliable source that calls it "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" then provide the reliable source. That's all that is being asked and it seems a reasonable request.", please go and read the paper, e.g. (well Citobun has deleted its hyperlink along with the rest of the entire article on the Modified Initial System; you gotta look that up in the article's edit history.) 203.145.94.110 (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP is actually referring to the immersed tube railway tunnel built as part of the Modified Initial System, the very first phase of the MTR network (not the Cross-Harbour Tunnel). Today it is simply regarded as a part of the Tsuen Wan line. During planning and construction it was called "the immersed tube". If an article were to be made about it today, I would title it "Tsuen Wan line immersed tube" to differentiate it from other immersed tubes since constructed in Hong Kong.


 * Anyway I basically regard all of this as beside the point: the IP editor is a troll. They keep insisting there are reliable sources using the term "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" but won't provide them. They keep editing warring to maintain their own slightly incorrect revisions even after the errors have been pointed out, most recently this (the station in question was called West Kowloon, not Kowloon West). They are trolling. Someone please ban the troll. Wasting time and energy on this kind of low-level, long-term disruption truly saps my will to contribute to Wikipedia. Someone do something please. Thank you. Citobun (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Please make sure you are able to comprehend what's going on before you chip in." That's uncalled for. I was going based on the name that was offered. Putting "Cross-Harbour Tunnel" in the search bar above leads me to this article Cross-Harbour Tunnel. Putting in "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" leads to the MTR article section on the "Modified Initial System". The redirect was created on Sept 21 by but there is still no source for this redirect and there is no mention of it by that name in the article. I assume this was done as a compromise to remedy the situation and stop the edit war. Looking at the history you didn't provide a reliable source for every edit you made including one that specifically calls it "Harbour Crossing Tunnel". Now, you may want to question my comprehension skills, something that directly violates one of the pillars of this community (WP:CIV). But your hypocrisy is noted. You want to call Wikipedia a place for collaboration yet you destroy the very fabric of the collaboration effort by your condescending attitude, your misappropriation of terms and your edit warring. You are the one that has become uncivil in your responses and you are the one that is calling anything you don't want in the article vandalism which is a very serious accusation and shouldn't be used for every edit you don't like. Collaboration is important but so is consensus and so is providing reliable sources for everything you add. If you want to build consensus I suggest taking a different tone, not questioning the comprehension skills and intellect of other editors, and actually provide real sources to back up what you say. -- A Rose  Wolf  12:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The sources have been provided. It's beyond the control of the contributors of the relevant edits to make sure the paywalls or academic institution/professional organisation walls may be overcome. Meanwhile excuse me for reminding on the capability to comprehend what's going on. But it's a genuine matter of concern if we can't even make sure that everyone under this section understand the subject matter is about a railway tunnel rather than the road tunnel nearby.  203.145.94.110 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It's so happened that I've come across another paper by co-incidence, in addition to the paper (a paper, not a set of presentation slides) cited in Harbour Crossing Tunnel an entry which Citobun has tried hard to kill along with Modified Initial System, at , published in the Civil Engineering journal in late 2016. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * These are either dead links or behind academic paywalls. The abstracts do not mention the "Harbour Crossing Tunnel". If "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" were truly the proper and established name for this tunnel I would expect you could actually produce sources that we could view. Citobun (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any official policy against (pay)walls. Meanwhile please do share your insight if you know any policy or guideline on how the entry of such structures should be titled and propose an alternative if you dispute only its name rather than its notability for a standalone article (or a section of an article). People come to Wikipedia for consensus building and collaborations, not revert wars and deletions. Be constructive not counter-productive. Thanks. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * So you still have no source – got it. Since you're suddenly so interested in being "constructive" perhaps you could cease adding hoaxes, factual inaccuracies and made-up terms to Wikipedia. Thanks. Citobun (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The sources are there. Stop pretending that there isn't any. And don't pretend that you aren't a deletionist. Edits like removing the reference to Ir Young Ah-Young from the Lion Rock entry is a notable and classical example of your editing style. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The last source provided above calls the tunnel by three names "Hong Kong Cross Harbour tunnel", "Shatin–Central cross-harbour rail tunnel" and "Hong Kong Airport Railway Western Immersed Tube Tunnel". The second source is highlighted for me as possibly unreliable but still calls it the "Hong Kong Cross Harbour tunnel". The link to the paper in the draft is inaccessible for me for whatever reason so someone else will have to confirm what it calls the tunnel there. -- A Rose Wolf  14:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Cos those aren't the same tunnel — There are altogether five immersed tube tunnels across the harbour. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Noting that I sprotected Cross-Harbour Tunnel for one week (by way of WP:RFPP) independently of this report, of which I was unaware at the time. El_C 23:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record I have already reached out to Alexf on his or her user talk page before El_C protected the XHT entry. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a content dispute and so this should be moved to the article talk page. The comments here by the IP, while uncivil and antagonistic, do not rise to the level of sanctionable in my opinion. The page is protected for now thanks to El_C. If there is further disruption by this IP or anyone else then I am sure one of the very capable admins here can intervene. -- A Rose Wolf  17:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies if anyone felt offended. I'd have to admit I have not been able to stay cool all along, given the way that Citobun edits. He or she keeps alleging people for hoaxes and calling people trolls, before he or she actually verified the materials. He or she also deletes whatever he or she doesn't like while the sources are apparent along. He or she simply deletes everything. Yes there are deletionists but it's always better to at least leave a note in the talk page and/or adding a citation needed tag and wait for a short and reasonable period of time before deleting anything from any entry. I may have been more like an inclusionist on that scale but what Citobun did had indeed appeared to me to be more destructionist than just deletionist. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I never felt offended so I don't feel as though you should have to apologize but there is definitely a better way to approach me. However, in an effort to move forward I accept. I know some believe in the inclusionist vs deletionist philosophies here on Wikipedia but for me that is too much of a misnomer. Wikipedia is not a battleground and we are to assume good faith. You are not my enemy. Civility is non-negotiable and according to principles I have adopted here it should be observed at all times. I try to live by that. I hope you can resolve this dispute through discussion with the other editor. -- A Rose Wolf  18:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * After a week of asking this user for a reliable source that refers to the tunnel in question "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" (a made-up name) they haven't come up with anything. Nothing. And yet they spent a week adding the term across multiple articles from multiple accounts and constantly revert warring over it. All the while adding other factual inaccuracies. If that's not sanctionable then I honestly don't know how we are supposed to maintain these articles in a useable and accurate state. I will continue to remove the troll's references to "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" unless they can produce a reliable source.


 * Isn't it sanctionable that they continue to pretend that they have shown sources to me (they haven't), they continue to pretend that I had done something wrong here (in removing another uncited claim per WP:BURDEN), they continue to misrepresent the nature of my other edits like here. They are presenting paywalled articles for the "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" claim that I suspect they have chosen at random and haven't even viewed themselves. Put simply, this is a troll. If they genuinely wanted to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia they had plenty of opportunities, and were asked repeatedly, to provide a source for the "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" moniker. They chose not to. They chose instead to jump from IP to IP and edit war. If that's not sanctionable then don't know what else to say. I guess disrupting and trolling Wikipedia is OK if you lie about others' intentions, lie about providing sources, and pretend to be civil once it ends up at ANI. Citobun (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Checking through the two sources presented, uses "harbour crossing tunnels" as a description,  calls it "MTR Harbour Crossing", always with MTR, and without tunnel being part of the name. It thus does not appear the sources being purported are genuine. At any rate, that is a content issue, and is separate from the conduct issue raised. Even if there was one or two sources, this does not by itself meet WP:ONUS, and the addition would require consensus. CMD (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The following is excerpted from the Civil Engineering paper for reference: "The first immersed tunnel in Hong Kong was the Cross Harbour tunnel (completed in 1972), which has a steel binocular cross-section lined with concrete, similar to the steel shell sunken tube tunnelling practice in North America. Tunnel elements were fabricated on a slipway adjacent to the tunnel site at Hung Hom and launched sideways before completion of the concrete lining while afloat. The other four immersed tunnels are reinforced concrete structures, generally of rectangular cross-section except for the MTR Harbour Crossing tunnel (Tsuen Wan line) (completed in 1980), which is of binocular cross-section with longitudinal prestress." Note the capitalisation of the letters H and C, which IMHO is an indication to ordinary lay readers that the name is a proper one rather than just descriptive. (The word "line" forms part of the  name of "Tsuen Wan line" yet the letter l wasn't capitalised. It appears to me it's their manual of style, just as the titles of the articles on MTR stations and lines on Wikipedia.) One of the authors of this paper, Ir Martin Morris, also presented another paper titled "Across the Harbour and Beyond - Past Present and Future for Immersed Tube Tunnels" in a 2004 seminar. He's described in the materials of that seminar as an experienced immersed tube tunnel specialist who's been involved in the four of the five immersed tube tunnel projects in Victoria Harbour. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, from Irs Joseph Lo and CK Tsang's 2007 paper, "For screeded bedding foundation for immersed tube tunnel, jack-up rigs are normally used for placing the gravel mattress. Conveyor belts take the stones to the vertical telescopic pipes through which they are fed into a horizontal steel box with an open bottom at the required level. The level of the horizontal box is controlled very accurately from a traveling gantry at the deck level of jack-up rig. From two pipe-beams fixed to the jack-up legs at the bottom of the dredged trench it is possible to exert horizontal forces dredging the screed box and by feeding stone into the box and keeping it full at all times to lay a well compacted and even mattress. Screeded bedding foundation was used in Cross Harbour Tunnel and MTR Harbour Crossing Tunnel in Hong Kong.". The letter T in Tunnel is capitalised. The same appeared in the caption for figure 3 and within one of the boxes of table 2. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Citobun you don't seem to be ready to accept your editing style is a problem. If you have looked at WP:BURDEN which you mentioned and read its third paragraph you'd have learnt about the citation needed tag, and it's recommended that "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Meanwhile you have not proven whether the IP addresses belong to the same person. The sources are there. You may have a different opinion on whether that's sufficient but it may not be the case that the sources aren't there. You even proceeded to as attempt to kill multiple articles before any possible discussion on their notability may take place. You didn't even say anything on whether the line and the tunnel was sufficiently notable to have their own articles, while it has already been offered to talk and see if any other alternative title may be possible for the tunnel entry. If you are to talk about sanctions it's unavoidable to wonder what and who should have been sanctioned. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @ARoseWolf: Thank you. Thank you for the kind reminder. It's been difficult to stay cool but I will try my best to do so. I do hope Citobun and other editors involved can be helpful, rational and reasonable too as you do and get this matter settled asap. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

