Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1085

Banana Republic casting ASPERSIONS and overall not assuming good faith
There is discussion going on at these three pages regarding the incident in which Kelli Stavast interviewed a NASCAR driver, leading to some phrase she said becoming viral. There are legitimate WP:BLP policy concerns being made which have led to RfCs at all three talk pages. Simultaneously, Let's Go Brandon and Kelli Stavast were nominated for deletion (Stavast by myself, on the same rationale that I used to nominate 3 other NASCAR reporters the same day, two of which were closed as delete; LGB by on the grounds that a previous incarnation of that article, Fuck Joe Biden was closed as a SNOW delete).

Throughout these discussions, has repeatedly accused Beccaynr and myself of inappropriate behavior without any evidence to bring forth(aka WP:ASPERSIONS, and in general are assuming bad faith. Let's look at some of Banana's diffs.


 * diff 1 It is pretty clear that are acting as a WP:TEDIOUS editor. They tried to delete the article, then they took the AfD to a DelRev, they did not get their way in the above RfC about not naming Kelly Stavast, so they are now throwing moving the fight to the article lead. They are acting in tandem with to eliminate all mention of Kelly Stavast and Let's Go Brandon on Wikipedia. - Recurring theme here that we are trying to "censor".
 * diff 2 ...they (along with one of their buddies) are wasting the community's time with frivolous AfDs (frivolous AfD#1, frivolous AfD#2, and frivolous AfD#3) and now this frivolous DelRev. I wish there was a way to sanction them, but working together, they know how to game the system and exploit the community's patience and good will. - Accusing me of "frivolous AfDs" despite me stating on MULTIPLE occasions that I put up other NASCAR reporters and of vaguely "gaming the system". LGB closed as keep by a non-admin in a highly controversial topic area, the only reason for the DelRev (such DelRev was also described as a "hissy fit" by the closer ).
 * diff 3 is clearly gaming the system to push their own agenda, refusing to concede to consensus and playing tricks such as [this AfD withdrawal comment] in order to get another opportunity to bring up an AfD. - My only "agenda" is improving Wikipedia, so on that ground, guilty as charged? Yes, when the first Stavast AfD closed, the closer said in the closing message no prejudice to speedy renom, which I did. Evidently, that was a bad idea since at least one editor said doing so was "ridiculous". I then withdrew it, which, according to Banana, is a bad faith "trick".

Overall, this is getting tiring from them. We are trying to have a discussion, but these repeated and continuous assumptions of bad faith by this user do nothing but discourage that discussion. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I recently commented in one of the discussions about article content with an array of diffs to offer some context to the broad statements made about me in the discussion, and as part of my appeal to all participants to assume good faith, practice civility, and avoid a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. It is an incomplete synopsis, but I offer it here to the extent that context may be helpful to this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Further diffs here and here since this was posted further illustrating that this editor has no intention of working civilly. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This complaint is truly bizarre !!! They are complaining about me inappropriately assuming bad faith, and then they quote another editor who is also criticizing their behavior? Did we just enter the twilight zone? Banana Republic (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And just for good measure, here is another editor questioning the motives of GhostOfDanGurney. Banana Republic (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The questioning of their motives just keeps piling on from other users. Banana Republic (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have followed what's happening and did not really want to involve myself as I thought that the opposition to this topic's coverage would fizzle out. I'm now involved as I posted in the DRV, and have made a revert in the article. These are some of my thoughts:– diff1: Banana Republic did not use the word censor -- what they said are mostly historical facts about the overarching dispute.– diff2: The characterization of actions as "frivolous" seems to be the problem... If one keeps starting hopeless processes and disputes that don't seem to lead anywhere, and are patently programmed to fail (unless we somehow imagine we are all collectively really really dumb), someone will at some point become concerned, and this word will come up.– diff3: What GhostOfDanGurney was doing with their immanently frustrated delete initiative was strange. When such seemingly irrational things are done, someone will express their concern using some and not other words, some of which are maybe kinder and better. "Agenda" is maybe less kind and worse, but in substance it changes nothing -- it's impossible to avoid this bad perception, and everyone is not going to keep their mouth shut. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * He did in fact present evidence. Beccaynr did try to delete Let's Go Brandon and then tried to get the close overturned at DRV (for which Beccaynr was trouted), then Beccaynr tried to remove Kelly Stavast's name from the article.  After that RfC failed, Beccaynr tried to remove Stavast's name from just the lede. In all  of those cases except the DRV, GhostOfDanGurney participated and agreed with Beccaynr. And the user interaction timeline of GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr is certainly interesting.  I would say the MfD was certainly a bad nom and so was the DelRev. And wow, holy shit, "no prejudice against speedy renomination" at Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast does not mean "renominate after 38 minutes" with Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination). Banana Republic is right that the second nom is bs and he's also right that the withdrawal was questionable, although he could've said it far more civilly than he actually did. 's message  provides a far better example of how Banana Republic could've handled the issue.
 * I'll also point to this exciting discussion at User talk:Beccaynr to sort of demonstrate that the uncivil sniping of third parties in laudatory talk page messages seems to happen from both sides of this dispute. It's also interesting that GhostOfDanGurney brings up that they put up other NASCAR reporters at AfD. Is it truly coincidental that Beccaynr showed up to comment at all 3 of those AfDs of the "other NASCAR reporters"?    I'd like Beccaynr to explain their thought process as why they decided to comment on those three AfDs in particular. Were they chosen at random? Were they found at a noticeboard or delsort listing? etc etc. Perhaps GhostOfDanGurney could elaborate on what they meant by "There sure has been a lot of crap coming from the trees the last few weeks." as well.
 * I certainly wish Banana Republic would've brought these concerns to ANI rather than immaturely sniping at the two editors in question on talk pages complaining about how Banana Republic wishes "there was a way to sanction them". That is practically useless and is still casting WP:ASPERSIONS, even if the claims are true. The reason is that article talk pages and other content discussions forums are not good places to discuss editor conduct; discussions of editor conduct inevitably overwhelm actual content discussion and degrade the quality of our output. I can see a temporary block for that behaviour. I also wish that Banana Republic's response to this thread would be a little more substantive than these diffs from other users criticizing GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr. The idiom is "use your words", not someone else's. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 21:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for pointing out the bad behaviors of and . The reason I did not file complaints against them is that I don't know the process (and don't care to become familiar with the process) of filing a complaint. I'd rather spend my time editing articles, than getting into Wikifights. I definitely don't want to waste my time gathering evidence to file a complaint, which is why I wrote "I wish there was a way to sanction them", as I don't know the way to do it, and don't want to know the way to do it. Since neither explicitly violated WP:3RR, for which evidence gathering is relatively simple, I did not file a complaint. Banana Republic (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't care to become familiar with the process for dealing with other editors' behaviour then you need to stop talking about other editors' behaviour. If you don't want to get into WikiFights then you need to stop taking shots at other editors. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 21:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll just quote Potter Stewart who said "I know it when I see it". I know bad behavior when I see it. I don't know how to build a case to sanction the bad behavior, but that does not mean that I cannot call out the bad behavior. Banana Republic (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, not wanting to come here does mean you can't call them out if you want to continue editing this encyclopedia. You should be addressing your concerns with the editor that you have a problem with. If that fails, then you can come to ANI with the behavioural problem. You do not get to spend your time calling people out on article talk pages or with passive aggressive user talk page messages that masquerade as compliments towards another person. It's not that discussing another editors behavioural issues is wrong. It's that we have a designated board for those discussions. This is that board. If you're going to refuse to say your piece now and explain the problems you have then you're going to lose the benefit of the doubt in the future when you make these comments, even if the comments are accurate assessments of the situation. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 02:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't need to accuse them of anything any more. Others are doing a much better job than I ever could (and that includes you, ). Banana Republic (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would characterize the other side's conduct as reckless (more in diff). Pushing for the desired outcome using all permitted venues (while being more or less okay or not) is one thing, but insisting (reverts included) on a totally unjustified POV template in an essentially okay actively-worked-on-and-discussed article with tens of thousands of daily views prompted me to react. By their account, the template would have been removed when their version of the lead, exclusively stylistically different (diff), was implemented (where's the POV issue???). So it looks like the goal was the template for the template's sake. This made me suspicious. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't feel this is a fair characterization of my position, particularly after my repeated attempts to explain the justification based on policy and guidelines, as well as my offer to further clarify in the related discussion at the Talk page. From my view, the template is supported, and it is a way to encourage discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you don't see it as fair. I have a sincere concern. It's hard for me to see how adding that template on such a hot topic, in an actively worked on article, that already has a lot of participation, would have encouraged anything positive. To me it feels like the idea was to keep the template up as long as possible on formalistic grounds of there being a dispute that somehow, in theory, very tenuously, has to do with a POV concern. Keeping the tag would impede progress as it would divert everyone's attention to the issue seen as connected to the template, but the issue isn't very material to start with and it would only have led to general frustration and loss of interest. This disrupts normal work on the article, undermines the consensus-building process, and unduly worsens readers' reception of the article. It's really a good way to undermine an article after deletion attempts have been frustrated, and it's a known pattern. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As also noted below, I added the template after creating a discussion on the Talk page, and after had reverted my attempt to improve the lead . Per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, It may help to remember that there is no due-date and that editors can add appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections under current discussion. Also, best practices in heavily monitored articles includes, If the consensus is that there is no problem, then the message can be removed immediately. We clearly disagree about the tag, but from my view, it had seemed like it could have been an efficient way to address a narrow issue that was both independent of and related to the previous RfC.
 * But I was instead accused of attempted censorship by a participant in the discussion, of being a WP:TEDIOUS editor and "acting in tandem with  to eliminate all mention of Kelly Stavast and Let's Go Brandon on Wikipedia" by Banana Republic, and again accused of being WP:TEDIOUS by Banana Republic due to adding the template , and then after I appealed for an assumption of good faith, civility and avoiding a battleground , and further attempted to explain the several bases for the template, you described the explanation as a single point and removed the template , which I asked you to restore after additional explanation , and you declined to do so, suggesting the discussion could continue without the tag.
 * The next comment agrees with you and Banana Republic and appears to question my good faith, and another participant then accuses me of being "tendentious and obstructionist".
 * In response to another participant's attempt to steer the discussion back to the content, Banana Republic replies, Not needed. The only point of contention is whether the lead should name Kelli Stavast. Basically [ping removed] GhostOfDanGurney and [ping removed] Beccaynr did not get their way in the RfC above about whether to name Kelli Stavast in the article, so they are creating a new controversy surrounding the lead. This is why they are being accused of being WP:TEDIOUS editors. etc.
 * I think the ping failed, because I only noticed now in my review of how the discussion continued after I stopped following it, but the participant who had attempted to focus on the content also appears to have agreed with my attempt to improve the lead, and the discussion does not appear to have continued beyond a comment from a participant who had appeared to question my good faith.
 * I think the dispute resolution policy is relevant here, including how it discusses a failure to focus on the content during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation. From my view, discussions on article Talk pages have been disrupted by failures to focus on the content, as well as apparent failures to assume good faith. I am concerned this can discourage other editors from trying to participate in discussions or working to improve the article, and undermines the consensus-building process. Beccaynr (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Am I alone among the 96% who don't live in the United States in being totally bemused by this whole topic, and wondering how any encyclopedia could possibly feel the need to have coverage of it? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hell, you aren’t alone among those who -do- live in the US. Qwirkle (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:WORDISSUBJECT article with established vast notability. The 96% needs to read more such articles to get a feel for how normal it is to cover such topics I guess. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe give WP:RECENT a read, and realize this won't be relevant in a year, much less a decade. This doesn't deserve it's own article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As someone who asked for delete on the FJB AfD, asked for protection on Kelli and found my redirect deletion on LGB and the 1st Kelli nomination somehow turn into an out-of-AfD process article creation for LGB solely because of BLP concerns (and was attacked when someone wanted me to contribute to an article I never wanted created in the first place because they inappropriately pinged me and asked them not to, then turned out to be a sock of a blocked political crank)..."takes in big breath". We'll be back in six months asking why this was created when LGB merchandise is clogging bargain bins/burned due to NASCAR copyright claims. I hated the abuse of processes here and harassment, and it makes me feel less inclined to ever edit a politics or politics-adjacent article ever again. Nobody here on either side came out of this looking good. '''[[User:Mrschimpf|Nate ]]' • ( chatter )'' 20:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion should probably get hatted before it turns into a rehashing of the AfD. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 01:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The AfD is referred to as evidence against me, so I think discussion related to the good-faith basis of the Let's Go Brandon AfD is relevant. To clarify, my nomination mentioned the Fuck Joe Biden AfD, but it was based on WP:EVENTCRIT on October 27, 2021. A second Let's Go Brandon AfD was opened by someone else on November 14, 2021, based on RECENT and LASTING, and was closed as a speedy keep by . . Beccaynr (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh come off of it, . A) I thought it was funny. B) I have been around longer than you, while doing more for the project than you or the tag team currently WIKYLAWYERING over this topic. C) I felt pushing the envelope to expedite the creation of an article that meets GNG was worth a shot... and it worked, did't it?. I pinged you as a goof so get over it and edit where you want; certainly no need for such theatrics about being some victim. There is a reason I volunteered to and   who I was: Their games are obvious and I didn't need to be involved anymore. The rest of the community will surely show them the door sooner or later. Well on that note: I'm off to go create another GA about a burrito or some drummer. Good night.  - Cpt "the crank" nono (and screw you). But before I forget, someone needs to give WP:VIDEOLINK some love--the flow chart especially has some issues now that I am more experienced in Project Management. Cheers! — Mallsdudes (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC).
 * Someone please block as a sock for their OT trolling above, and add this comment to the hat once it's done. And to their points; A, nope, ping abuse is not funny and is a hassle to me and everyone else, B, been here since 2005 (longer than your blocked account) and prefer to stop engaging when it doesn't help the situation, and C, just stating my side of the situation. Article's been created out of process (but now meets the lowest rung of N possible) and I stand by my comments 100%.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 16:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, you asked me to explain my thought process as to why I decided to comment on those three AfDs, and my recollection is it was due to the AfDs being mentioned in the first Kelli Stavast AfD by , e.g. on October 18 and October 19 , so I looked at them, conducted research, and then !voted. I'm also sorry that my reference to the observations on Wikipedia behavior essay on my Talk page  comes across as uncivil sniping, when it was intended as supportive reassurance to , after they reported an attempted attack on the security of their account to me. I wasn't sure how to respond, and had thought a well-regarded essay that I like to review from time to time might be helpful. Beccaynr (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC) I also participated in the Kelli Stavast AfD because I routinely check the Women-related AfD del-sort, which may be evident from my userpage. Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a legitimate rationale, but I think you should consider how it looks when you and GhostOfDanGurney often !vote in the same way on the same pages. Even if you're independently looking at the AfDs GhostOfDanGurney started, it still doesn't look good to be browsing through someone else's noms and mostly voting support on them. This isn't super good in a "high intensity" conflict area such as American politics and contributes to a sense of bias. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 23:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , in the first Kelli Stavast AfD, before I !voted, there was a !vote alleging political bias, to which responded , mentioning WP:ASPERSION and their nomination of three other pit reporters; based on when I participated in the Marty Snider AfD , this comment appears to have led me to look, after I researched, !voted  and added a source assessment table  to the Kelli Stavast AfD.  GhostOfDanGurney later provided links to the other AfDs, , and I found sources for one  that convinced GhostOfDanGurney to withdraw their nomination . I think my independent review of the other AfDs mentioned shows I am conducting research and !voting based on what I was able to find and according to my interpretation of applicable policies and guidelines. It has also not only been GhostOfDanGurney and I holding similar positions in these wide-ranging discussions, and we have had different approaches to different issues, and the extent our views overlap can be read as an agreement about what best serves the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and editors are supposed to resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions, and instead assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia — especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. It seems especially important in a "high intensity" conflict area such as American politics, where a failure to assume good faith could be particularly disruptive. Beccaynr (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello all. pinged me on my talk page, so I figure I may as well give my few cents:
 * I have been subject to the kind of side-sniping that describes both on and off-wiki, and—believe me—it does not make me feel good when I see it. Please don't be passive aggressive to other editors on talk pages, because editors will probably wind up seeing the edits, and doing so with the intent to snipe at people behind their backs is uncivil. In my view (I don't think there's a policy on this, so take this as you will), behavioral issues should first be directly discussed with the editor that has problem behaviors, except where that behavioral issue is directly pertinent to the discussion at hand (for example, canvassing in an AfD) or when you are asking the editor to strike a specific personal attack.
 * As notes above, yes, I did ask  to rescind their withdrawal of their close; I had thought (and still think) that it was not done in line with WP:WITHDRAWN. I did say that I was going to pursue a close challenge, though as  alluded to this wouldn't have really changed all that much with respect to the article's current status as being kept. However, the immediate assumption of bad faith made by GhostOfDanGurney shown in this edit (and expanded upon in this edit) did leave me rubbed the wrong way. The recent attempt by GhostOfDanGurney to drag  to the edit warring noticeboard (see this diff for the full conversation) seemed somewhat frivolous as there were a total of three reverts listed over a period that encompassed three calendar days. And, to be frank, this edit made by GhostOfDanGurney on the talk page of  seems like it could reasonably be a canvassing problem. In many ways, I'd expect that there would be room for a WP:BOOMERANG if sanctions against editors wind up being handed out.
 * I have been involved in a content/sourcing dispute with on Kelli Stavast and Let's Go Brandon that played out, in part, on both of our talk pages. In what I can only describe as an egregious example of stretching policy way beyond a reasonable reading, the user has repeatedly argued that I could not use a source because its title contained information that was related to an ongoing RfC, even though I was using the source for the date of the individuals' engagement. The user framed this on my talk page as intending to keep the page stable pending the conclusion of the ir own  (updated: 22:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)) RfC, which... honestly didn't sit right given how weak the policy claim was, though they also noted disagreement over the extent to which the source was an WP:RS, and that's obviously a valid part of a good faith sourcing dispute. I repeatedly asked the user to strike their characterization that I had somehow been violating RfC-related policies by making this edit, though the user has repeatedly declined to do so in line with their reading of WP:RFC, which I guess is their right.
 * I understand that there's a great deal of frustration brewing between editors here, though I really do find it strange that this sort of stuff wound up on ANI. There really isn't anything in my view that rose to the level of bringing it here; nobody's been violating 3rr, while there have been aspersions they haven't been egregious and people who have been subject to them don't actually appear to have asked for apologies before coming here (or if they have, a diff would be nice to see). It also seems like the consensus on the content (which shouldn't be a factor at ANI but can add to general tension between passionate editors) is pretty clear, and I don't see much of a reason to believe that behavioral issues are affecting the outcome of content disputes. But, now that we're here, we're here. The only way I see out of this without some sanctions being handed out to someone would be for people to apologize to each other for when they wronged someone else, and to promise to work collaboratively in discussions going forward. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think your summary of my view is incomplete, and it is discussed more on my Talk page , but the major reason why I want to briefly comment is because I think it is important to note we were able to disagree while also working together to improve the article, and I appreciate that very much. And as a minor detail, I never started an RfC, so referring to "their own RfC" seems inaccurate. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . My apolologies for misreading the RfCs. I've struck that portion of my comment and I'm sorry about that mischaracterization. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I am only involved here in an administrative capacity. The immediate re-nomination at Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination) should be considered explicitly allowed based on my close of the first nomination.  Beyond that, regarding the initial filing: Banana Republic's complaints about the existence of tedious procedural issues, while perhaps not framed with perfect decor, are based in enough evidence there is no cause for sanctions.  Regarding anything else: editing recent American Poltiics topics isn't the topic area for you if you can't handle disagreement on talk pages.  Apart from "hey admins, maybe watchlist these pages", there is no action needed. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 04:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , by only involved in an administrative capacity, based on your contributions, this appears to include 1) approving the Let's Go Brandon article submitted by Globgenie (the apparent sock) through AFC, 2) closing the first Kelli Stavast AfD as no consensus , 3) offering your opinion about an AfD of Let's Go Brandon on the article Talk page , 4) responding to 's concerns about the acceptance of Let's Go Brandon on the article Talk page , 5) commenting in the Let's Go Brandon AfD about why you accepted the article at AFC , 6) commenting on a discussion on GhostOfDanGurney's Talk page about the closure of the second Kelli Stavast AfD , 7) participating in a discussion about the status quo of the Let's Go Brandon article, and noting that future discussions can address more specific concerns about article content . Beccaynr (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC) And closing the RfC on the Let's Go Brandon Talk page that was started by Banana Republic on October 30 as finding consensus to include Stavast's name in the article  on November 10. Beccaynr (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright, I see a few points raised:
 * And wow, holy shit, "no prejudice against speedy renomination" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast does not mean "renominate after 38 minutes" with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination). Banana Republic is right that the second nom is bs and he's also right that the withdrawal was questionable, although he could've said it far more civilly than he actually did. Mikehawk10's message [115] provides a far better example of how Banana Republic could've handled the issue. .... Perhaps GhostOfDanGurney could elaborate on what they meant by "There sure has been a lot of crap coming from the trees the last few weeks." as well. -- The first Kelli Stavast AfD had become a hot mess of off-topic arguments. I interpreted the close as "no consensus" as a way to stop these before they got out of hand. Was it hasty to renom so quick and should I have talked to first to confirm my assumption? Yeah, absolutely. Bullshit? Fuck no. The first time I nominated the article, I had been unable to find adequate sources such that I felt it failed WP:NBASIC. The discussion immediately became about "LGB", which is fair given the timeframe of the event, but I felt many !voters were !voting on "LGB" and not the subject of the article itself. I allowed myself to get sucked in to this, and in my haste in the renom, failed to clue in that by doing it so quickly, I was only going to invite the same type of discussion. The "crap from the trees" comment was an observation of  willingness to edit on in spite of all of the chaos that apparently is par for the course in AmPoli discussions (which 6 months ago if you told me I'd be involved in, I'd say you were nuts; my primary topic area is motorsports with occasional dabbles into Canadian politics).
 * However, the immediate assumption of bad faith made by GhostOfDanGurney shown in this edit (and expanded upon in this edit) did leave me rubbed the wrong way. -- The sharp tone of the response to you here was a combination of stress on my part and frankly, the fact that you weren't honest in your explanation; You had told me essentially "Hey you didn't follow WP:WITHDRAW because didn't strike her rationale", when you had just prior made edits stating The most recent AfD on Kelli Stavast was a Snow Keep to such an extent that the nominator withdrew it.. I don't get what your aim here was. If it truly was a snow keep, what's the point of me reopening it when there were votes like "an absurd waste of time and effort" and "Same guy nominating the same article a day after the previous nomination ended in no consensus, is just ridiculous!"
 * The recent attempt by GhostOfDanGurney to drag Banana Republic to the edit warring noticeboard seemed somewhat frivolous as there were a total of three reverts listed over a period that encompassed three calendar days. -- I point to this conversation between and myself where I was advised to go to AN3.
 * As for why I'm here, I want Banana Republic to stop commenting on other's motives and accusing me of "gaming the system". GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Beccaynr has again totally removed the insertion of the topic in Brandon Brown (racing driver), citing the RfC with the opposing result and WP:ONUS, which does not apply in its own right - after even GhostOfDanGurney had given up the fundamental opposition and had entered arguments on the volume and scope of the addition. I think there is conclusive evidence now that Beccanyr is WP:WIKILAWYERING for reasons that can hardly interpreted as anything else than partisanship, and that Banana Republic is right, at least regarding Beccanyr. This is well supported by Beccanyr's ridiculous request to indefinitely block Banana Republic. As a minimum sanction I suggest to interdict Beccanyr to further participate in the Let's Go Brandon debate - in all related places. --KnightMove (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not appear possible for anyone to productively edit when they are routinely accused of partisanship, without evidence, during a content dispute. The content is disputed, the RfC is not closed, the RfC discussion includes a variety of oppose !votes, and WP:ONUS states The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. My hope has been for this ANI complaint to resolve with an understanding that allegations of "motives" and "partisanship" make the editing environment less productive, and to affirm core principles of assuming good faith, civility, and avoiding a battleground. I am concerned that disruption will continue without such an affirmation, and I am sorry that my poorly-phrased attempt to refocus this discussion on that goal with a proposal for a conditional indef did not adequately communicate my intent. Beccaynr (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * after even GhostOfDanGurney had given up the fundamental opposition False; I have consistently maintained my opposition even if I'm willing to compromise pending a closure of the RfC as include. The RfC has not closed.. Please strike. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

New edit war at Brandon Brown (racing driver)
The complaining editor here is now edit warring at Brandon Brown (racing driver). Banana Republic (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Revert #1
 * Revert #2 20 minutes later
 * Because you were, once again, pushing through material from a then-open RfC, the very behavior I reported you for the first time. It is not edit warring to prevent disruption. Now it's been closed. This section can be disregarded now. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's get the facts straight:
 * put what they considered to be a compromise version for Let's go Brandon into the article on 17:43, 11 November 2021
 * This compromise stayed in the article for 5 days.
 * I added Brown's response on 04:16, 16 November 2021
 * went against consensus on 11:19, 16 November 2021 and removed from the article all mention of Let's go Brandon
 * Two other editors have joined me in enforcing the consensus (KnightMove's revert and 331dot's revert).
 * Banana Republic (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

And? Consensus was never established until closed the RfC. This whole thing with involved !voters thinking they can determine consensus through their bias is getting old, tired, and laughable. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus was already established when you inserted what you considered to be a compromise version.
 * merely hatted the debate.
 * You need to be sanctioned for edit warring.
 * Banana Republic (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. Full stop. You're being frivolous now, which is most ironic. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

And here you go yet again with jumping the gun on a still-open RfC that you have participated in. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My recent attempt to add a new source to the still-pending RfC on the Kelli Stavast Talk page, including to support WP:BLP concerns was responded to with a comment by   that includes Nothing new with your comment. [...] Time to drop the WP:STICK and then a reply by   that includes a link to this ANI complaint and I fail to apply WP:AGF anymore and have suggested [link to ANI complaint removed] to interdict him from further participation in this debate. Banana Republic made their addition to the Kelli Stavast article later that day.
 * In the RfC about naming Kelli Stavast started by Banana Republic on the Let's Go Brandon Talk page, the oppose !vote by included stating that she "originated" it, in the form of use the article describes it as, would be quite misleading and therefore contrary to WP:BLP. The individuals who made it into a meme "originated" it in the form it is described here, and as with many memes, I cannot find that there is any one individual who is credited as particularly responsible for that. The recent addition to the Kelli Stavast article by Banana Republic while the RfC is still pending  included in the 'known for' parameter of the infobox "coining the phrase Let's Go Brandon which became a meme". I have since reverted the addition by Banana Republic, which seems problematic for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to failing to wait for consensus and BLP concerns, and I noted WP:ONUS, the pending RfC and WP:BLP in my edit summary. From my view, beyond the disparagement of Stavast reported to be part of the meme, there appear to be additional BLP issues raised by the summary of the event by Banana Republic in the infobox and the article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As an update, while the RfC is still pending, reverted my removal of their addition  with the edit summary Speaking of WP:ONUS, the onus is to get consensus, and the consensus that has formed at the talk page is to include this material. Beccaynr (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