User Thecorrector21
This user is repeatedly introducing inappropriate MOS:CAPS and changing content back to how they think it should be. They are also engaged in edit warring despite several requests and warning. See Tariq Ali (admiral), Faisal Rasul Lodhi, Zahid Ilyas, Naveed Ashraf and many other articles. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked this editor from article space, which accounts for 98% of their editing. Any administrator should feel free to unblock if this editor agrees to communicate, collaborate and follow the policies and guidelines. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support indefinite partial block till editor shows ability to edit collaboratively and non disruptively. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 14:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

BosnianBeast60
Following on from this ANI report on 6 September, where it was archived without anything happening, continues to add unsourced content to BLPs and to create unsourced BLPs. Are we going to allow this continue disregard for WP:BLP to continue? GiantSnowman 22:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I blocked for a month. Given this is a fourth block in a year, the next one is likely to be of indefinite duration--Ymblanter (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that escalated rather quickly. Good job . Celestina007 (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! GiantSnowman 08:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good block. So many warnings on their talk. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 14:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Boboszky
For no proper reason, this user keeps adding the citation needed template as well as other templates such as the 'POV' and 'Disputed-section' to the Bakhtiari people, even though the origins section of the article is well sourced and cited by Islamica. This I have already told him, yet he keeps instantly reverting me and claims that the information 'needs sources' or 'he couldnt find the 'information'. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There are actually good reasons that I mentioned on HistoryofIran page but that the user unfortunately didn't see relevant to keep. Some statements he did in the section ==Origins== and ==Etymology== of Bakhtiari people are either wrong (i.e Etymology) with modified sources or lack of sources. The whole section ==Origins== rely on one source (that cannot be read) with elements that sound more like personnal rather than academical statements. I just kindly asked HistoryofIran to provide more sources and to cleanup the section but the user didn't accept this request.Boboszky (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It cant be read because you need to buy access, just like any other source… Could you please point out the rule that states that one citation is not enough? And what are those personal elements exactly? Elaborate. HistoryofIran (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * HistoryofIran There is a discussion page for discussing content and there is no point of discussing it here. I need to add that I put the 'POV' and 'Disputed-section' banners because you kept reverting my changes, where I asked for additional sources. A whole section relying on one single source that cannot be verified is not "well sourced" as you like to say. Boboszky (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Please stop repeating yourself and answer my questions. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * HistoryofIran, please don't edit war over the tags. The discussion seems to be ongoing on the article talk page, so probably best to be more patient, especially considering that it only started a few hours ago. Also, please don't forget to attach a timestamp to your sig (had to add that for you twice already above). El_C 15:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright. For some reason it doesn't add a timestamp when I write from my phone. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * make sure you are typing four tildes not three Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hoaxer
I came across the creations of this user through new page patrol: both were unsourced stubs on "future" TV series, and quick Google searches revealed that the series were hoaxes. A further review of this user's edits showed that the user has had engaged in adding false information or falsifying existing information on multiple articles, and I had to revert all edits. I'd like to request an indefinite block on this user for hoaxing and WP:NOTHERE. I initially considered reporting to AIV, but ultimately thought that ANI would be a better place for this report. Thanks,  Java Hurricane  16:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Blocked indef, hoaxes (including those in draftspace) removed. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot !  Java Hurricane  18:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Shane Overton disruptive deletion
This article is well-sourced. A new editor, ShanePaul72, presumably, but not conclusively, the subject of the article (i.e. a possible COI issue), has repeatedly deleted the substantive text of the article, either with no edit rationale or with spurious assertions of privacy rights. He has made no other edits. Emeraude (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow. My personal view is this article should go to AfD; it has significant UNDUE issues, and for an article making extraordinary claims, it requires extraordinary sourcing - something this article definitely does not. Surprised it has survived in this state for 10 years. What is everyone else's thoughts? Daniel (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to lean on the side of non-notability and BLP/privacy and, given the nature of the article, speedy it under A7. —C.Fred (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I definitely concur. As Cullen328 points out below there's plenty of alphabet soup to justify a deletion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think A7 would apply here, but WP:BLPDEL probably would. Mlb96 (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) I would not call this article well-sourced. Its sources are simply local news of his convictions, such as just about anyone who is convicted of anything gets. The fact that I do not like the crimes he was convicted of doesn't override WP:BLP and WP:NOT concerns. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Question as someone unfamiliar with the British system; since ASBOs have been depreciated, did they shift the subject to a CBO, and are they permanent? And is it still in effect for the subject?  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no possible interest in this individual, and this is outside my area of law. However, I've looked at the Transitional Provisions of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Broadly speaking, existing ASBOs continued in effect for 5 years from the date of commencement of that Act, after which any still existing were automatically converted into measures under the 2014 Act. IDK what it took or takes to get either an ASBO or an order under the 2014 Act lifted. Narky Blert (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This looks like a classic WP:BLP1E to me, and the offense, though ugly, was minor. WP:PERP also applies. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  22:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it for a few hours, I have used my discretion as an administrator to delete this article under WP:A7, WP:BLP1E, WP:PERP and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, taken together. Any administrator who disagrees with my decision can feel free to restore the article without my approval. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good call - a BLP failure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fully support, if I had a bit more guts I would have done it myself! Daniel (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Well done! -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 14:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Takedown requests under EU privacy policy?
As a related issue, do we have an established procedure for a situation like this where EU privacy policy is invoked as a reason for removal? My gut says that the requesters in such situations should email WP:VRT, but I can't find it in a guideline. —C.Fred (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I imagine that a U.S.-based company simply could ignore such a request; WP:NOTCENSORED exists for a reason, after all, and U.S. law generally protects the publication of true information that WP:NEWSORGs would find newsworthy. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * it seems that such requests are made the foundation, but without exception it seems they are rejected. Further, a 2020 EU CoJ ruling suggests that Wikipedia isn't expected to remove the article, though there may be an expectation that they remove access to the article in the EU, similar to how Google has blocked these results in the EU.
 * In general, I think this is something we can safely leave to the lawyers - though if any changes are made, I hope they communicate a little better with us than they are in similar circumstances, such as the current project to mask IP's. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * the WMF has specifically requested that such instances be sent to them. Now currently I don't think they act on them, but since such a position clearly opens us to legal risk, it's a decision that can only be handled by them Nosebagbear (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

IP clearly WP:NOTHERE
User:85.255.235.29 is heavily POV pushing and WP:FICTREF on TempleOS. The IP told me to hush if I dared to disagree with him/her, has claimed I was a POV-pushed with a false agenda, that I was a liar who was hiding the truth because [I] have an authority complex, and implied I could not read. The IP has added information using WP:FICTREF, and after my undoing the IP added them back. Veverve (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

IP hopping around and vandalising
Hi administrators, these IPs has been hopping around and vandalising Cheongju and also Chuu (singer). They are adding the same thing like "smiling like penguin" and "she dives into the sea, hunting and eating fish, squid and krill with her beak and is afraid of being preyed upon by her predators leopard seals and killer whales". While using some IPs, they go add non-NPOV content like "Her nickname is also known as Chyuyeyeo" which are pretty much trivia and non-encyclopedic. They have previously did the same thing to Draft:Running Girls which has been temporarily protected till 7 October 2021.



GeoLocate check shows all of the IPs points to various parts of Japan hence suspecting user may be using VPN or proxies. In fact, on User talk:106.131.67.27, my suspicion is likely correct as they quickly changed to 106.131.65.40 and replied using it. Please help to block all of them or range block if possible. Thanks you and Regards  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  02:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like proxy use to me from a cursory glance, just highly dynamic IPs on very wide ranges. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Blablubbs Not sure though, it is just my suspicion and assumption as they switched between IP at quite a fast pace. And according to GeoLocate (if that's accurate enough), the location is within Japan but some shows as Hadano, Kanagawa and some shows as Shibuya, Tokyo, both cities are actually around 1–1.5 hour+ apart in terms of travel time so VPN usage is likely correct.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  04:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Paper9oll: It's all the same residential ISP (au), and consistently on the same two wide ranges. Geolocation differences are to be expected when looking at dynamic IPs, and geolocation accuracy and stability varies fairly widely depending on the network in general. The usage pattern is not consistent with open proxy use either. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Blablubbs Okay understood. So it looks like range block won't be possible since it is very wide range, are there other measures available?  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  11:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Weird behaviour at Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Look at the history of the article going back to around 9 September. This diff, for example shows that 162 edits by 33 users achieved precisely nothing. Every IP, every user makes a few small edits to things like infobox spacing. Then a new IP takes over. Then a new one, and so on. In the past two days it has been newly-registered accounts - single purpose accounts who only repeat the same edits. Each IP or registered user uses the same edit summary for their efforts. This looks to me like on person with way to much time on their hands. I can't see what it is possibly achieving but I think it should be stopped. I have requested semi-protection but wondered if admins here might take a closer look. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Semi'd 1 month. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the history and noticed several blocked proxies. I did look at one account but I don't think I'm that clued up to find proxies and there was no sign of socking on the IP. Doug Weller  talk 10:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - the editing by is all very similar, and very odd. No doubt 10mmsocket is preparing a SPI re this. Mjroots (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It wouldn’t surprise me if the IPs (not 173.54.243.6) were all proxies. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Am I? Well of course I'm happy to. Is it actually worth it as this isn't pernicious block avoidance? It's just some kids messing about. Happy to follow your advice though, so give me the nod and I'll happily followup with an SPI. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * From a proxy checking perspective, I can say that it is essentially confirmed that this is someone loutsocking on proxy, as opposed to a regular user on an infected network. This is an anonymiser whose only useful purpose is evading blocks and scrutiny (hence a perennial favourite of LTAs), and not something a normal internet user may have just forgotten to turn off. Between that, the other socking, and the disruptive editing pattern, I do not believe that this is somebody who is here for the right reasons. Accordingly, I'm blocking the lot, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Qiu.Huan. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Jadamondo personal attacks
In a discussion at Talk:Prime Minister of Australia, User:Jadamondo referred to me as "a overweight sad internet sleuth", "a overweight waste of air and strain on society", "nothing more than a waste of earths resources", and noted that I live in "a world that does not even notice you sad and pathetic existence". These all look like textbook (and entirely unprovoked, given the until-then civil tone of the discussion on the page) WP:NPA violations. Wallnot (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked 72 hours for clear-cut personal attacks. If anything like this recurs, the next block would likely be indefinite.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Copy and pasting direct from article
Buckey2015 copied parts of the Flight section from American Airlines Flight 77 and pasted it into Pike County, Ohio. Once I noticed, I removed the section as it had no interest to the article and was a copy from the AA77 article. The user reverted this edit without an edit summary. I then reverted the version back to my original, adding a new section to their talk page explaining why. Today, they reverted it again, without an edit summary explaining why.

I brought this here considering I do not want to start an edit war. I am somewhat new to this side of Wikipedia, and therefore do not know the correct protocol. I am only asking the section be removed as it is of no interest to the article. Kellis7 22:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This is of direct interest to the article. Flight 77 was hijacked over the Pike County area and has even been written about in our local newspapers, including the 9/11 20th anniversary newspaper from this month. The locals like to see these two tied together. There's no need for you to be removing this part of our history for no reason. Buckey2015


 * Kellis7 and Buckey2015, this appears to be a content dispute, not an urgent incident or a chronic, intractable behavioral problem which needs the attention of this board. If you need general advice you can ask at Teahouse. The first step in resolving a content dispute is to discuss the issue on a talkpage, see BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If you still don't agree, further steps are suggested in Dispute resolution. TSventon (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't simply a content dispute, it's technically a WP:COPYVIO by breaking attribution. Copy/paste moves of content are a very bad move on Wikipedia, unless you can somehow provide a link back to the original page where it was edited (so as to preserve the list of who made the appropriate edits).
 * Buckey, the argument "people like to see it" is not a valid reason for making an edit. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I will take this into consideration in the future if I encounter this situation again. Kellis7 13:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Motorcycle Action Group
Would someone please have a look at Motorcycle Action Group, where a "Controversies" section about living people is generating a lot of edit warring and socking. I tried to sort it out, first by restoring what I thought was properly sourced before realising that the source is unreliable (a website created by one of the involved parties). Highlighting this on the article's talk page didn't have any effect and the report on the BLP noticeboard is collecting dust while the disruption continues. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I've removed the Controversies section, warned the editor, and left a message on Talk page. Woodroar (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That seems to have done the trick. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that this leaves the article entirely sourced to primary sources. I have tagged it for such (and notability, because I can't find a lot...). Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting that both and  have COI on this article. Without "outing" them you don't have to do more than a couple of google clicks to understand their direct association with the organisation. Strongly suspect same might be true of. --10mmsocket (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

is right that those people are involved. I'm not a member of the organisation but I was considering joining it. I had nothing to do with the 2012-2014 lawsuit, but I had a bee in my bonnet about a potentially corrupt person reclaiming a position of power in an organisation they've directly harmed in the past. It just weakens my faith in humanity, and so keeping the record straight was the least I could do. I've contacted the courts for the documents so I can verify the website maguk.info again; while established by someone involved, it seems unfair to ignore that much evidence. To falsify that much is an undertaking of phenomenal proportions, hundreds of hours, to potentially spread rumours about a couple of people in a small group of people that have little world impact. I'm emotionally invested, true, but not because I'm directly involved with any of the people. I saw an injustice and it's going to occupy me for a couple of weeks. When I get the documents from the court (pre-2017 stuff is archived so I had to send in a request rather than viewing online), how can I reference that? Can I share those with an impartial third party to verify, seeing as while I'm not involved I care about it? TheClarifier (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We generally do not cite court findings directly, as they are a primary source. It would be better if you found reliable, secondary sources which discuss the matter. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Genre warring by AstralCiaran
User had been warned in the past over genre warring using poor sourcing, if any, and has continued to do so in recent days, particularly at Tommy (The Who album):


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

They have ignored efforts to discuss the matter at the relevant talk page:


 * 
 * 

Signing Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This recent edit summary further makes it clear the editor has no interest in or respect for our policies and processes regarding these kinds of disputes: Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I have invited the user to self-revert; I'm waiting on their next action before I take further action. —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Piotr Jr. (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Please watch Christopher Reeve today
It's getting a lot of edits today as he's today's Google Doodle in some countries. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 19:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it. https://www.google.com/doodles/christopher-reeves-69th-birthday *69, the geniuses at google hard at work. El_C 20:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice. <b style="font-family:Ariel; color:black">Adigabrek</b> Talk 20:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Super. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what you did there. BD2412  T 21:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Belshazzar
Would someone close Talk:Belshazzar? An IP refuses to take no for an answer. They don't accept that WP:OR is banned inside Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You need an admin to tell you that if you don't want a conversation to continue, you should stop contributing to it? The IP made one edit to the article, was reverted, and hasn't made another edit to the article.  Ignore them. --JBL (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet abusing various accounts
I'm reopening a case that I filed earlier this year as there hasn't really been a solution to it. Long story short, the editor of the sock master Cool a123 has continuously created new accounts (which can be seen here), and have also been using multiple dynamic IP's. The IP they are currently using is 2603:8000:401:9930:0:0:0:0/64, which was blocked for 1 week, but is now active again. I will list their more recent accounts below.
 * 172.119.122.91 (Blocked)
 * 2603:8000:443:9600::/64 (Blocked)
 * Poolison 2000 (Blocked)
 * 2603:8000:403:4053:0:0:0:0/64 (Unblocked but inactive)
 * 2603:8000:400:41A1:0:0:0:0/64 (Blocked for 2 weeks)

This has been a constant cycle for the past nine months. Every time one of their accounts get blocked, they are able to come back with another one. It is also very frustrating with the fact that the IPv6 address keeps changing, so the /64 range blocks have somewhat been ineffective. I'm hoping that there is a solution to this, because the way that they are able to return with new accounts or IP's each time they get blocked is not cutting it. Yowashi (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

User:ZX2006XZ repeatedly resubmitting drafts without any improvement
(formerly known as S9105974 until a rename on the 22nd of this month ) has repeatedly resubmitted Draft:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) and Draft:Ice Age: Adventures of Buck Wild without meaningful improvement or addressing the issues raised by AfC reviewers. This is disruptive and wasting the time of AfC reviewers. I'd like to see some kind of partial ban from the draft namespace and from the AfC process. ZX2006XZ's behaviour in draftspace so far has been disruptive, wastes time, and has been subject to numerous warnings. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 15:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ZX2006XZ's edits to Ice Age: Adventures of Buck Wild started when they decided to duplicate the already existing Draft:Ice Age: The Adventures of Buck Wild and minorly improve it.  They then did some more improvements and submitted.  After being declined, they made minor rewordings and submitted again, failing to even attempt to add in new sources.  After being declined for the second time, they changed one of their sources from a tweet to the WordPress blog that the tweet was linking to.  After their third decline, ZX2006XZ added in a non-free poster (for the second time) and did more minor changes.  Here is the sum total of ZX2006XZ's improvements to their draft over the course of three reviews.
 * Moving on to Draft:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) (which is how I encountered ZX2006XZ), the same pattern repeats itself with more egregious behaviour. The article for this draft was draftified over a year ago after an AfD. The article was then recreated while the draft was still a draft, and the article was sent to AfD on September 4th which came back with a consensus to draftify on September 17th. During this discussion, ZX2006XZ resubmitted the draft for their third time with no improvements to the draft since their last submission beyond adding a copyrighted image, even after User:Robert McClenon told them not to repeatedly submit during the AfD.  This led to what is possibly the only MfD of a draft closed with the "draftify" consensus, as the MfD was opened during the AfD due to the resubmissions.
 * After the AfD closed with a consensus to draftify, the mainspace page was moved to draftspace as a secondary draft in what may have been preparation to merge the mainspace content with the draftspace content. However, ZX2006XZ apparently waited only four minutes since the closure of the AfD to resubmit with what appears to have been 0 improvements. This led to their most recent resubmission of Draft:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) in which they didn't make any changes whatsoever before resubmitting.
 * What brought me to dive deeper into this user's history is that when I left them a message on their talk page telling them not to resubmit, they left a message on my talk page claiming they didn't do the last submission. While initially it appeared to me as if they typed in a different username, after more research it appeared that they had their username changed in between submission and now. After digging deeper into their history, it appears my warning was misplaced. ZX2006XZ has had many warnings in the past about their behaviour. They should be aware after the numerous comments left on their drafts that what they're doing is not allowed. It is illogical to claim that they didn't remember or didn't know they submitted a draft two days ago when they clearly know how to submit drafts, understand how the process works, and have repeatedly submitted the same draft over and over again.