New edit war at Kelli Stavast
The two WP:TEDIOUS editors,, , are now edit warring at Kelli Stavast. It's a little ironic that they first wanted to eliminate the paragraph on ground of WP:DUE and now that there is a consensus to include the material are insisting on making it longer than needed and, even worse, are insisting on maintaining a grammar error in the form of an incomplete sentence at the end of of the paragraph. When alerted to their behavior, they responded that it's a personal attack. Banana Republic (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC) The edit warring by the two WP:TEDIOUS editors is getting pretty bad. They are even reverting what should be non-controversial edits of a wikilink. There are no other wikilinks within that article to that phrase, so it's definitely not overlinking. Banana Republic (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * While the apparent bad faith of User:Beccaynr and User:GhostOfDanGurney in their attempt to impose their will on Stavast's and other articles (despite overwhelming consensus opposing them) is growing clearer by the day, Beccaynr's removal of the Wikilink was correct per WP:OVERLINK. LGB is linked in the next sentence.  Frank  Anchor  16:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * While the apparent bad faith of User:Beccaynr and User:GhostOfDanGurney in their attempt to impose their will on Stavast's and other articles (despite overwhelming consensus opposing them) is growing clearer by the day, On the contrary, I think the events of today/yesterday show that Beccaynr is willing to work within a "consensus" that hasn't even been fully established by the fact the RfC on the matter is still open. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * While the content remains in the article, I have attempted to work on it per policies including WP:BLP, neutral point of view, and no original research, as well as the MOS:SAID guideline that is related to BLP and NPOV policies. Beccaynr (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I did just get a moment to fix the grammar error that appears to have developed over the course of editing, and I do not appreciate being accused of vandalizing the article for inadvertantly adding a grammatical error while trying to revert what appears to be an unsourced addition, to remove an apparent WP:BLP concern, to restore reliably-sourced content that was removed, and to restore WP:WIKIVOICE, as noted in my edit summary , so I removed your comment from my Talk page. I also added an edit warring warning on your Talk page that encourages discussion on the Talk page of the article , which you reverted , but I continue to encourage further discussion on the Talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I also started a discussion on the headset. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think issues like whether or not the wikilink (which is clearly already in the article, as noted in my edit summary) is already in the article is better to discuss at the article Talk page - this appears to be an issue related to MOS:OVERLINK and from my view is a routine part of editing to help direct the reader to where the link is contextually most relevant. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment from uninvolved user: To a first approximation, it seems like the three of you have each made about 20 posts in this larger discussion, and that all other editors combined have perhaps made 30 posts. So maybe you could all disengage somewhat, stop finding new ways to antagonize each other, and give other editors an opportunity to evaluate the situation? --JBL (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Username Issue?