 * I apologize for repeatedly submitting drafts without improving them. I will work on improving the drafts. ZX2006XZ 17:09 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:ZX2006XZ - You say that you apologize for repeatedly submitting drafts without working on them, and that you will work on improving them in the future. You have already been warned.  What is even more important than working on your drafts before resubmitting them is discussing them with the reviewers, and you do not seem ever to discuss with reviewers or with other editors.  Your edit history shows that you have apparently never used talk pages.  If you do not know how to use talk pages (and we know that some mobile editors have difficulty with talk pages), you can ask at the Teahouse, which, like WP:ANI, is a project page.
 * User: ZX2006XZ - The real problem with the drafts in question is not that the drafts need improvement, but that the films have not been released. You were told to wait until the films were released.  Even if you think that the films are notable before release, you should discuss rather than just resubmitting the drafts.
 * I don't like the idea of imposing any general sort of restriction on the use of draft space. It is less disruptive for an editor to resubmit drafts than to misuse article space.  If there are problems with specific drafts, the editor can be partially blocked.
 * I will note that the two topics in question are unreleased films, and unreleased films that are in or out of production (principal photography or animation) are a contentious topic because the film notability guideline is poorly written. However, that does not excuse repeated useless resubmissions with failure to discuss.
 * Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm more or less inclined to agree after a few days off of this. I think at least part of the issue from what I've seen in other cases is that we don't make it clear enough that submitters are allowed and required to communicate if they don't understand the decline. Generally, if I get automated or templated emails from a corporation I don't feel the need to respond. It seems like the AfC process is in some ways similar to that. One keeps plugging your draft into a faceless bureaucracy with vague suggestions on how to correct one's submission. Submitters might not be aware that it is ok to directly ask the reviewer for additional information and the current workflow seems to push the default option of "resubmit" until one reaches the stage of rejection.
 * Some people are obviously going to just refuse to understand but I wonder if AfC is partially at fault or if events like these could be avoided if we were able to explain earlier on "don't resubmit until the film comes out". Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 20:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I and some other AFC reviewers are willing to consider ways to improve how AFC works, but these were cases where we really did say not to resubmit until the film came out. And in this case the editor resubmitted the draft when the article was also prematurely in article space, which was just pointless.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying that the editor wasn't being disruptive. I was only saying that a restriction on draft space would not be a useful way to minimize the disruption.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point, with only an empty response from User:ZX2006XZ, I think that closing this thread with a warning that any future tendentious resubmissions will result in an indefinite block. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Current "Battle of Blue Licks" page largely plagiarized
This reproduces a comment I have left on the talk page for the "Battle of Blue Licks" article. I register it here as it seems to me to warrant notice from Wikipedia Admins, rather than leaving it to be picked up by serendipity:

It transpires that the present version of the article largely plagiarizes John M. Trowbridge, "‘We Are All Slaughtered Men’: The Battle of Blue Licks." Kentucky Ancestors: Genealogical Quarterly of the Kentucky Historical Society (2006): 58-73.

This article was first added to Wikipedia in 2004, but with the revision of 5:04, 21 August 2006, the text of Trowbridge's article was more or less copied over the previous version. It is concerning that nowhere is the dependence on Trowbridge acknowledged (even!), nor does his article appear in the current bibliography.

Clearly this is a large-scale issue, and beyond my competence to repair. The situation does need to be remedied, however.

DjR (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The user who made that 2006 edit,, is still active as recently as three days ago. It would be useful to hear what he has to say. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You really need to notify impacted editors when you create a report here; I've done this for you.
 * Not sure about the claim. I don't see an exact date for the publication of that periodical other than "Winter" 2006; the pdf notes 9/5/08 but that's probably a digitization artifact. As you note, Mr. Kevin's primary addition took place here on 8/21/2006. Subsequent modifications like this (same day) and this (five days later) are picked up in the Trowbridge article. An incremental build of an exact copy seems odd; it feels more likely that the opposite happened; welcome other eyes.  Kuru   (talk)  19:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It crossed my mind it might work in the other direction (Trowbridge passed off the WP article as his own work), but thought that the less likely scenario. Would be happy to be wrong! Sorry if I've not understood proper etiquette on the reporting/handling process. DjR (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I took a look and also think that the publication copied from the Wikipedia article; in addition to Kuru's diffs above, Trowbridge's article also picked up subsequent changes from other editors like (removal of (mostly Wyandots, Ottawas, Ojibwas, and Potawatomis) and  (copy edits from an IP). DanCherek (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notification. All my contributions to Wikipedia are strictly original. I've had my contributions to Wikipedia "borrowed" by publications in the past, but probably never plagiarized to this extent. For me, the most amusing part of the Trowbridge article is endnote #9, which is also my writing, and is simply the lede of the Daniel Boone article as it then appeared in Wikipedia. Kevin1776 (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and extreme POV pushing by User:Fowler&fowler
User:Fowler&fowler has been repeatedly removing any mention of the monarch at the article Dominion of India, when users disagree. It is all sourced and there was consensus at Talk:Monarchy of India to include that information at the Dominion of India PS: at the merge proposal at Talk:Monarchy of India, users said that the information was duplicated at the Dominion of India. Yet he is editing with a POV and repeatedly removing sourced things. He has been removing any mention of the monarch and pushing his POV again and again:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

First he called the monarchy in the Dominion of India "a myth" by doing improper synthesis of published material. That thing was clarified to him by User:JWULTRABLIZZARD, but after some time he has again removed the thing and pushing his POV into the article.

From his edits, it gives an impression that he is doing it delibrately or the user doesn't know what a dominion is or how the monarch functions separately in each realm, as well as divisibility of The Crown. He is trying his best by giving every sort of rubbish excuses, to remove things which he doesn't like, and present his POV in the article. Some of his POV pushing and misinformation-replete statements:


 * "OR in the service of an archaic British POV; this kind of detail does not belong to India"


 * "removing gratuitous nonsense about GVI."


 * "gvi was never king of india, at least not in India"


 * "after 8/15/47 gvi was never called the king, at least never in india"


 * "promoting an obsolete, toxic, POV"

He must know that Wikipedia isn't the place for personal opinions. Per Verifiability and No original research, content must be supported by Reliable sources, which in this case is supported by RS. The only problem is that he just doesn't like it. One can also see his behaviour in the edit history of the article.

Also, he removed the monarch from the infobox, but kept the Governor-General, the person who represented the monarch.

Also, I am not a master of writing long and meaningless essays like him on talk pages. I prefer talking straight to the point. So, if there is any issue with my report here of not being very much detailed, please excuse me. Regards, <span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine','Georgia','Times',serif"> Peter Ormond &#128172;  00:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I blocked Peter on September 18 for one week for edit-warring at Dominion of India. Unfortunately, this thread is a result of that block expiring today.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm not looking in the right place but could you point to where you've discussed this on the article talk page? I see one post by Fowler, one response by another editor, and that's it. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe Peter is referring to the Talk page of Dominion of India, and Peter posted multiple times there.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I was blocked on the same day before I could gather scholarly sources and present them at the talk page discussion. <span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine','Georgia','Times',serif"> Peter Ormond &#128172;  01:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Not to get off topic. But if George VI wasn't King of India from 1947 to 1950, then who was the governor-general representing? GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I dont know, ask him. But I can cite RS: <span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine','Georgia','Times',serif"> Peter Ormond  &#128172;  01:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ABCLIO allowed their authors to copy my Indian famines articles verbatim, in the worst case of plagiarism I've seen on WP. See here. I recommend that you read history books on India written by the academic presses.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine','Georgia','Times',serif"> Peter Ormond &#128172;  02:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The guy is a lawyer in the Indian Supreme Court by day and amateur historian by night. I can find your sources for you. Hold on.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is a much better one:


 * I'm not going to bother with getting the chapter name, but do you see what happened? The Indian nationalist movement was avowedly republican, but they also had the task of integrating their very feudal princely states (whose ancestors had signed various treaties with Queen Victoria guaranteeing them certain rights in perpetuity) Everyone was walking a thin line.  The nationalists did not want to even acknowledge the fact of a "dominion." For that reason, India was always called the "Union of India" in India and by all its embassies abroad. The King of England was "formally" King of India, but no one in India acknowledged that or even got a whiff of that.  But the illusion was maintained to allow Mountbatten to continue in India and to help with the accession of the Indian states, which he not only did but also helped out with the crucial accession of Kashmir.  Historians who are aware of the "formal" dynamics, never mention GVI anywhere, let alone as king of India. But when you put him in the infobox with the bells whistles you give him a much larger life than he actually had in India.  His was a largely unacknowledged formal title.  It was nothing like the settler dominions (Canada, Australia, etc).  If GVI's elder brother had made his booboo in 1948 instead of 1936, India as a dominion would have had no vote in the matter, and India for its own part would not have touched the question of EVIII's fate with a ten-foot pole so disconnected it already was from England. Like I've said, on the talk page of DoI, you can put him in the infobox, but that is the limit of his presence on that page.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The Indian National Congress willingly accepted to owe allegiance to the King as long as India remained a Dominion. You are bringing a person's own thinking and POV (as well as your own). Note that his position as King of India was entirely independent from his position as King of the United Kingdom. You don't seem to like it or may not even understand it. <span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine','Georgia','Times',serif"> Peter Ormond &#128172;  04:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe the 1931 Statute of Westminister made the position of King of India possible, just like it did King of Australia, King of Canada, King of New Zealand, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it did. He just doesn't understand the divisibility of the Crown, and how the monarch has a legal persona in each of his realm. He is repeatedly calling it a "toxic British POV", when the monarch's role as Sovereign of India was different and entirely independent of his role as King of the United Kingdom. <span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine','Georgia','Times',serif"> Peter Ormond &#128172;  05:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Statute of Westminster applied to the White Dominions, especially Settler Dominions. See: BBC, "India: Dominion or not Dominion" (12/06/06): "The 1931 Statute of Westminster confirmed what was meant by the dominion status of Australia, Canada, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland, New Zealand and South Africa. India, was excluded because there was an active independence movement, because she shunned dominion status and because Britain had a different relationship with India than she did with the rest of the empire. One third of the British army was garrisoned in India and paid for by India. That wasn't the case in any other colony. And although the British Crown had run India since 1858, there were few commercial concessions to India.So from military and economic points alone the British did not want to devolve real power to the Indians. Some in India would have settled for dominion status. Others wanted nothing less than independence."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought once the Indian dominion came into being, it automatically became (what's now called) a Commonwealth realm. Reckon, it shows my lack of insight on discussed topic. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, India was not granted Dominion Status in 1931 because that was opposed by the Purna Swarajis then. But later in 1947, the Congress agreed to dominion status for a short time, and also made it clear that they will be a republic eventually. <span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine','Georgia','Times',serif"> Peter Ormond &#128172;  08:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The BBC piece says a lot more than the Indian National Congress, which you bizarrely call "Purna Swarajis," opposed Dominion Status. It also says, "because Britain had a different relationship with India than she did with the rest of the empire. One third of the British army was garrisoned in India and paid for by India. That wasn't the case in any other colony. And although the British Crown had run India since 1858, there were few commercial concessions to India.So from military and economic points alone the British did not want to devolve real power to the Indians."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please also see Britannica: "Statute of Westminster, (1931), statute of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that effected the equality of Britain and the then dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland, and Newfoundland." Please note: After the war, Britons by the thousands migrated to Australia and New Zealand. But obviously, Indians between 1947 and 1950 could not.  See the picture File:GVI Attlee and Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth London 1948 13 October.jpg I've included of the 1948 Commonwealth PM's conference, which states, "Fraser (the prime minister of New Zealand) welcomed the admission of the new nations to the Commonwealth. At the same time, he was careful not to draw attention to New Zealand's immigration policies, which still made it difficult for citizens of Asian countries to be accepted as immigrants." That's from the Encyclopedia of New Zealand.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Very well. PS - I do concede that you & Peter O, have better knowledge about the Dominion of India, then I do. Will step back from it & hope a solution is found for this current content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Peter Ormond, how do you mean, in the second sentence of your report above, that "there was consensus at Talk:Monarchy of India to include that information at the Dominion of India"? That seems to be an important basis for your complaint against F&F; and yet the only thing on the page Talk:Monarchy of India is an RfC about redirecting Monarchy of India to List of Indian monarchs. That got consensus and the page was duly redirected. The article Dominion of India was mentioned in the discussion as a possible alternative redirect target, but didn't gain traction. And in any case, how you get from that RfC to "there was consensus at Talk:Monarchy of India to include [mention of George VI as monarch] at the Dominion of India" is mysterious to me. I recommend people to read the RfC for themselves. Bishonen &#124; tålk 06:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC).
 * Well, I meant that the users said that the information was relevant to the Dominion of India. I just typed the wrong thing. I retract that sentence. <span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine','Georgia','Times',serif"> Peter Ormond &#128172;  06:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove your own claim that I have queried, Peter Ormond. That's very confusing — people won't know what I'm talking about. What you're supposed to do if you wish to retract a statement after somebody has replied to it is strike out, with ... . Please see WP:REDACTED. As for what you now explain you meant, I recommend even more that people read the RfC for themselves. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC).


 * Comment: Fowler, can you address the apparent misrepresentation of sources you did at Dominion of India]? The page 238 only say "Within days of the award Sikhs and Hindus were falling on the Muslims of the East Punjab and Muslims on the Sikhs in the west", compared to the misrepresentation done by you as "In a matter of days, Sikhs and Hindus of the East Punjab were suddenly and unexpectedly attacking the Muslims there, and in the West Punjab, Muslims were returning the violence and the ferocity on the Sikhs..... The Hindu refugees from the west Punjab arriving in Delhi ended up tearing away the Muslim community there from their established cultural patterns and values, and temporarily destabilized the new government" which you did in these two edits: --Yoonadue (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This article needs a rewrite and a NPOV check. <span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine','Georgia','Times',serif"> Peter Ormond &#128172;  06:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Page 238 of Spear says, "'Within days of the award Sikhs and Hindus were falling on the Muslims of the East Punjab and Muslims on the Sikhs in the west. There was general fighting accompanied by every kind of atrocity; convoys were waylaid, refugee trains held up and their passengers slaughtered, men, women, and children. Within days long convoys were marching east and west seeking shelter in the other dominion. The tide of refugees caused an explosion of communal strife in Delhi in early September. The Muslim community was uprooted and for a time the stability of the government was threatened.'" I have paraphrased it as: "'In a matter of days, Sikhs and Hindus of the East Punjab were suddenly and unexpectedly attacking the Muslims there, and in the West Punjab, Muslims were returning the violence and the ferocity on the Sikhs.[12] Trains taking the refugees to their new lands were stopped, their occupants slaughtered regardless of age and gender.[12] Long lines of humans and ox-carts travelling East and West to their new dominions were intercepted and overwhelmed.[12] The Hindu refugees from the west Punjab arriving in Delhi ended up tearing away the Muslim community there from their established cultural patterns and values, and temporarily destabilized the new government'" Please note: "to fall on (OED)" = To make a physical attack on, esp. fiercely or unexpectedly; to accost, assail, assault." Please also note: "uproot" = if you are uprooted, you leave, or are made to leave, a place where you have lived for a long time. (Collins dictionary); = " to displace from a country or traditional habitat : tear from established cultural patterns" (Websters) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Despite “POV-pushing” being bandied around, it’s hard to see anything going on here beside a content dispute around WP:DUE. DeCausa (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with DeCausa. And it looks to me like it's Yoonadue that needs to address the misrepresentation of sources they did just above, with "The page 238 only say[s]", my bold. After F&F's quote from the page, lopping it off like Yoonadue did strains my AGF severely. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC).
 * I copied "only" that part since it is relevant to the passage I questioned above as "only" that part from the book appears to be mentioning the multi-religion conflict related to the passage in question. It contradicts Fowler's misrepresentation of source that well extends to "The Hindu refugees from the west Punjab arriving in Delhi ended up tearing away the Muslim community there from their established cultural patterns and values, and temporarily destabilized the new government" - which is not supported by the source. Anyone reading Fowler's message right above can easily see the clear misrepresentation of the source. Even the "only" part I pasted has been misrepresented since it says "Muslims of the East Punjab" while Fowler misrepresented on the main article as "Sikhs and Hindus of the East Punjab". --Yoonadue (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh? The source says, "Sikhs and Hindus were falling on the Muslims of the East Punjab and Muslims on the Sikhs in the west." I've paraphrased it as, "In a matter of days, Sikhs and Hindus of the East Punjab were suddenly and unexpectedly attacking the Muslims there, and in the West Punjab, Muslims were returning the violence and the ferocity on the Sikhs." Where do you think the Sikhs and Hindus were from? Timbuktoo?  They were from East Punjab, which was a minority Muslim area.  They were attacking the Muslims there.  In return, the Muslims of West Punjab, which was a Muslim majority area, were attacking the minority Sikhs and Hindus. By the way, no one has ever called it a multi-religion conflict.  It was only Muslim and non-Muslim.  The Sikhs and Hindus were aligned.  I don't think you know anything about the history of India.  You are deliberately wasting time, and in effect being disruptive.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * To the admins here: Peter Ormond is now calling the Consitution of India the Republican Constitution of India and adding parenthetically, India already had a constitution during the Dominion years.  This is the first I've heard of a pre-1947 constitution.  To be sure, India had the Government of India Act, 1935 to which the Constitution of India owes a lot,  but it was not itself a constitution, i.e. one enacted by the people of India..  It would be the equivalent of calling the US Constitution or the Irish Constitution, the Republican Constitutions of ...  Mainly though I'm irritated.  For the first time in 20 years, there is actually an article that people can read, and Peter Ormond who has done nothing but OR for the last two or three months is flailing about randomly slapping tags on this or that. This is beginning to look disruptive again.  And he has just emerged from the block.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Indian Dominion already had a Constitution. And as far as I know, the article is about the Dominion of India. You are writing about the Constitution that was enacted after 1950. So to differentiate I added the prefix "republican". <span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine','Georgia','Times',serif"> Peter Ormond &#128172;  10:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)








 * Huh? ::: The title is "Framing." That happened between 1947 and 28 November 1949. I've even added the picture of the preamble. I start by mentioning the Government of India Act, and all you can do is to bicker about "Republican?" There are two possibilities here: (a) you have genuine concerns or (b) you are being disruptive. But if you were genuinely concerned about the constitution, what were you doing all these months?  Why didn't you write a paragraph on it.  You also casually throw around expressons like the "Purna Swarajis," which I had never heard before, and apparentlyno one else has either.  It is a dismissive term for the Indian National Congress (after 1930 when it declared complete independence to be its goal), an off-handed term and ultimately a demeaning one.  It would be akin to calling Thomas Jefferson the "Inalienablist," or Lincoln the "Fourscorean." I have absolutely no idea what you are attempting to do on the Dominion of India page, but you are treading on some mighty thin ice. I have spent a lot of time thinking about the history of India and I will not let you have your way. It is a matter of some basic principles  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The content dispute can be discussed on the article talk page. In terms of editor behavior, I am more concerned that within moments of being released from a block Peter Ormond has performed three reverts in less than an hour:
 * 1) undoing
 * 2) undoing
 * 3) undoing  DrKay (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No. 1 is certainly not a revert. He argued about the source and I then added the info with a scholarly source. <span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine','Georgia','Times',serif"> Peter Ormond &#128172;  10:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree above with DeCausa/Bishonen and DrKay. I'm more concerned about Peter Ormond's behavior in this and as far as the complaint by Yoonadue, it appears to be a case of piling on an unrelated matter -- and like Bishonen, my AGF meter is stretched thin -- to see if one get their way. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The plethora of sources here clearly indicate that this is a content dispute that needs to be on article talk pages. I have a lot of faith in Fowler's knowledge of the history around India's independence so I'm not going to claim to be a neutral observer, but and this does seem to me to be a case of "I'm not getting my way on the article talk page so let me try ANI". --RegentsPark (comment) 20:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that 'more' editors are aware of the content dispute. Perhaps, they'll head over to the article-in-question & help break the logjam. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Albanians and Ottomans and Egypt, oh my!