 * Not to be that guy, but shouldn't Banana Republic have been blocked right out the gate? Per WP:USERNAME, "The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional: Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product", and according to Wikipedia, Banana Republic is an American clothing and accessories retailer owned by the American multinational corporation Gap Inc. This then could be mistrued as the company attempting to edit, although admittedly I see nothing promotional for the company or its products in the editing history, it still begs the question why this hasn't been looked at. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably because the clothing company and the user are (probably) both named after the general concept of a "banana republic", i.e. (narrowly) a Central or South American country which is de facto ruled by American fruit companies or (broadly) "a politically unstable country with an economy dependent upon the exportation of a limited-resource product" as per our article ont the topic. Because of the existing use, it doesn't unambiguously represent the American clothing company and is therefore (arguably) not promotional under WP:USERNAME. (Wouldn't object to asking them to change it tho.) Loki (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be the case if they were using the little "r", but their using the big' "R", which on our site clearly and unmistakably goes to the store and not the concept. In lew of that observation, I believe that regardless of whats decided here they should be required to change usernames. My two cents. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To me (not an American), "Banana Republic" unambiguously reads as a reference to the concept (before happening upon this thread, I'd never heard of the brand), with the second word capitalised because, as a username, it is part of a proper noun. Unless the user is actively making promotional edits in favour of the brand, I think their username is fine. Rummskartoffel 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I assumed it was a reference to the political concept rather than the retailer (which didn't cross my mind at all until this section was opened). User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 20:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The username does not appear to be unambiguously promotional, so I don't think any action is needed. Isabelle 🔔 21:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: warnings for the parties involved
Given that there's not a crystal clear consensus above on what was/wasn't OK, I'd like to propose that be given a warning to abide by WP:NPA in the future. Specifically, comments about other editors' behaviour, including but not limited to accusing others of tagteaming, gaming the system, or being WP:TEDIOUS should not be made at article talk pages or content discussions like AfD. If you have a problem with an editor's behaviour, take it up directly with the editor in question at their user talk page, and if that fails, bring it to an administrator, WP:ANI, or other appropriate place to discuss editor conduct. Additionally, everyone should be reminded that indirectly "sniping" at other editors through vaguely worded talk page messages is unacceptable on this project and is a violation of our civility policies. Threads and discussions like these  are examples of this kind of unacceptable behaviour. If you're the person who receives one of these messages, try not to get involved in the sniping; others might interpret agreement as part of the insults, regardless of intent. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 23:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. Regardless of the accuracy of the comments Banana Republic made, they were inappropriate in the context they were said. Truth isn't always a defence to WP:NPA; and article talk pages/user talk pages of unrelated non-admins aren't the place to hash out your complaints. While I don't like some of the behaviour the other editors have displayed, it's not egregious enough to WP:BOOMERANG on them. The passive-aggressive talk page sniping needs to stop too. The fact an attack is phrased as a compliment towards someone else doesn't negate it being uncivil. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 00:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , your first diff above is a link to a comment by, on the Talk page of . Can you please specify where and how I accused others of tagteaming, gaming the system, or being WP:TEDIOUS? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like a mix-up — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry. I got you two mixed up like an idiot. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 00:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and altered it w/o including a strikethrough since the first part was not intended to be directed at you whatsoever. The second part is meant to include examples from "both sides" so to speak. Thank you very much for flagging this issue. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 00:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate the clarification, and I am also mulling over a response to your comment in the discussion above. In the meantime, I have been meaning to say I appreciate your insight above about how article talk pages and other content discussions forums are not good places to discuss editor conduct; discussions of editor conduct inevitably overwhelm actual content discussion and degrade the quality of our output, including because I think it helps emphasize why it is important for Wikipedia to not be a battleground. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have thought about your proposal to also remind parties about Talk page usage, and your use of a conversation from my Talk page started by  towards the end of October 28, 2021 as an example of unacceptable behaviour, because the content and context reminds me of The Purple Barnstar, i.e. given to Wikipedians who have been hurt by others, for example by having their user pages vandalized, being mistakenly blocked (for too long, or affected by range blocks), being personally attacked, etc. Long established PUA award. In the context of what was visible on my Talk page at that time, e.g., some of the comments in the first Kelli Stavast AfD, e.g. , , , and the Let's Go Brandon AfD, e.g. , it seems qualitatively different from the comment by  and the response by  . On November 7, I was told about the EW noticeboard complaint filed on Banana Republic, and what an admin had said about further edits to the article. (The Kelli Stavast article is now temporarily protected following the 3RR complaint .) And then I was told of an attempted security breach. By contrast, Banana Republic seems engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior with comments like It's all about one thing: their agenda to delete Kelli Stavast and Let's Go Brandon from Wikipedia . I think to most effectively protect the encyclopedia from future disruption, it would help to not dilute a response to Banana Republic with a "both sides" warning under these circumstances. Beccaynr (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since this thread started, and the collaborative process on the article normalized (end of deletion initiatives, POV template, spurious protracted disputes), the article improved. Actual WP:WEIGHT issues were able to be dealt with as they appeared etc. Now it's easy to work on the article and things are good. Accuracy of Banana Republic's comments isn't just philosophical, his overall positioning in trying to have a normal functioning article and collaborative process led to something advantageous and beneficial to the encyclopedia. Banana Republic did a lot to make it so, and while doing it he used some wrong words and wrong venues. But the end result matters the most. This must not be forgotten. Simply penalizing (only) him in some sense does nothing to cement this better state that we are in now, and would probably not lead to the most WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: Is this comment made by the complaining editor acceptable? This comment shows the motivation for their WP:TEDIOUS behavior. Banana Republic (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. I went ahead and removed it. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 04:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to head off now. Misjudged that message and thought too fast. There's really not much more I can contribute to resolving this dispute. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 04:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, you deserve a WP:TROUT for that removal. Banana Republic (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They complimented the creation of a frivolous AfD. Banana Republic (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hardly frivolous. They simply arrived late to the party and didn't realize that it had already been put up, as they stated in a subsequent edit summary. This jumping to conclusions and lack of WP:AGF is the very behaviour I'm complaining about. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize that it was already nominated ????? WTF ????? They put in a 2nd nomination !!! There is absolutely no way to put up a 2nd nomination without realizing there was a first nomination. Banana Republic (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's programmatically done by WP:Twinkle. It's not evidence that the user knew about the first nomination. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 08:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Indef block for Banana Republic
I am concerned by a pattern of 's behavior, including but not limited to since this ANI discussion began on November 11. For example: I therefore propose an indef block of Banana Republic, because it appears that further disruption is likely to continue without a clear sanction that provides an opportunity for Banana Republic to reflect on how Wikipedia is not a battleground and to promise to avoid such conduct in the future. I further propose an indef block be avoided if in this discussion, Banana Republic acknowledges how WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior can be harmful to the encyclopedia, and if they promise to avoid such conduct in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On 15:22 November 11, Banana Republic removed the template I added, with an edit summary Boldly removing a frivolous template placed by a WP:TEDIOUS editor who took the article the an AfD, did not get their way, then took to a DelRev, and still did not get way. Enough disruption !!!, which was reverted with a warning from  about assuming good faith . GhostOfDanGurney also left a warning about assuming good faith on Banana Republic's Talk page  at 16:13 November 11. The removal of my template happened after Banana Republic reverted my attempt to improve the lead.
 * Banana Republic removed their ANI notice on 19:26 November 11 with an edit summary When you act in bad faith, you will get called for it.
 * On 19:45 November 11, Banana Republic appears to have been counseled by, e.g. I think the AfD was okay, and understandable -- someone was bound to start it; DRV was technically okay as we were dealing with a BADNAC under a very technical reading of conventions, which is also an interpretation someone is bound to hold, and act upon; these are inescapable realities... (with additional discussion about the template).
 * On November 12, even though I did not file this ANI complaint, Banana Republic commented on the Let's Go Brandon Talk page, Basically [ping removed] GhostOfDanGurney and [ping removed] Beccaynr did not get their way in the RfC above about whether or not to name Kelli Stavast in the article, so they are creating a new controversy surrounding the lead. This is why they are being accused of being WP:TEDIOUS editors. They filed a complaint against me [link to ANI removed], accusing me of not being WP:CIVIL by accusing them of being tedious editors, so I'll throw them a WP:CIVIL bone right here, right now. I do not suspect that the two users are socks of each other. As noted in the discussion above, it was stated on November 1 that further discussions can address more specific concerns about article content. Inclusion of Stavast's name in the article appears to be different than inclusion in the lead, and that distinction appears to have support, including from other participants in the previous RfC discussion, as I explained when asked, e.g. , ,.
 * In this discussion, instead of taking an opportunity to reflect and engage directly with concerns expressed about their behavior and fundamental principles related to editing productively here, Banana Republic appears to have continued to focus on what they describe as "motives" of myself and GhostOfDanGurney, e.g. November 11, November 11 , and November 15.
 * Support as proposer. Based on the pattern described above, and after the comment by on November 15  that followed the warning proposal above, it appears that a warning is likely not enough to prevent future disruption, unless Banana Republic acknowledges how WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior can be harmful to the encyclopedia, and if they promise to avoid such conduct in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per WP:BLOCK, Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. To be absolutely frank, the evidence presented above doesn’t show that the user needs to be completely ejected from the project in order for Wikipedia to be improved. I would suggest that we all take a chill pill on this one; proposing an indef is really uncalled for and it highlights the strong emotions currently present. If anything, a temporary two-way Interaction ban between the proposer of the indef and the target of the proposal might help to do that, though I believe that all editors involved would be willing to try to calm down without the community using coercive banning powers. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This conditional proposal is intended to prevent damage or disruption, because an indef block (which could be brief) is presented as a last resort, conditioned on whether Banana Republic addresses the concerns outlined in the discussion and promises to avoid such conduct in the future. Without such assurance, it appears likely that disruption could continue. I also do not see evidence to support a two-way interaction ban, or how it would address concerns about Banana Republic's behavior towards GhostOfDanGurney. As noted above, I also think a "both sides" approach in this situation risks diluting the effectiveness of a response to Banana Republic that is otherwise intended to help avoid battleground conduct by them in the future. Their response after a warning was proposed has been a particular cause for concern, but to be clear, I am not strictly calling for an indef block and my hope is that future disruption can be prevented by Banana Republic acknowledging how WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior can be harmful to the encyclopedia, and promising to avoid such conduct in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Time to apply WP:BOOMERANG This proposal shows exactly why and  are WP:TEDIOUS editors that should be sanctioned. I don't need to add anything else. Banana Republic (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy close this section as a WP:WIKILAWYERING abuse of process and redirect discussion back to Chess's proposal above. It's a simple tactic of moving the Overton window, and asking for more to settle for less. This editor knows that Banana Republic will not be removed from the project or submitted to the kind of absurd ultimatum proposed, but knows that this proposal will easily reframe the conduct dispute in such a way that it will look very normal to penalize Banana Republic at least relatively mildly—when he will not have been penalized harshly. (, with due respect, you've now already fell for this while suggesting the possibility of a much more restrictive measure, than anything suggested thus far.) This would both (1) make it sure that Banana Republic is sanctioned, when prior to that, from earlier substantive discussion, it was not certain that he would be sanctcioned in any way, (2) turn attention away from Beccaynr's conduct. That is, it would lead to the real outcome desired by Beccaynr which is for only Banana Republic to get any kind of sanction, and they themselves getting none. It's silly to think that Beccaynr really believes that there is a prospect of success with regard to indeffing, but still proposes it. So this is a textbook case of: This outlandish "pragmatism" occurs in response to Chess's idea of somehow warning "both sides" diff. There is agreement among commenters here that Beccaynr has shown a propensity toward tedious procedural issues (or something approximately such) in connection to the "Let's Go Brandon" topic. Everyting added together, I think that being sanctioned even in the mildest sense is an unacceptable affront to Beccaynr's sense of extreme validation in everything they have done so far, and this lack of reflection can also be seen from lack of substantive replies to any criticism on this issue. A message needs to be sent that when deletion initiatives fail, it's time to either distance oneself from the article with whose existence one disagrees with, or to treat it like any other article, and work on improving it following a normal collaborative process. A bad thing sometimes that happens on Wikipedia is someone trying deletion and then, when that fails, going on to disrupt normal work on the article (using something such as a frivolous POV template) and then, when that fails too, going so far as to try to get editors associated with this page removed or marginalized, or at least humiliated. This is happening right now, and it's bad. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , from my view, my proposal is an attempt to resolve a conflict, because I would request closure of this complaint if offered reassurance that they will avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct in the future. This is intended to protect the encyclopedia from future disruption, not as a penalty. It does not appear to me that there is agreement that I have what you describe as a propensity toward tedious procedural issues (or something approximately such) in connection to the "Let's Go Brandon" topic, and I believe my participation in the discussion here shows I have substantively engaged with concerns. I am not trying to remove, marginalize, or humiliate anyone. I asked for a bare minimum commitment from Banana Republic so we can close this complaint and get back to editing, and for an indef block only if Banana Republic will not affirm their intent to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose block, but definitely warn BR as reporter - I agree with Mikehawk10 that a block at this stage would be more punitive then preventative and would add that it could possibly even have a negative effect on their future behavior, as evidenced by their proposing a BOOMERANG here. They do absolutely need to get it through to them that commenting on others' motives, assuming bad faith and stubbornly holding the line on those comments and assumptions is UNCIVIL and disruptive and I thoroughly agree with the rationale for this proposal, but outside of this topic and the resulting discussions, their behavior has been fine from what I've seen. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban Banana Republic from Kelli Stavast
(edit conflict) Beccaynr has continued to try to improve the article, while Banana Republic edit wars in order to debate semantics and whether a PPE headset that was worn is relevant to her saying the misheard phrase, while also making changes that aren't being mentioned in their edit summaries (note it says nothing about editing the location of "Fuck Joe Biden", leading to the very redundancy that they "correct" in their next edit; all while failing to discuss on talk. This dishonest editing goes beyond what I originally reported this here for and is a clear call for sanctions beyond a simple warning. My good faith is waning and I am increasingly concerned that this user is simply trying to "win" a debate against Beccanyr, while the latter has shown a great willingness to work with others. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The aspersions continue and now BR is edit warring manipulating the discussion at ANI now After I attempted to properly reorder the sections in this report.  Wow. Egregiously inappropriate behavior from them now GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I am concerned about what appears to be a pattern of disruptive editing by with regard to the topic of Kelli Stavast, including since this ANI complaint began. For example:
 * On November 18, after I attempted to remove content added by Banana Republic, Banana Republic restored it, without addressing the WP:BLP concern raised in my edit summary. An admin then removed part of the addition per WP:BLP.
 * On November 19, after edits continued to be made to this section, I made edits with the edit summary ce citation, add information from refs, ce MOS:SAID/WP:WIKIVOICE, rm excess/repetitive sources, rm WP:BI and opinion source, rm WP:OR, and Banana Republic removed the reliably-sourced mention of Stavast wearing a headset and added the disputed term "mischaracterized" back into the article .  restored the version I had added  with an edit summary Restore version by ; headset is very relevant to the event, you also created the "redundancy" with a change in the previous edit that was not mentioned in the summary. I then updated the citations to add direct quotes from the sources to help make the content in the article more clearly sourced to reliable sources.
 * On November 20, removed reliably sourced content, and added content that was otherwise sourced to one of the sources removed . I then restored the content and added content from the source  with the edit summary restore sourced content to support 'political slogan' text as well as ongoing notability of 'media conspiracy' relevant to Stavast. Banana Republic also continued to edit, including by removing reliably-sourced content  with the edit summary remove unnecessary sentence by absorbing the 3 important words into a previous sentence and changing the text in a way that is not supported by the source that was removed and also appears undermined by the source at the end of the sentence. Banana Republic also again removed the reliably-sourced content about the headset, and added the disputed term 'mischaracterized', with the edit summary What difference does it make that she wore a headset? Do we also need to specify that she wore a bra and a tampon? I then reverted these additions  with the edit summary Rm unsourced addtion, rm WP:BLP concern, restore content sourced to RS, restore WP:WIKIVOICE, which Banana Republic reverted  with the edit summary Nope. It's a little ironic that you first complain about WP:DUE and now you insist on putting unnecessary crap into the paragraph., which was reverted by GhostOfDanGurney.
 * I think a focus on issues that Banana Republic may have with me may be a red herring, and I think it may be better to focus on signs of disruptive editing while considering whether a topic ban is warranted. Beccaynr (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I was about to participate in the now-open Talk page discussion to explain how the NYT source in the article also includes a brief quote to help support the content, I found Banana Republic had once again removed it and added a version that appears to be unsupported by reliable sources, including the source at the end of the sentence, with the edit summary I'm not sure if this was controversial (shouldn't be) as this is just condensing two sentences into one (and eliminating an un-needed reference). As demonstrated by the edit at [diff removed], some of my previous edits were not controversial (such as fixing a grammar error) but got entangled because the editors are creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Beccaynr (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support provided that User:GhostOfDanGurney and User:Beccaynr also receive a topic ban. I would very strongly oppose a topic ban for only User: Banana Republic. It takes two sides to create a WP:BATTLEGROUND and GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr have been the main instigators acting in equally bad, if not worse, faith.  I’ll give Beccaynr the benefit of the doubt in starting the deletion review on Let’s go Brandon since it is reasonable to consider the AFD a bad NAC (though I believe the NAC was appropriate). After that failed with overwhelming consensus to endorse keep, Beccaynr and GhostOfDanGurney went into an endless display of WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:TEDIOUS editing to chip away connections between Stavast, Brandon Brown, and “Let’s Go Brandon.”  This included an uncalled for and frivolous attempt to indef block BananaRepublic. These efforts were opposed by large consensus every step of the way (including pending consensus in the ongoing RFC on Stavast’s page).  Everyone needs to take a break from these pages for a while, but to put the blame solely on BananaRepublic would be the wrong move.  Frank   Anchor  22:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC) [comment slightly modified for clarity -  F . A . 14:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)]
 * Oppose While I largely agree with Frank Anchor's good analysis in his previous statement, a topic ban for User:Beccaynr and User:GhostOfDanGurney is the only appropriate and necessary measure to pacify the battleground. Everyone else will come along in the discussion. --KnightMove (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment For what it's worth, regardless of any support this reply/proposal gets, I'm voluntarily disengaging from the topic, as I told BR before these replies from Frank and Knight went up. American Politics is clearly not the topic I want to ever be involved in. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not going to vote, but it would be a good idea for all three of Beccaynr, GhostOfDanGurney, and Banana Republic to voluntarily avoid this article for the next month. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 02:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment As a follow up to the diffs above in this section, and after trying to discuss the issue further with, I filed a 3RR complaint against Banana Republic . During the content discussion on the Kelli Stavast Talk page , Banana Republic referred to me as WP:TEDIOUS , and my reply included a request to focus on the content, not the contributor . The discussion continued, but Banana Republic again referred to me as WP:TEDIOUS , and I again asked for the discussion to focus on the content . I hope that uninvolved users will participate in the discussion here, because many diffs have been produced about a pattern of behavior by Banana Republic. I also think over the course of this ANI discussion, GhostOfDanGurney and I have shown we are not a faction, that our actions should not be attributed to each other, and we are here to build the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * While no editor other than myself has accused you of being WP:TEDIOUS, other editors have accused you here of engaging in WP:Wikilawyering and engaging in WP:OWN (a second editor and a third editor agreed on the WP:WIKILAWYERING accusations). Do you prefer those accusations over the accusations of being WP:TEDIOUS? If so, I'll be more than happy to strike out all my accusations of WP:TEDIOUS and replace them with accusations of WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:OWN. Banana Republic (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In your first diff, discusses wikilawyering in the context of me raising WP:ONUS, among other issues, as further discussed on my Talk page, and Mikehawk10 edited their comment soon after posting it to change their reference from WP:OWN  to WP:GAME , and then edited and apologized  for suggesting I had started an RfC. In your second diff,  uses the term wikilawyering to describe my proposal for conditional indef, which I apologized for during this discussion . In your third diff,  appears to consider it wikilawyering for me to have relied on WP:ONUS during a pending RfC, including because of KnightMove's incorrect  characterization of GhostOfDanGurney's opinion. What I would prefer is for there to be a focus on the content during discussions of content, and for concerns about conduct to be discussed in appropriate forums, with supporting diffs. Beccaynr (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. As you pointed out, you were accused of WP:GAME, not WP:OWN. I'm not sure which one is worse, but nonetheless thanks for the correction. Banana Republic (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GAME, Use of the term "gaming the system" should be done with caution, as it can be interpreted as an accusation of bad-faith editing. [...] However clear such an intent might subjectively seem, one should not cast aspersions about the mentalities or motivations of other editors. Wikipedia has a variety of noticeboards for dealing with problematic editing behavior, patterns of which tend to speak for themselves when properly diffed with evidence. Beccaynr (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Antiochian Greek Christians page


I am currently dealing with an article that is being watched and monitored a zealous group of people, possibly socks, that has no reliable sources and is trying to use WP:SYNTHESIS to try and esablish a "Greek" as in Greece ethic connection to Christians in the Levant, with the only reference in the lead a 'Genetic disorders in Lebanon' paper. There is no reliable sources in the lede, and all the population figures and personalities are being adopted for this narrative. They seemed to appear after Nassim Nicholas Taleb was notified on Twitter. Please can I get some attention. The article borders on articles to be deleted, I am trying to improve it. JJNito197 (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like they have taken control of the article, that is, their word decrees, stopping anybody trying to improve the article. The majority of those personalities and populations do not use "Antiochian Greek" or "Rum" - they identify as Arabs. They include all Antiochian Orthodox and Melkite Christian communities in the Levant, yet dismiss communities in Egypt, Israel, Palestine and Iraq, also dismissing the fact (if we are going to include the population stats) that they don't speak modern-day Greek, hence it shouldn't be in the lead. This is beyond a content dispute, they have taken ownership of the article and are putting foward a position into the public sphere with no pushback allowed. They don't even have citations. It is a deliberate misuse of Wikipedia. The article is a mess with NO reliable sources. Users are stopping people (me in this case) from trying to improve the definition and readability of the article. They have reverted my citation needed tags. JJNito197 (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not find the description above correct. The arguments are largely in violaton of WP:NPOV, aiming at classifying a minority according to a certain point of view, when more than one can prevail. Things are complicated in the Levant. Some do identify as Arabs, others don't and "Greek" here is for "Rhomi", the old classification until a century or so ago. The personalities above are easily referenceable; it would suffice to attach a {citation needed} to it. But I agree that zealots can appear to disrupt an argument. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @JJNito197: I'll watch this for you and participate. It'd be hard for me to not get involved seeing as I as this is actually my ethnicity we're talking about. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Basketcase22; refusal to adhere to RfC consensus
This is a behavioral issue from two editors. At Julian Assange, a widely reported event brought about extensive discussion involving several editors (mostly from here onward). A RfC was launched "Should we include..." [a specific text]. The consensus for inclusion was overwhelming: eleven !votes to include, from both involved and uninvolved editors, with reasons given; two !votes against - Basketcase22 & Specifico. Since that time time both editors have sought to ignore that consensus and impose their own preferred version. They were reminded at Basketcase22's talk page of the need to abide by consensus, by both me and another editor. Both simply ignored this, and continued to insert their preferred version despite their undoubted awareness of the RfC at the time and the reminder yesterday. They have made no attempt to obtain a new consensus for their preferred version (in fact they haven't discussed the content at all since starting to try to force their preferred version on the page). I seek a reminder from admin to both editors that the consensus from an RfC is binding; failing that having any effect some kind of temporary article ban is probably in order. This would occasion of a topic ban on this article for Specifico, who has a history of disruption on it. Diffs:

3 Oct Following wide discussion, on a specific text (the text is already in the article by edit consensus)

5 Oct. Despite this clear and growing consensus for the proposed text, earlier the same day Basketcase22 starts deleting sources (Sydney Morning Herald, The Times) that support the text.

24 Oct of the proposed text.

2 Nov

14 Nov Basketcase2022. Their edit summary says "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus" - they are surely aware that this same edit is contrary to established consensus. They and Specifico are reminded on Basketcase2022's talk page of the need to abide by consensus (with a link to the RfC). Mr Ernie editing contrary to established consensus is disruptive. Both Specifico and Basketcase2022 this reminder of the consensus version.

15 Nov Specifico ignores this, again. Basketcase2022.

This is quite flagrant disruptive editing to ignore an RfC that these two were the only editors to !vote against. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I dispute that the referenced RfC resulted in consensus for inclusion. A headcount by an involved editor does not establish consensus. On 2 Nov 2021, Legobot removed the expired RfC template, but the RfC was never formally closed. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Who carries out any "headcount" is not the issue. This was not a close-run RfC: there was only you and one other editor !voting against, and a large consensus for a positive answer to the question "should we include this". If anything it was undercounted, as that tally does not include my comments which I did not cast as a formal vote. Your argument that the discussion was not a consensus, despite how obvious it was to other editors at the time, verges on the ridiculous, and starts to stretch credulity that you are Wp:HERE to collaborate in building an encyclopaedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As best as I can tell, you are basing your complaint here on two edits I made to Julian Assange.
 * 14 Nov 2021: The following discretionary sanction applies to all people who edit this article: You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article.
 * 16 Nov 2021: Undid violation of Edit warring 1055450268 by Special:Contributions/Cambial Yellowing – see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=prev&oldid=1055247431
 * I have made 351 edits to our Assange BLP. I trust that in determining whether or not I am here to collaborate in building an encyclopedia, administrators will consider the totality of my edits, not merely the two that stretch your credulity. Basketcase2022 (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What I am basing it on is laid out in detail above. Your misleading edit summaries – in which you admonish against the exact type of sanctions violation you are committing in that edit – do serve to aggravate the issue. But your attitude and the content of your edits, including the other that I reference above, are the problem.
 * In light of the above comments from Basketcase2022, I propose a short topic ban. Basketcase2022 clearly has little interest in seeking or abiding by consensus on the article where it conflicts with their preferred version. Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 05:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Aside from the two I bulletized, please remind me what other of my edits did you reference above? Your complaint here is so much about a different editor than me, that I must have missed your diffs pointing to my other "disruptive" edits. Basketcase2022 (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's about you just as much as Specifico. All the relevant diffs are under "Diffs" in my post immediately above. Some other edits you made in the past are not relevant. It is not your two edits that stretch credulity - it is your absurd fantasy that you and one other editor were the consensus out of 13 editors, the rest of whom took the opposing view. <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">foliar❧</b> 05:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already disputed here that the referenced RfC resulted in consensus, and have never claimed elsewhere that it did. Please don't put words in my mouth. Basketcase2022 (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - but your dispute of the obvious fact is utterly baseless and without merit. Even if we remove one vote - for Yes - because they modify it as “weak” - it’s still 10 editors supporting that text to your two opposed. You also both invent the same nonexistent policy - and this is pointed out to both of you with no refutation. <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">foliar❧</b> 06:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Has anybody put in a closure request for the two said-RFC? PS - The second one begins with an unsigned post, so I don't know what the starting date is. GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There’s only one on this particular issue. <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">foliar❧</b> 06:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see two RFCs that aren't officially closed. One about "Yahoo" & the other about "AP2". GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The relevant one is - the one I link to above, about Yahoo. <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">foliar❧</b> 06:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've put in a request for closure for both RFCs. GoodDay (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There is clear disruptive editing here by SPECIFICO. I've a little more faith to excuse Basketcase2022, who appears to just be following SPECIFICO's (the much more experienced editor) lead. A few weeks ago they removed the text under discussion at least 3 times (probably more but I can't find all the diffs), ,. They insisted there was no consensus for this text, but it was basically only SPECIFICO and Basketcase2022 who were disputing this via reverts. There was a lengthy talk page discussion with overwhelming consensus for inclusion see here, but apparently this was not good enough and SPECIFICO insisted on an RFC in this section. You can read through the RFC here. Despite the overwhelming consensus in the previous discussion, and the obvious consensus in the RFC, SPECIFICO again altered the text saying we need to wait for the RFC to close. I don't like to go to AE but it is now inevitable unless the disruptive editing against consensus stops. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, Talk:Julian Assange — everyone's favourite 562,540 bytes talk page. For comparison, Joe Biden is at a sleepy 16,072 bytes, while Donald Trump is at a ____ 69,969 bytes(!). As I recall, there was a moment recently when someone told me something to the effect of 'see talk page.' It was funny. El_C 15:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * El C is right about Talk:Julian Assange being overlong, but his byte count is misleading. Of the grand total, 35% (195,288 bytes) is accounted for by one humongous section, which is a scrapbook being kept as a "social experiment" by a single user with few contributions by other editors. So please show some respect. Wikipedia must make room for social experiments. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think showed exactly the right level of respect. Someone has to keep a sense of humour around here. What I wanna know is: was the use of the adjective "sleepy" within 10 characters distance of the words "Joe Biden" - always a contentious move - intentional? Jungian maybe? Show some respect El C! 🤡 <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">foliar❧</b> 18:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

At his user talk page, SPECIFICO has suggested that ANI is the wrong forum for the present complaint: This is a discretionary sanctions issue regarding BLP and AP with the page under "Consensus Required".… DS issues are reviewed at WP:AE. However, although SPECIFICO has been an editor for nine years, he is not an administrator. So I request clarification by an admin: is ANI the correct forum? Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The correct forum is when there is a disagreement over an RFC that never received a closure is WP:RFCL. It's silly to talk about sanctions and the like before that. If the RFC is closed with an overwhelming consensus then maybe people can swing back around to talk about people who insisted otherwise, but obviously the first step when there's a dispute over an RFC's outcome is to obtain a formal closure. --Aquillion (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The requirement to follow consensus is ubiquitous; it is not contingent on whether a RfC has been hatted and closed - it is not even contingent on holding an RfC (though they serve to make the consensus more obvious - very obvious, in this case). <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">foliar❧</b> 18:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but when editors dispute whether a consensus exists, we have procedures in place to resolve that, the first of which is a formal closure. Leaping straight to ANI is not helpful, especially since the subtext of the request is "remove these editors" rather than "resolve this dispute over consensus." Per WP:AGF, your focus should be on resolving the dispute first, and only escalating here when it's irreconcilable; coming to ANI before even bothering to get a formal close for the disputed RFC is obviously a waste of time. Nobody is going to support any sort of sanctions based on a single RFC, which has not yet even received a formal closure, when you yourself are unwilling to take even the most basic steps to resolve the things beforehand. As I said, if the closure determines that the consensus was so clear that their refusal to accept it was egregious, you can always come here after that, with that to back you up; but rushing to ANI without even taking such a simple and obvious step isn't going to go anywhere. --Aquillion (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the correct place to discuss 2 editors who have been consistently editing against consensus. Consensus was first established in the discussion (see here) and has now been cemented by an RFC. There's no requirement that we need to wait for a formal close to codify what is easy enough to just quickly check. Basketcase and SPECIFICO have been continuously removing this material by falsely stating no consensus and they need to stop. It would be helpful if uninvolved editors checking in could look and provide a 3rd opinion about when consensus was established, or what it would take to establish such consensus. For example, if an editor doesn't accept consensus from a normal talk page discussion, is it acceptable to demand an RFC? Or once consensus is clear in said RFC if it is acceptable to demand everyone wait until it is formally closed? To me it just seems like stalling. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I deny your use of consistently and continuously to describe my alleged "editing against consensus." Neither you nor anyone else has produced diffs to substantiate those words. My two recent edits, which I bulletized above, do not constitute consistent or continuous violation of Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You reverted it on 14 Nov, long after talk page and RFC consensus has been reached. You reverted it on 4 Oct, after the talk page discussion had clear consensus for inclusion. You reverted and reverted it earlier. We've had to waste a tremendous amount of time now because you and SPECIFICO have reverted this time after time after time after time. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your reply contains 8 diffs, only 4 of which point to edits of mine. The others point to a different editor. Of the diffs relating to my contributions, all 4 such edits were made in accordance with the discretionary sanction in place at Julian Assange: You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. None of those 4 edits violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines. You're barking up the wrong tree. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you are violating a DS. I'm saying you are editing against a clearly established consensus. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * All four of your edits that Mr Ernie points to violate behavioural policy, which is why we are here. The fact you are unable to recognise this is why a fixed duration topic ban is the proposed remedy. The two most recent edits violate both Consensus Required - as you are changing to your (or Specifico’s) new version which does not have consensus, and removing a version which has been shown by formal process to have a strong consensus - and the more general prohibition on disruptive editing. Consensus is always required. It has been very clearly established to support the version you removed. You’ve made no attempt to gain a consensus for you new version, and you have seen what editors’ views are in the RfC. That is disruptive editing. Pretending that obvious consensus doesn’t exist won’t change that. <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">foliar❧</b> 20:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Stalling? What's your rush? On a page that seems to get updated several times a day with the latest Assange internet chatter, a deep breath seems like a very good way to let the dust settle and sort the day's urgent WP:NOTNEWS from the enduring significant facts. At any rate, the page is under the Consensus Required DS page restriction, which OP violated at least twice by reinstating this content that's been disputed from the first day it appeared. So with respect to ANI, this is a content dispute, and as to AE -- nobody has reported it there.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Don’t lie Specifico, it’s uncivil. You know full well that it is you who violated Consensus Required. Multiple times. Your new version inserted 14 Nov has no consensus. Furthermore, you haven’t even tried to gain consensus for your new version. The version that you sought to remove that has been on the page for ~ 6 weeks prior has been put to RfC with a very clear consensus. Simply fabricating things to suit your narrative is not a good look. <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">foliar❧</b> 19:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The original poster of this ANI complaint, Cambial Yellowing, now blatantly accusing a fellow editor of lying, violates both WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and neatly illustrates what SPECIFICO and I are up against here. This is really neither a content dispute nor disagreement over the interpretation of policies and guidelines. It's a clash of personalities. As such, it's very disappointing. Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This was not an accusation, but a simple statement of fact. You can show it not to be a fact by posting the diff in which I broke the "Consensus Required" rule, and explaining how Specifico could be unaware of the eleven !votes for the consensus for that content against your and his two (despite responding to messages in which they were directed to that consensus by multiple editors less than 18 hours earlier, and responding to multiple threads in the RfC that arrived at it). What’s disappointing is your transparent and failed attempt to dress this up as something other than what it is: inappropriate behaviour on your part being discussed at the appropriate venue. <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">foliar❧</b> 09:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW the RfC discussed in this ANI section has now been closed with the conclusion: Overall, there was a rough consensus that the text is WP:DUE for inclusion in the article. (Emphasis in original.) I accept that conclusion and have restored the text in Julian Assange to the version that gained rough consensus. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The RFC close was for this material to syat, I do not agree, but that is what the close said. Thus that is what we must do.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether or not an RfC was properly closed, this is clearly editing against consensus which is disruptive and particularly egregious in a biography of a living person. SPECIFIO makes no attempt to hide his dislike of Assange and wants to use this article in order to disparage him in the hope that he will be imprisoned in the United States. Since they clearly are not here to improve the encyclopedia, they should be blocked indefinitely. TFD (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please clarify your comment. After singling out SPECIFICO, you invoke the plural pronoun to say Since they clearly are not here to improve the encyclopedia, they should be blocked indefinitely. (Emphases added.) I realize we live in an age where plural pronouns are increasingly applied to an individual so as to maintain gender neutrality. However, as the titular subject of this ANI section, I am concerned that your use of "they" may deliberately include me. If so, please confirm in plain language that you believe I should be blocked indefinitely. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I used they instead of he or she because that is the recommended usage when you don't know. i am unfamiliar with the other editor, so did not comment. TFD (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Query (in its own subsection)
like with Talk:Julian Assange, I've only read fragments of this report. But in light of 's self-revert, just checking in with you to see if we're good to close this thread and move on. Thanks. El_C 14:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When you close it, please consider warning OP to lay off the aspersions and personal attacks, a small sample of which can be seen above. I won't get into all the diffless misrepresentations in their complaint and subsequent replies..<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do. It's probably worthwhile to note that "lying" is worse than being "uncivil," but ironically, Cambial Yellowing's Don’t lie Specifico, it’s uncivil is uncivil (more than just uncivil, in fact). El_C 14:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it uncivil to say someone is lying if they are lying? Please don't warn someone for behavior that you haven't fully investigated. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lying is exceedingly difficult to prove in such matters. So AGF'ing on the side of an error (of memory, ideological blinders, confusion, etc.) ought to be the default assumption. If one is claiming that AGF no longer applies to a veteran editor (i.e. within the realm of WP:PACT), that deserves more than a passing comment. El_C 15:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm all for AGF, but it has nearly been exhausted with this topic, especially for editors who've been sanctioned for behavior similar to why we've had to waste more than 6 weeks discussing this topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If by "editors" (plural) who've been sanctioned for similar behavior, I hope you are not including me. I've never been sanctioned for any behavior. Basketcase2022 (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * so report it accordingly (i.e. focused, coherently), but again, it's problematic to do so in passing. El_C 15:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no objections to closing the thread. With regards Specifico's false accusation of aspersions, personal attacks, and misrepresentations I'll only point out the obvious: my thread open contained numerous diffs backing up every claim. Despite accusing me of violating a sanction, Specifico is yet to provide a shred of evidence for his false accusation of improper action, nor any of his other manufactured attempts to frame the problem as sitting with someone else. This is understandable: the actions he describes never took place. Specifico claims, again inaccurately, that non-existent misrepresentations are "difless".