Giant red flag to me when a user mentions "Albanian propaganda" in edit summaries. Issue compounded as he identifies as a resident of Egypt. Given that Albania and Greece are invoked here, I also wonder if this is drifting into a topic area where the discretionary sanctions for the Balkans apply.

I'd like to get some fresh eyes on the situation to see if the edits have merit, if they are good faith, or if they are sanctionable. —C.Fred (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There may be a valid point that repeated mentions of Albanian identity might be UNDUE, but the second and third diffs provided go far beyond what I would consider a good faith attempt to apply due weight. The repeated use of "minor edit" and mischaracterization of changes in edit summaries, combined with a general bull in china shop attitude (e.g. misuse of infobox parameters and "correcting" British spelling standards in the first edit, bundling many separate changes into singular edits across the board) make me think that sanctions are in order sooner rather than later. IMO so long as disruption is focused on mentions of the Albanian nationality, Balkan sanctions should be considered authoized. signed,Rosguill talk 19:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Any edit with an edit summary of "XXX propaganda" to me merits a TBAN from XXX. So, "yes". What Rosguill said -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Like "nationalistic propaganda" ? Levivich 19:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Or is this anti-nationalistic propaganda? -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to history, facts matter the most and not personal feelings with all my respect to the other editor of course, I have nothing against Albanians and I have Albanian friend who I like and respect, but no denying that there is a huge Albanian propaganda in most of the Egyptian history pages, which doesn't end with just claiming historical characters without a good source but also degrading the Egyptian people. And the continues spamming of the word Albanian in one page is not professional even if He was originally Albanian, the spam existed to prove something the editor himself know it’s hard to be believed, no one deny the involvement of Albania and Greece in this period of time in Egypt, the only objection is about claiming something not true, Albanians were involved in this by being the troops Mohamed Ali Pasha commanded until the coup they tried to make on him, not by being Mohamed Ali Pasha himself, and no one denies the Albanian troops. We only deny the claim that Mohamed Ali Pasha is Albanian. Mohamed Ali Pasha was born in Greece, not Albania, and he never claimed being Albanian, His family mentioned being Kurds from Diar Bakr later.if it was nationalism I would have claimed him as Arab or Egyptian, but it's just fixing the history of my country on wiki not some nationalism agenda. Mohamed Ali Ethnicity is unknown but he is either a Kurd or a Greek, the continuous spams and claims of the Albanian identity in the pages is really disrespectful for the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Kurds. At the end I would like to mention another editor (edit summary) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Ali_of_Egypt&diff=1042028881&oldid=1041957461 This is actually a known problem and many before me tried to fix it before, but got defeated by the continuous edit. "Where the Cairo magazine Al-Musawwar published on November 25, 1949 on (page 56) a press interview conducted by Abbas Mahmoud Al-Akkad with Prince Muhammad Ali, the Egyptian Crown Prince and descendant of the family of Muhammad Ali the Great, the Governor of Egypt. In this interview, Prince Muhammad Ali admits that the Muhammad Ali family belongs to the Kurdish origin" Mohamed Ali Pasha Mohamed Ali Pasha (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , can you explain why you in this edit removed multiple references while using the edit summary Removed Albanian Propaganda that was included without sources (emphasis mine). signed,Rosguill talk 02:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , Part 1 was removed for adding something not mentioned to the sources that was added to support it, the first part was appeantarly the dna or biology of King Farouk which had a source of a book page that doesn't mention Farouk and was talking about a time before he was even born and to a Guy who was an Army officer, the page mentioned is talking about a guy Mohamed Ali took him as a son not a guy even related to Farouk by blood. the second source is a link to the picture that shows the ancestors of Queen Nazli the mother of Farouk, who was half French half Egyptian and it was used somehow to prove that she had Albanian blood??!!

Queen Nazli origins from her wiki page "Nazli was born on 25 June 1894 into a family of Egyptian, Turkish, Greek and French origin.[2][3] Her father was Abdur Rahim Sabri Pasha,[4] minister of agriculture and governor of Cairo, and her mother was Tawfika Khanum Sharif. Nazli had a brother, Sherif Sabri Pasha, and a sister, Amina Sabri.[4]She was the maternal granddaughter of Major General Mohamed Sherif Pasha, prime minister and minister of foreign affairs, who was of Turkish origin.[5] She was also a great-granddaughter of the French-born officer Suleiman Pasha.” Clearly the word Albania was put there with no proved sources, and the whole numbers are not proven to be true, so I removed it. Part 2 I noticed that it has a source that leads to nowhere and after searching Stadium 1991 it led me to nowhere, maybe it's a real thing and I just couldn't find it, but my search led to nothing and the one who put the source had a link that leads to nothing. Mohamed ALi didn't came from Albania with an Albanian force and invaded Egypt and enslaved it's people, he was the same like Ataturk who was originally greek and was always mentioned as turk not greek, or Napelon who wasn't originally french but no one call him anything but French, same for Mohamed Ali here, Egypt wasn't an Albanian king and his Circassians nobles and Egyptian slaves like the part I removed was trying to say, Egypt did have so many nobles from Circassians and Turk and even Armenian origins but none of them called himself someting not Egyptian because most of them were forced to move to Egypt in the frist place because of problems in their homeland they didn't arrive as Invaders, and anyhow even tho Egypt still had many Great noble families from Egyptian origins like محمد باشا الدمرداش Mohamed Pasha Eldmrdash house of Al Qalyubia, الحمامصى Alhomasi house of Demiteia and أحمد أمينAhmed Amin house the owner of The culture magazine, الزيات Alzaiat house owner of Alrasala newspaper, محمد أحمد فرغلي باشا Mohamed Ahmed Farghaly Pasha of ALexandria a cotton merchant, أحمد عبود باشاAhmed Aboud Pasha who had a merchant fleet and owner of the sugar company of Egypt, عبداللطيف أبورجيلة Abdullatief Aburgela and of course the great ones like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talaat_Harb Talaat Harb house, the guy who made the first real Egyptian Bank and was the minister of the treasury and created most of the Egyptian national companies, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saad_Zaghloul#Family Zaghoulol House, Saad Zaghloul the most famous Egyptian in this era. Part 3 the continuous mention of Farouk 30 Albanian bodyguard that has no actual source except the same broken or fake source as the one before it that leads to no where and in Egypt Farouk Bodyguards are wellknown none of them had a single thing to do with Albania, Him like the rest of the Egyptian nobles preferred to use black Nubian guards because they were known in Egypt for their strength and loyalty along with other Egyptian guards of course, I don't think Albanians and Nubian looks anyway close to each others in the look. Major General Abdullah Al-Nujoumi Pasha the commander of king Farouk Royal Guards, https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRDukzTgQQMU7PUkoLLTjO7c3y4oaPYPPyzugiuNPY1R8aLsBjMdNyl7Ux3S1-LLMMXy-A&usqp=CAU they actually claimed him as Albanian, at least I mentioned a name of the commander of the guards, the editors before me just put 30 Albanian bodyguards with not a single name or anyway to prove it, and it was somehow allowed in the page. Mohamed Ali Pasha (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at the first set of sources removed, and with the limited online preview I can confirm that they discuss King Farouk, although I wasn't able to pull up the exact page cited so I can't verify the claim. My suggestion to you, is to move slower and be more precise when removing content that has sources attached. Assume good faith and be prepared to raise issues on the talk page of the article in question if you encounter disagreement. Finally, please try to be more concise; if you write responses like the one above, the vast majority of editors are going to ignore your points. signed,Rosguill talk 17:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * thank you, this if my first days in editing wiki pages, I created the account just to fix horrible claims on my country wiki pages, hopefully I will become meore professonial in the future and try to view my point in a better way as I learn more about wiki editing. I have a question if I may ask

How to request to remove protection from certain page to provide good sources that deny some claim in the page.Mohamed Ali Pasha (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather than request removal of protection, start by requesting the edit at the talk page of thea rticle in question. —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * These issues have been debated at length on the talkpage of Muhammad Ali of Egypt. I have filed a new SPI about the account: Sockpuppet investigations/Haldir Marchwarden.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted this at SPI, but the two accounts are ❌. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is what it is then. thanks for the quick CU :) The dispute itself seems to involve Farouk's Albanian bodyguards and William Stadiem who was Farouk's biographer. He's no "Albanian propagandist" - a BLP violation if that is what is being implied. Farouk's Albanian origin is generally well known because he (unfortunately) used it in every way he could to distance himself from local Egyptians and that was how Egyptians perceived the dynasty. Farouk himself said:  This is the basic common narrative in Egypt even today about Farouk.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Side comment: I started a section about Stadiem at the talkpage if the new account wants to make a case against Stadiem (1991) .--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * idk where are you from, but I can clearly say you know nothing about the Egyptian history nor Farouk, the military coup leader did start some rumors about Farouk and tried to make him look like a rich foreigner due to their socialist nationalistic military ideology but this claim is nothing but propaganda which you use to try to support your claim, and you didn't mention that just sadly, all what you said in this comment is so ridiculous it can be proved to be wrong with a single link "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narriman_Sadek" his second wife, Farouk as his family before him never claimed being Albanians and always tried to be closer to the Egyptian, his second wife is known to be not just an Egyptian by ethnicity but also not rich nor from the aristocracy as mentioned “Farouk divorced his first wife, Queen Farida, in 1948, after a ten-year marriage in which she had produced three daughters, but no male heir. In a bid to ensure his succession, and also to rekindle some public enthusiasm towards a decaying dynasty, he let it be known that he was in the market for a new bride, preferably an Egyptian, well-heeled but not of the aristocracy.” + Farouk considered himself Arab and Egyptian to the level he was known as leader of the pan Arabs, he even made the local magazines portray him as a proud Arab this is actually what I meant by saying some editors don't just try to claim some historical charters from Egypt but also try to degrade the Egyptian people and insult them, having nothing to do with a king but also using him to insult his own people are disgusting. Like what you just did by claiming “Farouk's Albanian origin is generally well known because he (unfortunately) used it in every way he could to distance himself from local Egyptians and that was how Egyptians perceived the dynasty” I already told you before and other editors who are not even from Egypt asked from you before, please move on and stop claiming him.Mohamed Ali Pasha (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