Evidently Specifico, when casting his own aspersions, considers himself above the obligation he wishes to place on others to provide evidence for claims of impropriety. I consider false, evidence-free accusations of sanctionable behaviour contrary to WP:5P4, whether deliberately inaccurate or not. the without evidence particularly so. After he pinged me to make his false allegation the first time, I responded, pinging him to the overwhelming eleven-two (with considerable explanation from editors) consensus to include the text. He by appearing to imply that his opinion on the content was more important than the consensus of eleven other editors.

I accept your suggestion, El C, that in principle when an editor makes a false allegation, factors other than intentionally communicating mistruth could explain it. In this instance Specifico made an accusation of me violating an AE sanction. As they reverted my edit back to their new version, there is an implicit suggestion in their accusation that their action was not a violation of the AE sanction. (Presumably, Specifico does not consider himself above arbitration enforcement). Can explain, logically, how he managed to maintain the following beliefs? That the version I reverted to, identical in meaning and, bar the replacement of "" with "", identical in word to the text discussed at great length at article talk that was the subject of a decisive RfC with an overwhelming majority, was a violation of the Consensus Required sanction. But at the same time that, a version that has never been discussed nor even raised at article talk nor anywhere else on this website, that deletes one third of the content, reframes the section with in-text attribution, and rewords the first sentence to accommodate these changes, was not a violation of Consensus Required. If he can offer such an explanation of how he believed both of these to be true, together with some evidence that his undiscussed version had somehow gained consensus, I will gladly strike my remark, and apologise here and to Specifico personally. Perhaps El C can briefly hold off immediately closing the thread to allow Specifico an opportunity to explain this. In the meantime I withdraw it, accepting the possibility, however remote, of Specifico's forthcoming explanation. <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">foliar❧</b> 23:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Cambial Yellowing, are you unable to better condense? I'm sorry, but the length of your reply comes across as filibustering. It is not helping you advance your position, in my view. I don't see mentioned in your OP, in any case. El_C 10:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The consensus for inclusion was overwhelming: eleven !votes to include, from both involved and uninvolved editors, with reasons given; two !votes against - Basketcase22 & Specifico. Since that time time both editors have sought to ignore that consensus and impose their own preferred version. (emphasis mine) The word "both" is used throughout the OP, so your assertion that SPECIFICO is not mentioned in the OP is false. Minkai ( rawr! )(see where I screwed up) 15:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, was in lower case, now I see it. Thanks. El_C 15:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * accuses me, again , and of violating a sanction on the article. This accusation is untrue, and he provides no evidence for it. He then unselfconsciously  of "diffless misrepresentations", again without providing any evidence (the multiple diffs in my post above it contradict this claim). When he pinged me to , I  with a link to the strong 11-2 !vote consensus of the RfC he took part in, and he  (but gave no reply to the facts). But he went on to repeat the false accusation twice more anyway. Specifico's initial edits that started this problem reframed, reworded, and deleted roughly one third of the text, which has a strong consensus from RfC, that has been on the page for the last month. His version has never been raised on the talk page. He  a day later. Then he decided to falsely accuse me again of violating the sanction.
 * Specifico's baseless accusations here are representative of an ongoing pattern in which he falsely accuses editors of this or that breach of protocol (example), and that pattern is starting to look like a tactic to intimidate some of the less experienced editors on the page. I consider his false accusations either an accusation of bad faith without evidence (WP:AOBF), or an attempt to Wp:SANCTIONGAME by mischaracterizing my actions; neither follows WP:5P4. You suggested such behavior should be focused, coherently discussed. I hope the version above better summarises it. <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">foliar❧</b> 15:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well said, Camibal. The shorter the text in which you express your ideas, the better. You may be interested in WP:Principle of Some Astonishment. Minkai ( rawr! )(see where I screwed up) 15:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cambial Yellowing. In light of that, maybe it'd be best to just WP:ABAN (WP:TBAN's little cousin) from the article and the talk page, then... There's been quite a bit of friction on their part in this topic, I've noticed recently (example), so we've probably reached critical mass there. El_C 16:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that OP posted no diffs. There were many. But the diffs do not support OP's allegations, and the additional insinuations about me only further muddy the issue. I note that the content issue is now resolved by the closure that OP could have requested at any time, and that this complaint garnered negligible interest on this board. This controversial BLP and AP content was contested from its first appearance at the article, and in light of the many issues raised in the course of the discussion, and the overtly inappropriate and personalized conduct of several editors on the talk page, closure of the RfC was the appropriate measure of consensus. There is one remaining BLP item: Several editors agreed that the attribution of the illegal schemes to CIA director Pompeo was inappropriate, but it happened to be in the version that was copied to the RfC and to my knowledge was not noted in the RfC discussion, which focused on the WEIGHT issue.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The phrase "diffless" appears to be constructed to indicate a lack of diffs, but OK. That aside, anyone curious to follow the diffs provided can see that they fit my description to the letter. There are of course no insinuations, I indicated all of the behavioral problems in plain terms.
 * With regards the proposal It would not be the first time for such a ban. There was discussion on this page of a potential ban quite recently  because of  pinging of editors (2 of 8), and decidedly non-neutral notifications at RS/N,  and . This turn to more problematic actions (alongside Specifico's stubborn refusal to accept any responsibility for their misbehavior) gives further impetus to this proposed remedy. <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">foliar❧</b> 18:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, the first article text appearance of the Yahoo story was here on September 26 it was challenged by reversion here on Sept. 28 The issue was discussed on the article talk page beginning here on September 26 in a broad and multi-faceted discussion that was nowhere near any consensus two days later when OP violated the "Consensus Required" restriction by restored the content here on September 28. I'll also note that anyone, including OP, who is deeply concerned about incivility on the article talk page can review that Yahoo thread and find several egregious examples, but not from me.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC) <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There was no "Consensus Required" DS restriction on the page at the time . It was applied on the 8 October, more than ten days after. You are tying yourself in knots to continue trying to misrepresent my actions as improper. That's the exact problem I outline above, and you're continuing to do so below it. I note an earlier statement by about : I'll make it clear, though, that if it becomes obvious that someone is invoking the CR with flimsy reasoning (i.e. their objection lacking substance, etc.), then that could be addressed accordingly. At this point, in the face of Specifico's intransigence, I request that appropriate action be taken in the form of an article ban longer than that previous; it apparently had little or no effect in encouraging Specifico to modify his behavior. <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">foliar❧</b> 18:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked that. You are correct, my mistake. I fact I checked that before seeing your post and returned here to correct my statement. Your accusation that I purposely lied about something easily verified is uncalled for. The key fact is that you aggressively reinstated your edit instead of using the talk page to discuss a reverted content already under discussion there. That's best practice on any article. I wonder why you did not report other editors who also removed your preferred content? Also, as would not be clear from your narrative, I did not remove the mention of the Yahoo story entirely after the many !votes in favor. I conformed a few words to the cited source and I removed a trivial bit about a congressional committee that came to nothing. The BLP violation I had also objected to was no longer in the article, although it's back in there now -- presumably overlooked in the RfC after someone correctly removed it earlier.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In no sense is that a key fact. It's neither relevant, nor is it a fact. First let's state the obvious: you're talking about something that happened seven weeks ago to try to defend the, now five, serious misrepresentations of my actions that you've made in as many days.
 * Secondly, what you call reinstating [my] edit does not accord with reality: I made separate small  to pre-existing material. You  with an edit summary claiming it is "weakly sourced". I  with additional sources from WP:RSP, WP:RSP and WP:RSP. The absurd suggestion that this edit was aggressive, presumably drawn from your fertile imagination, is yet another example of the behavioral problems that an article ban will serve to address. <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">foliar❧</b> 20:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * i really think it's time to move on, To specify one aspect of my concern: For any reader who does not do exhaustive research on the diffs, your narrative gives the impression that both Basket and I reverted wholesale the text that has now been established as consensus by the RfC. But that's not what happened. First, because there was no closure (which you or any other editor could easily have secured) and second because Basket and I were making adjustments that did not remove or impair the key content that was at issue and under discussion. Your complaint about a minor content dispute that was subsidiary to the main question (whether to use the Yahoo story) has attracted scant interest here from the community. And I wonder how closely any of those who did comment have examined your complaint. For example, your diff to the RfC does not go to the RfC about this matter Your diff goes to an entirely different bit of content. So I guess we all can make mistakes with histories an diffs, eh? 🙆‍♀️ <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You think it's time to move on from a discussion of your ongoing inappropriate behavior and a remedy that would serve to prevent and hopefully modify it. Mandy Rice-Davis applies here. We are discussing your repeated mischaracterising of other editor's actions as improper, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, on article talk or user talk. You continue to make excuses for it, which suggests that an article ban is the only remedy that might bring about a change in your behavior. The main question was "Should we include [the text now in the article]"; anyone who investigates just one diff can see that you misrepresent even this minor detail. The diff to the RfC goes to the correct place. <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">foliar❧</b> 20:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

not to put you on the spot (but to put you on the spot) — what do you guys think about the utility of a page ban on SPECIFICO? El_C 20:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC) of discussion. <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">foliar❧</b> 08:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think (given the general lack of adheance to the DS (incivilty, soapboxing, ect)) that has gone on over there that it would be wrong to single out one user.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, that gives me pause. El_C 14:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven's comments are concerning, and I would be interested to see examples of breaches of the discretionary sanction (presu you mean Consensus Required) that have gone unaddressed. I fail to see how that relates to the behavioural problem that gave rise to this discussion: continued, repeated false accusations of violations against other editors. This is not something I have seen from other editors. You and I have had disagreements in the past, and both of us have placed erroneous messages on each other’s talk. When the error was pointed out, you admitted your mistake, and similarly I admitted my mistake. In this case, Specifico inaccurately - no-one can be offended by this, presumably a simple error. The error was  with evidence. He  (but gave no reply to the facts). Then he  in edit sunmary - this is merely annoying, so he is pointed to the evidence a second time. He is later brought to AN/I by notification, and  - now it is a behavioural problem. He continues to "double down" falsely accusing me of various breaches of protocol, and refusing to acknowledge his actions - now the problem is serious. There are at least two examples of other accusations made against editors he disagrees with, and he’s given no indication that he intends to change his behaviour in any way. <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">foliar❧</b> 15:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a general issue of tone and has been going on for a while, but edits like this [] and [] contain material about users, not content. and this [] snarky soapboxing (which to be fair it was removed "on reflection"). As I said, the issue is not just one user, it is very complex and need some invinviolved oversight to decide who is at fault.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Cambial: Your timeline says "Oct.3 the RfC is launched..." and gives this link: about which you wrote "3 Oct Following wide discussion, RfC launched on a specific text (the text is already in the article by edit consensus". When I click on that link it does not go toi the RfC about the 2021 Yahoo! that is the subject of your complaint. Interestingly, and confirning the near total disinterest the community showed wrt your complaint, no other editor pointed this out or asked about it.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO that link you posted is Slatersteven launching the RFC. That occurred on Oct 3, as the text you quote from Cambial correctly states. You can find the closed version here. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The overall behavior at the page can be examined in a separate thread if needed. This thread is focused on the behavior of 2 editors who have been editing against a clearly established consensus by saying there is no consensus. This has been going on for weeks and is disruptive. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I am confused

Request for comment on Yahoo report

S hould we include

"In September 2021, Yahoo! News reported that in 2014 in the wake of Snowden's leaks, "top intelligence officials lobbied the White House" to designate Wikileaks as an "information broker" to allow for more investigative tools against it, "potentially paving the way" for its prosecution. However, the White House rejected this idea. "I am not the least bit surprised," journalist Glenn Greenwald told Yahoo! News, "that the CIA, a longtime authoritarian and antidemocratic institution, plotted to find a way to criminalize journalism and spy on and commit other acts of aggression against journalists."

In the body?Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be the RFC referred to as "Oct.3 the RfC is launched", which is there the link take me.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But the RfC about the text that I and numerous others edited is about the 2017 plots, which appears here at this link.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your singular focus on this irrelevant detail that you continue to get wrong,, is concerning. The link I provided and which you copied several times is the correct link to the correct diff that opened the RfC I refer to.  modified the RfC a couple of times including here. Focusing on a minor detail about which you are also wrong, but refusing to even acknowledge your serious misbehaviour in repeatedly making false accusations, even when shown otherwise, against other editors, on user talk, in edit summaries, and here at AN/I, is indicative of your attitude which is why an ABAN of some duration appears to be the only method of obtaining some alteration of your inappropriate conduct. <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">foliar❧</b> 17:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m also confused. You’ve posted something about a (hopefully resolved) content issue. How does that relate to this discussion of your repeated and ongoing false accusations of violations of one kind or another against me and other editors, in the face of highlighted evidence to the contrary? - a habit that you’ve given every indication you intend to continue with. <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">foliar❧</b> 16:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Directly above you again accused me of lying by pointing out the incorrect link. My post immediately above yours here is specifying the links, which I presume you posted as a result of an error.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are the same RFCs SPECIFICO. You post a link to Slatersteven opening it. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see, it would have ben nice if Cambial Yellowing had specofced what RFC they were talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Directly above - where? I said you inaccurately - objectively true. You were pinged with evidence showing this not to be the case. You responded without addressing that evidence, instead giving your opinion about why your non-consensus version should be included anyway. You repeated the false allegation. The evidence was linked to again in the edit following. You came to AN/I and made the false allegation a third time. You’ve made similar false allegations against other editors. Once or twice is an error, but when you continue to insist on it in the face of evidence to the contrary, it is a problem. This needs to stop. An article ban would serve to achieve this in the short term, and hopefully encourage you to modify your behavior in the longer term. <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">foliar❧</b> 16:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't recall there having been an RfC on the wording in OP's link for Oct. 3, by you or anyone else.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk
 * I doubt they forged it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Full arbitration case recommended
I'm coming to realize that this is unlikely to get sorted in the usual places. El_C 19:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I came late to this ANI, but am aware of the article history, and as I said I think it is way more complex than any single user. Yes I think this is the way to go, but it is such a huge talk page, and so active trying to remember who said what and when is not always easy, and will be a lot of work.Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As the titular subject of this ANI complaint, I concur with your recommendation. However, being an editor of less than 4 months' standing, I'm unsure about the process. Since you've already placed Wikipedia's Julian Assange BLP under discretionary sanctions, does proceeding to full arbitration mean submitting it to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, and is the OP of this ANI section the only one who can do so? It strikes me that framing the case properly might have a lot to do with its outcome. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.224.217 (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * An arb case is not needed and a request would certainly fail. This specific issue is quite simple. What we need is an admin to look into this and answer these questions: When was consensus established? Was it established in a discussion summarized by this comment (link) on October 3rd? Was it established at the end of the early activity in the RFC by Oct 6th or so (link). Or was it not until it was closed on Nov 17th? If consensus was established prior to the RFC closure, were the reverts reported in the OP (by Basketcase2022 here and by SPECIFICO here) disruptive Mr Ernie (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie, thank you for crystalizing the issue. Rereading the two diffs you provided (by me and by SPECIFICO), those edits seem more trivial than disruptive, and certainly do not justify this sprawling 60K-byte ANI section full of more heat than light. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie, heh, a magical admin from the sky. Sounds good. ;) El_C 22:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Less seriously, I don't think an RfAR about disruption in the Julian Assange page overall will fail. This "specific" incident is hardly its alpha and omega. El_C 22:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm confused. In recommending a "full arbitration case" did you mean one addressing disruption in the entire Assange BLP but not focused on this section's accusations of misconduct? That leaves me wondering how we can settle this particular episode, which seems unworthy of a massive official inquiry. Scoffing at Mr Ernie's call for an admin to look into this does not help us move forward in resolving the ANI case at hand. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Basketcase2022, it's not a scoff, it's a wink — this page seems about as radioactive as the MEK. I doubt there's an admin that wants to touch it. In fact, for the last couple of years, looks like I'm just about the only admin who even breathed in its direction (Example: protection log). As for resolving the dispute outlined in this ANI case, an RfAR would be the way (part of it). But I'm not gonna file it. I'll leave that to others. El_C 23:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What a depressing situation! An ANI case that can't be resolved because admins are afraid to touch it. As the party accused of misconduct, I was hoping for a dispositive acquittal. That's obviously not in the cards. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "afraid" is the best descriptor for that. Though I suppose we can say afraid of making a major time commitment that may well end up being for naught, seeing as another incident would likely be just around the corner. So to restate my position: I think this is a nipping-in-the-bud an assortment of problems sort of thing. El_C 10:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You used the term . That's not normally applied to a problem that is merely time-consuming to clean up. It suggests dangerous handling—something of which to be rightly afraid. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As to the question of blocking SPECIFICO from TFD above, I fully support that. Here are a couple of diffs to show they are not trying to be NPOV as far as the article is concerned:
 * ,
 * and here is a recent response to me showing they and others join in trying to stop constructive contrributions they don't like by straight non constructive obstruction
 * 
 * NadVolum (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Now that discussion seems to have concluded (or at least subsided), out of idle curiosity I fact checked two observations made here on 18 Nov 2021 by SPECIFICO. Could that really be true—and if so, did it remain true for the duration of this complaint, which is now nearly five days old?
 * At 17:53 he noted, This complaint garnered negligible interest on this board.
 * At 20:23, he added, Your complaint about a minor content dispute that was subsidiary to the main question (whether to use the Yahoo story) has attracted scant interest here from the community.

The answers are yes and yes. Of the 95 contributions by 11 editors (including one administrator), just one user hadn't previously participated at Talk:Julian Assange.

This is my first experience of being accused at ANI of wrongdoing. I have to say, I'm disheartened that only a single uninvolved user was moved to consider and comment on my case. Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm completely uninvolved, and I intend to stay that way -- I have no intention of reading everything on that 500KB talk page. There is enough disruption (and this ANI discussion has been so ineffective) that the committee would need to seriously consider a case.  I don't think either American Politics DS or BLP DS are really intended to address the points of disagreement here. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 02:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I made an attempt to read the discussion (it was extremely long and confusing); it seems that many people were in the same boat. That isn't exactly a glowing endorsement of the idea that there's no issue here and everyone should just move along. jp×g 17:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * BTW, SashiRolls: of course I took a screenshot! File:FACT! - 69,969 Donald Trump.jpg. El_C 16:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussions in question appear to have been closed by an uninvolved editor. Is that close being adhered to now? If so, unless someone can succinctly state an unresolved conduct issue, it's not clear what conduct problem still exists such that ANI (or ArbCom) intervention is required. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ProcrastinatingReader, I'm not gonna provide painstaking documentation about the chronic conflict that plagues this article and its did-you-click? talk page. You're free to not/believe me. El_C 18:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ProcrastinatingReader, Mikehawk10 closed the RfC at 04:14, 17 November 2021. Twenty-three minutes later, I conformed the text to the closer's decision. There have been no attempts to alter that text in the four days since. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The content issue that this originally related to has been resolved, and the relevant discussion of it largely ends before the Query (in its own subsection) subheading.
 * The discussion was related to Specifico’s conduct, and raised an issue that I summarise in this comment (in the Query subsection), and in this comment above. The couple of other examples I refer to of this pattern of behaviour are here and here. It remains the case that Specifico has given no indication they intend to change this behaviour, and have given every indication they intend to continue with it. <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">foliar❧</b> 18:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * What I'd like to know is why exactly do editors like User:SPECIFICO and User:Jack Upland be allowed to edit Assange related articles when they explicitly demonstrate that they can't adhere to npov. There is no doubt that Assange is a notorious criminal. One of the most noted criminals of the past 100 years. On a very widely watched and edited article, "silent consensus" on WP is very strong. Of course, those who favor the change can launch and RfC and test their view. - diff and Removing slab of pro-Assange slab of text - diff. - hako9 (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've wondered the same thing for years. Levivich 15:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a great question. Apparently it's better left unsolved. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think one of the problems with the article is that a lot of usual editors have very inflexible partisan positions, pro and anti-Assange, which makes it hard to resolve discussions. The comments above imply that the anti-Assange editors are alone in violating NPOV. Anyone who looks at the discussion can see that's not true. I think I'm one of the more independent editors regularly involved with the page. I think it's unfair to suggest that I should be banned because of a bad edit summary I wrote on another page.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're downplaying the issue. You removed a sourced and good faith addition to an Assange related article with the sole reasoning that it was "pro Assange". You then go on to write on the talk page pro Assange tone doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia - diff. You also need to be specific when you say that there are pro-Assange editors with equally blatant disregard of npov as you and specifico. Please provide diffs or don't point fingers. All I see is neutral editors and a fringe anti Assange group who doesn't respect npov. - hako9 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Was this exchange neutral editing?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes 100% neutral. I even acknowledged and thanked you for that edit. I invite any uninvolved admin to take a look and see if I made any pov edit on main or talk page. The fact that you bought this up shows you have nothing except to waste time. Compare the diffs that I provided above with what you have given. I think I'm one of the more independent editors regularly involved with the page. Lol. Give me an effin break man. - hako9 (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 blocked
I have given Basketcase2022 an indefinite break from Wikipedia (without talk page or email access); based on behavioral and technical evidence, I am quite confident that they are a block-evading (who is currently CBANned by the community and blocked without talk page or email). I am happy to elaborate further on the specific behavioral details in private, but I believe this interaction analyzer report is rather convincing even without the specific behavioral evidence or the technical evidence. I don't have the patience to read through the above discussion to figure out if this block solves everything or not, so not closing the discussion. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Courtesy ping as the admin who seems to have chosen to involve themselves in this mess. Hot potato! GeneralNotability (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I reckon that closes this entire ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol. I guess we can close “SPECIFICO and a sock puppet waste 2 months of everyone’s time.” Maybe the topic ban from a year ago should be reinstated. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think they were the only ones wasting time.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * GN, in the overall context of this article, Basketcase2022 is a bit of a minor aside. Again, a 550K talk page is a page in crisis, as I note above, just as the MEK was prior to the conclusion of WP:ARBIRP (its talk page currently has almost 50 talk page archives to Talk:Julian Assange's 32, so getting there). I don't think we need new DS, because WP:AP2 pretty much covers it. But we didn't really need new DS with ARBIRP, either, because WP:GS/IRANPOL had a similar toolset (I mean, it helps to streamline, but it wasn't a necessity). No, likely like here, what was needed was a major page overhaul that only arbitration can really deliver. Anyway, I hope it all works out somehow. Doesn't hurt to be hopeful. El_C 05:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think it will and note the general low-level incivility and personalization of disputes continue. It may cut down the clutter of umpteen random links a day, but not the overall tone issues.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the general tone. Editors responding on your talk to repeated evidence-free accusations you place on their talk page is not harassment, Slatersteven. Quite the reverse. <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">foliar❧</b> 12:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Gosh, no issues with low-level incivility or personalization of disputes here! --JBL (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a response on my talk page, not the articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

5.37.200.126
This IP has repeatedly engaged in weird content removal from the article of Salalah International Airport, and replacing it with strange URLs. See their contributions for more info about this. After warning them all the way to level 4, I don’t know if this IP should be blocked. Thank you. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — S ANDBOXES  — L OGS  — 22:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Page semi-protected for 2 days. IP blocked for spamming for 31 hours.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, good administrator, for addressing my concerns. This should relieve some pain within all of us. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — S ANDBOXES  — L OGS  — 22:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

User:DorothyCrittenden
For a while now, DorothyCrittenden has been adding unsourced genres and changing genres to music articles, sometimes ignoring explicit instructions. Just to name a few diffs,, , and. I was going to warn them, but then I came across this hostile message on their talk page. They have been warned multiple times in the past to stop their disruptive behavior, deleting these warnings as well, and I think the aforementioned message warrants action from an admin. ResPM (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 00:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef, with a supplemental explanation on their talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Legal threats by Ryan Kavanaugh
User:Knightedblog0934, who claims to be Ryan Kavanaugh here, and appears to be a sockpuppet of User:RK777713 (investigation currently taking place at Sockpuppet investigations/RK777713), who has recently been banned for making legal threats against editors, has made a legal threat against me in this edit, accusing me of being paid by a third party to edit the Ryan Kavanaugh article and threatening to include me, among other editors, in "the third action [against h3 and Klein]". Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 17:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of the SPI, this warrants an immediate block. Based on the history, you've been trying to bring it in line with policy. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 17:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for the legal threats and am taking a look at the sockpuppetry aspect now. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Grilando
I came across a page by this user Criticism of Gonzalo Pérez Jácome, which I tagged as G10. This user, at Felipe VI, added the content Several users also wondered if Queen Letizia was sitting on top of Felipe, in the form of penetration. . I think this user is clearly NOTHERE. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 19:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Grilando. El_C 20:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

User:S11141827 WP:NOTHERE; poor-quality, not-an-improvement edits to a number of musical instrument-related articles
seems to be making a number of poor-quality edits to musical instrument-related articles, mostly adding sentences or paragraphs with odd capitalisation and unencyclopedic language - abbreviations, contractions, etc. It seems they're an WP:SPA, and that they have been warned about this behaviour many times before. I've gone through a number of their edits and redone things, but musical notation and terminology is not my skillset, making it harder to sort the wheat from the continually-added chaff. I'd say they're WP:NOTHERE and would propose an indef.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User_talk:S11141827. El_C 15:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Coming back to this - I think I've spotted two other IP editors making similarly poor-quality edits to music-related pages - like "almost the exact same weird capitalisation and addition of "essentially a [X]" or "like a [Y]" sentences edits; 24.129.3.206 and 150.176.145.147. Maybe this could be, idk, looked into? They've not been active recently but their edits seem to be within the same late 2020 early 2021 time frame. They're not egregious but they are tendentious edits that don't seem to add anything.Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 12:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Lucifernam


A rather new user (since Mid of October),, whose statement on his user page "Hello from hell" is obviously his programme, for example here , ,  and here. and so on…

He or she doen't discuss matters, see Talk:List of Pontifically crowned images, where there was no reaction although the user has been online multiple times since then, the user just set back to his preferred version and with another foul-mouthed comment As he or she seems to be a very busy bee this complete loss of composure is almoust sure to continue to happen rather often.