side comment about first thank you second I searched for your book after you mentioned the write name I was finally able to find the book because you didn't provide a link, anyways I found out that majority of the readers of the book call it ficitional and one of them even said "Really entertaining writing, but factually all over the place. It has interesting ideas but I wouldn't use it as a primary source for anything." Which is not a surpirse reading such reviews on a book that is being used as a source to claim such claims : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7240007-too-rich Mohamed Ali Pasha (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely p-blocked Mohamed Ali Pasha from editing the two pages mentioned in this report, as they have continued to edit war without engaging with discussion on talk pages there. If we don't see a marked improvement from the argumentation in the above comments, I think a TBAN from Egyptian history is in order. signed,Rosguill talk 02:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * but I didn't start the argument here with Maleschreiber nor did I call him to talk here instead of the talk page of the mentioned wiki I just replied to him after he mentioned me and talked about me and provided me claims to counter or accept.Mohamed Ali Pasha (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , there are two problems with your behavior at this time. 1) You re-instated your edits too many times. When there is dispute on Wikipedia, you are expected to talk it out and come to an agreement. We have various processes for helping you on your way to there, but right now you haven't even begun to engage with the discussion at the talk pages of either of the two articles mentioned at the beginning of this this report. 2) Your arguments are not at all in compliance with Wikipedia's standards on reliable sources and original research. Said arguments hold very little water on Wikipedia, and repeating them over and over is going to end in you being banned from editing this topic for wasting people's time. The best way to learn how to better make arguments about article content, other than reading the policies I just linked, is to work on editing topics that are not quite so politically charged. signed,Rosguill talk 03:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have started a section at the talkpage where you can explain your arguments: Talk:Farouk of Egypt. Before you do so, a reading of WP:RS might help you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of conflict of interest (COI)
continues to accuse editors with whom he disagrees as having a conflict of interest (COI) in favor of the extreme right People's Party of Canada (PPC), which is a personal attack. When I deleted his last accusation of COI as a personal attack, he accused me of having a COI: "I'd say while most editors disagreeing with me aren't showing a personal bias, I've been wondering for some time whether you are. I'd say your priorities in this instance are near-confirmation of COI at best."

The dispute is about whether the PPC should be included in the infobox of 2021 Canadian federal election.

These are his edits:
 * 5% has been the consensus for the non-COI editors. They'll probably make it. 05:35, 21 September 2021
 * Let's keep the WP:COI out of it....If they make 5% put them in; if they don't, leave them out and be prepared for a siege of COI edits. 14:14, 21 September 2021
 * The requirement has been mentioned ad nauseum in many threads on this Talk page, against many blatant COI attempts to declare the PPC exceptional. 14:57, 21 September 2021
 * ...followers whose perceptions are filtered through their choice of media starts deluging the page with COI edits. 18:29, 21 September 2021
 * Did you miss last election's COI storm entirely? 19:08, 21 September 2021
 * Let the COI circus begin anew. 04:46, 25 September 2021
 * I thought semi-protection was supposed to keep such partisan anons out. 19:33, 26 September 2021

COI editing "involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." WP:COI says that suspicion of COI should be discussed on a user's talk page then taken to the COI noticeboard. It is disruptive at the very least to accuse other editors of COI on article talk pages, especially without evidence.

Could other editors please explain this to him.

TFD (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The "personal attack" in question was to comment that I thought page semi-protection was supposed to keep out partisan anons such as one who stated "Those opposing are probably trying to hide that their party keeps losing the popular vote." My comment struck TFD as more offensive than the anon's.
 * Read what you will into why he considers general comments on the likelihood of COI edits/arguments occurring or mentioning that they have in the past constitutes an attack on particular individuals. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW - The 5% or 1 seat in parliamentary elections, has been used as the   inclusion criteria for infoboxes. Frustratingly, an attempt is being made to 'bend' this criteria to allow inclusion of Bernier & his PPC into the infobox at the 2021 Canadian federal election article. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

You're conflating COI with POV. There's been plenty of POV pushing at that page, but I don't see anything which would suggest any COI editing. Mlb96 (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I took the meaning of COI from context rather than checking if there was a precise definition. Ignoring NPOV completely strikes me as COI but does not fit Wikipedia's definition. I'll try to be more disciplined in my language. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Stalking recidivism
I seem to have incited a very disturbing pattern of stalking behavior perpetrated by User:Just plain Bill. The behavioral incidents began after a series of our respective edits to the Tongue article from 08 Apr 2021. My complaint is twofold:
 * 1) Just plain Bill has repeatedly made ad hominem attacks in his edit summaries and on the related Talk Pages. (An abject instance is his claim, in the Sex Talk Page, "For others reading this, Kent is the author of a lexicon, and has acknowledged that much of his WP editing is motivated by a desire to bring the encyclopedia into conformance with his off-wiki text. For the most part, that may be harmless, but in cases like this, it can distort encyclopedic content", which involves some truth about my offline activity but egregiously misrepresents my interest in providing clearly worded lead definitions for Wiki articles that are linked to the glossary of my off-Wiki textbook. Moreover, nothing in that excerpt is related to the article's content.)
 * 2) Just plain Bill has been tracking my editing activity regarding various articles. He has subsequently posted his initial edits to those articles in a pattern of disruptive behavior as follows:
 * Sex (13 Apr 2021) following my post on that same date.
 * Affair (05 Jul 2021) following my edits from 02 Jul 2021.
 * Animal (12 Jul 2021) following my edits from 10 Jul 2021.
 * Public opinion (15 Jul 2021) following my edits from 14 Jul 2021.
 * Rotation (25 Sep 2021) following my edits from 18 Sep 2021.

To be clear, I consider some of Just plain Bill’s abovementioned edits to have encyclopedic merit, yet his frequent reversions, together with his edit summaries’ monotonous disparagement of prior editors’ work as being “word salad,” is less than civil and is quite unconstructive.

I wouldn’t have called you attention to this matter if Just plain Bill’s edits related to articles that he had edited prior to my initial edits. However, in light of the stalking pattern described above, where Just plain Bill's initial edits occur in the footsteps of my own initial edits, his unrelenting behavior seems somewhat creepy, to put it bluntly. Please do what you can to dissuade this unwelcomed attention, regardless of Just plain Bill's intentions.

My previous attempts to mitigate this situation through humor have failed. Consequently, I’m not asking for him to be blocked or banned, but if there’s a way to prevent him from tracking my contributions as part of his stalking modus operandi, I’d appreciate that safeguard. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Hounding, "tracking" another editor's edits is fine unless "done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior". Paul August &#9742; 00:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what's happening in this case. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not what's happening in this case. Some of Kent's edits need cleaning-up after, particularly when they go beyond grammar fixes and touch technical or mathematical topics.


 * His mangling of the Compass article, with insistence that Euclidean vectors are something displayed by a compass, served as something like a Socratic gadfly to facilitate reaching a cleaner, more accurate lead than what had gone before. That is about the best thing I can say about Kent's Wikipedia activity.


 * His misreadings of my edit comments have led him to believe that "word salad" applied to the efforts of previous editors, when in fact it was his own comments that prompted that characterization. If he does not understand why "rotation occurs along the axis contained by the plane" is not even wrong, that shows why he should tread lightly around technical topics. While my "word salad" comments were undiplomatic, I stand by the accuracy of how they describe the relevant content.


 * I started a talk-page topic for those edits to Rotation. In edit summaries, I invited him to join it. He has not done so.


 * Attempted humor and tendentious volubility are no substitute for cognizant, competent editing. regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course some of my edits need cleaning-up, regardless of the topic. I appreciate any and all edits that have encyclopedic merit that benefit our readership. And I don't find an editor's tracking of my edits to be troubling in and of itself. The incessant "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior" replete in Just plain Bill's edit summaries and talk page posts, however, are a bridge too far. Additionally, the unrelenting ad hominem remarks not only violate WP:CIVILITY standards, but also the cooperative spirit on which Wikipedia is based. Look no further than his post in this thread to find examples of ad hominem remarks:
 * "(Kent's) mangling of the Compass article ... served as something like a Socratic gadfly"
 * "(Kent's) misreadings of my edit comments have led him to believe ..."
 * "(Kent) should tread lightly around technical topics."
 * Per WP:CIVILITY policy, "Editors are expected to refrain from making personal attacks. Under those Edit summary dos and don'ts:
 * Use neutral language.
 * Remain calm.
 * Don't make snide comments.
 * Don't make personal remarks about editors.
 * Don't be aggressive.
 * Just plain Bill routinely violates all of those recommendations in a manner that doesn't alarm me more than it concerns me how others might deem it to be acceptable behavior. In short, his tendentious behaviors not only erode digress from cooperative efforts to emend a given article, but they are inimical to the focus on the articles themselves.


 * An attitude that one misreads an edit summary (versus an attitude that one might not have interpreted an edit summary in the manner intended) might be grounds for an editor's discontent, but it's no grounds for incivility.
 * An attitude that one should tread lightly around technical topics upon which one deems himself or herself to be more capable (or informed? irreproachable? infallible?) neither justifies nor excuses incivility.


 * Indeed I have never claimed that any editor, including Just plain Bill, might need to remediate his or her familiarity with basic grammar, with ordinary senses of common vocabulary (like "unfamiliar" or "in") outside a given editor's apparent range of usage, or with straightforward syntactical constructs in order to more favorably write or construe a particular edit relating to a topic on which the editor purports some degree of expertise. Such a need is clearly demonstrated on a routine basis at Wikipedia, but WP policy deems it uncivil and ad hominem for anyone to direct advice for remediation at a particular editor.


 * On numerous occasions, Just plain Bill has stalked my contributions, reverted an edit together with a snide edit summary, violated the definition (if not the spirit) of 3RR, ultimately to express satisfaction with his own edit that restates, in whole or part, material that he had earlier reverted or undone according to his unilateral assertion of "word salad." My take on this: It's irrelevant to me what makes Just plain Bill tick and why he either fails to comprehend or merely ignores simple standards of civility. Also, his self-professed expertise, or whatever lack thereof, is similarly irrelevant. I care about improving the Wikipedia product (most specifically its lead sentences regarding articles I might link from my glossary) in a cooperative environment. Just plain Bill's modus operandi is a recurring impediment in that regard.


 * However permissible Just plain Bill's tracking behavior might be according to WP's standards, it nonetheless feels quite creepy due to his ensuing incivility, to say nothing about his incitement of edit wars. I say this not only on my own behalf but in light of his penchant for reverting, in a terse and often uncivil manner, literally 1000s of edits that invite bafflement from editors whose contradictory comments he routinely deletes from his talk page. I can only guess how many other editors he routinely tracks and hounds in a stalking manner. If there's no remedy for stalking, I'll try to muster the time to report each textbook case of 3RR and incivility that Just plain Bill accrues. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Editor with attitude reinstates unsourced info
thinks an exception should be made when it comes to this unsourced info which I removed on Arapgir. I told them they could simply reinstate it all if a RS was added to back it up but instead I got a get lost. I have also used their talk-page. It's ridiculous of them to keep defending the presence of unsourced info on Wikipedia. The era of adding unsourced info is over on Wikipedia. --Semsûrî (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Your request was not made in good faith. Your editing is not made in good faith. Why are you removing the Armenian name of the city when the article clearly reflects and justifies its inclusion? Why did you remove the section on the genocide even though I had added a source? The fact that you blank reverted my edit, which included a source for the material, speaks volumes of the sort of attitude that a user brings to a particular topic. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This sheds some more light into the situation. Semsûrî can you explain why you removed historical Armenian name when the history and population sections of Arapgir article were well sourced and indicated Armenian presence? That doesn't seem like a constructive edit. You also removed this part in the same edit, which is clearly disruptive and which El C had to restore. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place to resolve content issues. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It's an issue of behavior not the content itself. --Semsûrî (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it is. ZaniGiovanni, respectfully, that's not helping. Not helping you, not helping this user, not helping the WP:AA2 divide. Get lost isn't an acceptable 'reasoning' for reverting back unsourced content, especially when for some reason it also re-inserts a passage with a . El_C 15:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the article El C, let's just say full story wasn't shown by the OP. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If sources are requested for something, best to just provide these. Either side wholesale reverting sourced/unsourced content indiscriminately is unhelpful. Using Get lost as the edit summary for a revert is inappropriate and a repetition of that behaviour may lead to sanctions. El_C 19:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree with the language used, not all of the info was unsourced (that didn't stop its removal tho by Semsûrî), and the historical name clearly has place to be as the relevant to it article sections seem to be well sourced. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , RE: not all of the info was unsourced (that didn't stop its removal tho by Semsûrî) — not all of the info was sourced (that didn't stop its restoration tho by MarshallBagramyan). In other words, it's important to aim at even-handedness, even and especially for a subject matter one is deeply invested in. El_C 19:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And I didn't disagree with you El C, in fact I was talking about a specific part in that edit about the Armenian genocide, which was sourced yet still got removed. And the historical name too, despite indications of historic presence and culture. I'm trying to show the full story of this situation, as Semsûrî already opened about Marshall's side and how he/they cared about sources, while not showing the full picture. I still think both of them should resolve this in talk.
 * I'll probably go through the sources later, it shouldn't be hard to find the exact pages/sources for the other info as well because of the town's history. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

EWA though. – 2 . O . Boxing  18:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ??? El_C 19:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll take responsibility for the sourced sentence that I shouldn't have remove. I genuinely did not see a reference between the sentences. Nonetheless, that sentence could have been reinstated with no issue. Regarding the Armenian name, for the last couple of years, there has been some type of consensus among editors that spend time on Kurdish-related subjects that the local name (regardless of language) should also be sourced. Some of these names are words that only exist on Wikipedia so its just for the best to add a RS for it. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , RE: for the last couple of years, there has been some type of consensus among editors [...] — what, is that something MarshallBagramyan is expected to infer out of the ether? Again, neither one of you had bothered using the talk page, which as I noted earlier today, hasn't been used by a human since 2009. El_C 19:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

nationalist edits by iaof2017
    

the user iaof2017 continues nationalistically disrupting an article after repeated warnings. his edits got reverted by an administrator but he continued disrupting the same article!
 * Nonsense! Everything within the article, including the subjects origins, is well sourced. Cheers!--Lorik17 (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * it is but you keep adding it in the front while it is already covered in the body of the article and you keep adding nationalistic and incorrect categories. you might want to listen to the administrator who reverted you. i believe sanctions will be needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.93.139 (talk) 16:03, 26 Sep 2021 (UTC)
 * The introduction should summarize key points of the article. Whether his ethnic background warrants mention in the introduction is a matter for discussion on the article's talk page, since this is a content dispute. I suggest neither edit revert the article further; instead, engage in discussion at the talk page and see if a broader consensus can be reached about how and where to include his background. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * wp:nationality says ""Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."" and i dont see how its relevant enough for the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.93.139 (talk) 16:36, 26 Sep 2021 (UTC)
 * Say that in the talk page discussion, not here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * i will. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.93.139 (talk) 16:57, 26 Sep 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This wasn't discussed in the articles talk page, and this seems more like an issue with content rather than a behavior issue. The case should be closed with a warning to both not to violate WP:3RR any further but discuss at the articles talk page. Jerm (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an IP user which jumps from article to article and adds the same questionable edits including particular political narratives  Remove IP edits but use sources which discuss the subject. I've never listened to Doruntina and the like, but it didn't take long for me to find that "Sin Boy" :  He's an Albanian singer who doesn't have any other citizenship other than Albanian - mention him as Albanian in the lede and use no other terms.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Fuck Joe Biden
I'm not at all sure I can take this to RFP, so I'm asking here whether or not this nom should be protected from IP disruption like this, this, this and this for the most obvious of reasons. I don't understand why this was created in the first place, but my vote! is in the nom and I'm not saying more than that.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected for 24 hours to encourage the class clown to move along. Short protection time means there'll be plenty of opportunity for constructive IP comments before the AfD closes. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely fair; not wanting this to be a censored discussion by any means.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I closed this AfD early, per WP:SNOW. The outcome was abundantly clear, and there was zero benefit from dragging this out any further. Daniel (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

User MarkoOhNo WP:NOTHERE
This account's history over the past year shows that they're only be here to criticize Wikipedia and its editors, making accusations of bias on various articles and talk pages:. They were warned about disruptive editing back in February and responded months later with "Sorry if inserting TRUTH disrupted the fantasy world in which you're participating. Perhaps your time would be better spent LARPing instead of intentionally presenting misinformation as though factual and actively silencing reality? It's worth considering. Might even be more enjoyable to you." Is it time to block them from editing Liberalpedia? –dlthewave ☎ 18:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely zero interest in anything political in 2010-2012. Account is not active for 5 years, save one edit, and starts to immediately go into one of the hottest of the hot-button topics on Wikipedia? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first suspicious account we've seen at Talk:CNN either. I'll dig deeper later today and maybe consider a SPI. –dlthewave ☎ 19:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if a SPI will help, I've seen the same on Twitter as well, accounts created years ago with mundane tweets all of a sudden posting about the "stolen election" or anti-vax stuff etc. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like an editor who would state, about the 2021 United States Capitol attack, "None of these people at the capital were armed with any sort of weaponry or had any intention of causing harm to anyone." would be much happier at Conservapedia. Their edit to CNN violates WP:NPOV and is deliberately intended to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Their edits to talk pages make it pretty clear they really want a battle. I don't see any productive contributions or any indication that they have any real interest in contributing to an encyclopedia. I would support a WP:NOTHERE block. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that we have an editor who believes that any news organisation that doesn't publish fake news pushed by the extreme right must be extreme left. It's a pity that many people in the US, and some in other countries, seem to believe the same. In terms of the world-wide political spectrum CNN is not even on the left, being at best centrist and more likely centre-right. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have given this person an indefinite block. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  22:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

[Frivolous IP block request]
[redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:2C88:A900:6028:BFA9:AB9A:C55B (talk • contribs)


 * has now made 4 frivolous "block requests" over this matter. Is a WP:NOTHERE time out in order?  He  iro  19:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Done.  He  iro  19:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's also a block evasion situation. If the pattern repeats, a block-on-sight is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I just finished applying a short block shortly before people started responding here, given that it's an IP of unclear stability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosguill (talk • contribs) 19:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on The edit summary of this Diff this is almost certainly a return of CU blocked and globally locked vandal who was using the same IP range  to vandalise football articles by spamming their own name into them    . It might be worth upgrading this to a range block and making it a bit longer? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging GeneralNotability who blocked the user last time and whos block expired on the 23rd. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks IP, that's him all right. Re-upped the rangeblock. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Suspected Conflict of interest/paid editing by User:2601:C0:C280:8100:1D8F:F43E:91A4:2B69 and User:Jk6ge on Renitta Shannon
I suspect that User:Jk6ge and User:2601:C0:C280:8100:1D8F:F43E:91A4:2B69 are COI editors and/or paid editors. Jk6ge is a relatively new editor who edited the page with the content violating WP:NPOV within a matter of hours after account creation, with the edits to Renitta Shannon being their own edits. User:2601:C0:C280:8100:1D8F:F43E:91A4:2B69 is an IP editor whose only edits are the violating edits to this page, and appears to be located in the state house district that Renitta Shannon represents. These edits were made mere weeks before Renitta Shannon’s announcement of her candidacy for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia today. Muhibm0307 (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This matter should go to the conflict of interest noticeboard instead. —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * C.Fred, thank you. You may ignore this then. I will put this on the correct noticeboard. Muhibm0307 (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)