Before reporting, I consulted @User:Anupam, in order to find out what to do. Thank you. --Medusahead (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to promote or impede any current admin action, but I've left a warning at the user's talk page since they were apparently not warned enough before. If this report results in no action, a future one is more likely to be effective if the behavior persists despite warnings.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 13:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * User_talk:Lucifernam. Now off I go to revdel the multiple instances of ethno-religious hate speech. El_C 13:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Lucifernam — Paleo Neonate  – 02:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk page misuse?
Special:Contributions/2003:E1:E700:0:0:0:0:0/41 is posting to a lot of talk pages, almost never contributing anything useful, it rather seems like trolling. The range got more active in enWP after it was partially blocked in deWP for similar behaviour. You might consider blocking the range in enWP as well. Best wishes --Johannnes89 (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I definitely recommend a block for almost exlusively using WP as a personal blog...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Rangeblocked as what appears to be a static IP that is WP:NOTHERE. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 06:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I think the 1 year makes sense. This reminds me of an LTA doing the same, also apparently German but they used to include an email address.  Unfortunately I cannot remember who it was at current time.  In any case, good block, — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP is just posting nonsensical auto-generated texts; clearly WP:NOTHERE … AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 16:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Chope article
On the WP:BLP article for Christopher Chope, I have requested in recent days that consensus be gained first on the talk page of the article for the inclusion that another politician described Chope as a "selfish twat" in a text message on a private WhatsApp group. I have described my reasons on the talk page why I feel it's not vital to include this content on a neutral BLP. The article already contains a substantial amount of criticism of Chope. The reference for the "selfish twat" comment is a tweet by a journalist contained in a "as it happened" live blog at theguardian.com

I don't have an issue with stating in the article that Chope's actions in November 2021 led to strong criticism. There's no problem with including that he was criticised, but I've requested that consensus be gained first on the talk page for the specific description of him in a text message as a "selfish twat".

However, an IP editor (or possibly two IP editors with different IP addresses) continues to revert and inserts the "selfish twat" comment from a text message on a private WhatsApp group without yet gaining consensus on the talk page. I don't feel this is editing in a spirit of collaboration and consensus should be gained first for the inclusion of the contentious description. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This should probably be at BLP/N, but I'd just point out that the "selfish twat" remark was also reported on in a full article in The Times and the Independent, as well as less well-respected papers such as the Express . Black Kite (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers: harassment, hounding, disgraceful conduct
So, I'm accused by here of harassment, hounding and disgraceful conduct; I'm not entirely clear if I'm also accused of misuse of admin privileges. I'd appreciate some feedback on these fairly serious accusations, which – as I'm very short of time right now – I will not at the moment discuss or deny.

Wiki Page Polisher is a paid editor who has chosen completely to ignore our guidance (policy?) that "paid editors ... are very strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles". I have reverted several large-scale additions made by this editor (Maddy Dychtwald, Charley Hughlett, Jayde Riviere).

Similar accusations are also levelled by the same editor against and. Those I will immediately state to be completely baseless, an unjustifiable slur against two of our most valuable and indefatigable editors. Wiki Page Polisher, please withdraw those unacceptable accusations forthwith. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I am grateful to for raising this here. I had just issued a level 1 AGF warnimg to WPP, and was considering leavig it at that and awaiting their further actions. I'm not keen on accudsatioins, but I'm old enough and ugly enough to have a thick hide.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 17:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As a volunteer editor I have a very precise expectation of paid editors.
 * It is that their work should be perfect in Draft space and that a draft should be immediately acceptable at first review. Once an article is in Main space, or of they are paid for making additions to an existing article, I expect them to use the article talk page and behave properly at all times.
 * I do not expect to have to educate them, either myself, or for someone else to need to educate them
 * I expect these things because they are paid. To be paid they must be worth their fee . Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 18:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment My only involvement at Jayde Riviere was to add the paid editor template, when User:Wiki Page Polisher repeatedly made direct edits to the article. I have never edited Charley Hughlett. Paid editors should request changes on the article's talk page not add vast swathes of paid for content unchecked. Theroadislong (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In most cases, the proper response by paid editors to comments made by long-established and experienced editors should be "yes ma'am" and "no sir", or less sexist equivalents thereof. I see no evidence of hounding, and the suggestion of tag-teaming is likewise in very poor taste. Moreover, paid editors are supposed to write neutrally, and Maddy Dychtwald proves this hasn't happened. Look, for instance, at the huge section on Women and Financial Wellness, which is (just) a research study and gets six paragraphs of promotional material, based on primary sources and, via synthesis, on a Forbes article which cites the author but doesn't even discuss the study. In addition, look at the last paragraph, starting "This study and its findings have been featured in prominent media discussions...". As far as I'm concerned, this editor is not abiding by our guidelines. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The highlighted comment is from a behavioural guideline, not from a policy. However, such is the strength of the community feeling on this matter, that it should be considered to have significant weight. I concur with Drmies that this editor is following the policy but significantly deviating from community expectations on the bevhaviour of paid editors. I see nothing wrong with other editors' interactions on this matter. QuiteUnusual (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have blocked this editor for one week for their personal attacks. Cullen328 (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for blocking accordingly., , & , so sorry you all had to go through the pain of personal attacks and other deliberate disingenuous comments from that editor, I too just experienced something similar here. I think the wording of WP:PAID & COI are in themselves partly responsible for incidents such as this, phrases such as should be changed to , the former leaves a window for the paid editor to wiki-lawyer or use linguistic ambiguity to maneuver their way out of due diligence after all they are merely strongly advised I’m not big on starting RFC's and whatnot but the wording does need a revamp. It is my belief that even the concept of acceptable paid editing be scrapped entirely but that’s a cumbersome discussion for another day. Celestina007 (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Celestina007 There are good paid editors. They are only obvious in that they trouble no-one and write well. Then there are the others. They make themselves obvious by writing poorly, using WP:BOMBARD, and wikilawyering. They are usually surprised when they hear the sound of running water and discover it is the toilet, flushing them away. Often they are next seen evading blocks and at SPI. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 23:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the point of the wording is that a paid editor shouldn't be required to make an edit request just to fix a typo or remove an egregious BLP violation. Mlb96 (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Those who are interested may wish to consider the unblock request. I confess it is tl;dr but I have skimmed it., as blocking admin I imagine you get first right of handling it? I make no comment on it save the length. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 23:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply. I just read every word of it. I think that it is best practice to let another administrator handle it, so I will quite intentionally say no more than that I read it. Cullen328 (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The user continues the accusations and personal attacks on the user page. In a fit of "mob mentality" I suggest the block be extended, perhaps indefinately, in order to prevent further disruption.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

CIR/COI editor


Despite denials on their talk page, the above user's edits are suspect. They seem to mostly be interested in plastering this person's name all over the place (see my recent series of reverts, ""Mike Brown and Robert M Corich" - spammed across multiple articles without a source"), without reference to reliable sources or anything (going as far as even to try to keep criticism of their edits away because, apparently, they're an authority on the subject and others are not). I suspect there is some WP:UPE at play here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * McMalcolm's at my user talk page is open to interpretation, but suggests the possibility of COI. They said "Knowing the band history, members, producers (who have all commented asking wtf is going on with the deletions on additions they themselves have supplied) I really don’t get where this Random Canadians head is." It certainly suggests a close connection the band, but it's possible McMalcolm is just aware of public comments the members and producers have made. It would help for McMalcolm to where the members/producers have "commented asking wtf". Firefangledfeathers 19:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Addendum/move to ANI : further comments by this editor indicate they are simply not able to understand the issues with their edits, despite explanations (that they need to cite sources, not just make vague references to "artist websites" without citing them), as their latest post demonstrates: In my opinion I view their recent actions as petty and malicious,. Enough is enough. Their edits show they're an WP:SPA mostly interested in the topic of the two pages linked above; and the connection looks like COI/possibly UPE, a good example being the spammed edits of theirs mentioned in my first comment. A topic ban seems like the absolute minimum here, if not a good ol' regular NOTHERE indef (given they don't have any constructive edits elsewhere). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Their editing history points pretty strongly to a COI with the subject and their comments and edit history indicate an obvious SPA. I would support a NOTHERE. Padgriffin  Griffin's Nest 03:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

User:ManaliJain
There is an issue with respect to this account user. It seems they are following WP: OWN and WP: COI in the article Ankit Gupta. They are constantly inserting unreliable sources such as "the bulletin times" & "bollywood hungama" as these &  in the subject's article. When someone is removing them saying they are unreliable, they are being adamant to have these sources in the subject's article and constantly reverting the other editors edits giving a vague and invalid reason Unconstructive and disruptive editing. Plus, they have inserted the same unreliable sources twice or thrice in the article. They're not even allowing the others to remove the extra unwanted unreliable sources and improve the article. Please check all the diffs between: and. Also, the subject has not acted in the web-series Bekaboo 2 as Shaurya which is clear from the article But this editor is so adamant to accredit Ankit Gupta a role which he hasn't done and an award nomination which isn't his. It shows how the editor is following WP:COI. Can someone please stop them from constantly causing WP:OWN & WP:COI type of editing in the article of Ankit Gupta? Thank you. 117.243.23.71 (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * & Can you please do something about this editor because they are   confidently continuing their absolutely disruptive and unconstructive edits everywhere all because some Wikipedia Administrators are turning a complete blind eye to their behaviour and not taking required actions. I can't understand how such a disruptive editor was even given reverting back rights in Wikipedia? Please check all the discussion in their talk page in the past 2-3 months. Almost everyone is fed up with their behaviour. Still they are going on doing it even now. Also they have removed the Administrators'noticeboard notification from their talk page giving a reason of cleanup. Please it's a request, stop this disruptive editor by taking strict actions of blocking them  &  117.243.23.71 (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Judy Garland fans(?) in Cardiff
Two IPs in Cardiff are repeatedly inserting files uploaded to Commons by "Lobods123" which get quickly deleted for having bad permissions.


 * E.g. the first of these IPs (2.99.184.110) twice inserting a photo of Garland with crossed eyes into Judy Garland as a gay icon. Diffs:


 * E.g. the second of these (86.3.41.180) repeatedly replacing images in JG-related articles with less-good and soon-deleted images from Lobods123. Diffs:


 * E.g. both of these making unconstructive edits to article text. Diffs:

Could somebody please block these 2 time-wasting IPs? HouseOfChange (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Update, their "feeder" account at Wikimedia has been blocked for a month, and these two seem to have stopped their antics. Still, they have not between them even on constructive edit when they are at play. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Stalled content dispute gets consumed by editing behavior concerns
Same editor listed from multiple IPs below: At Talk:Cedar Point, a discussion has devolved into an editing behavior concern (namely by the IP about my actions). They tried a series of edits, which were mass reverted, and after realizing that some of the edits actually weren't harmful to the article, I restored a portion of those edits. Discussion then ensued on the talk page, which initially began over content but has since devolved into an unproductive editing behavior concern. I tried one last push to focus on content, but those efforts have failed, and the talk page continues to be consumed by the IP editor's focus on my actions. I removed one personal attack and ignored others (such as this one), and the editor has made it clear the only outcome here is going to require 3rd-party involvement.Here is the sequence of edits that occurred: Talk page discussion begins here (forewarning, it's very long): I admit, I should have been more precise when reverting or simply gone to the talk page first, but this page does get a considerable amount of vandalism, and that was likely a knee-jerk reaction on my part. I was quick to engage on the article talk page, however, but unfortunately I think the initial actions I took derailed any chances for productive discussion. The personal attacks were not helpful either. My concern at this point is that further comments on that talk page are only disruptive. This seems like a more appropriate venue at this stage, and I would appreciate any additional insight others may have. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - notified
 * - notified
 * diff1 – Blanket removal of images by IP
 * diff2 – Other IP edits, some of which were ultimately contested
 * diff3 - My mass revert, which should have been more carefully performed or taken directly to talk
 * diff4, diff5 – Precise restoration of edits that shouldn't have been reverted, much of which was performed soon after the revert
 * Talk:Cedar Point
 * There is a lot of vandalism from the /32 range, much unreverted, mainly BLP. Some good edits also. One IP wrote " ==strange I'm allowed to edit from t-mobile. Maybe Redwood City doesn't have the heavy-handed AmandaP block." Some good edits too. Some certainly looks like it's coming from a school.  Doug Weller  talk 10:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . This comment was added shortly after being notified about this discussion. Aside from more unproductive rambling without any real substance littering the talk page, they point out that this will be their last post until after the holidays. Further indication this is a student in school? --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Keeping this section active, hoping someone will have a chance to review. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

POV and minority view problem at Genetic history of East Asians
A recent editor tries to replace sourced content with personal/outdated minority views regarding the origin/routes used by Ancestral East Asians at Genetic history of East Asians. I have already explained that minority views, especially outdated ones, do not have a place in such extent, per WP:Weight. I reverted and included inline citations, than started a talk page section, explaining why this specific minority view can not be implemented in such way. The editor seem to not care about these Wikipedia policies and again replaced the whole "Overview" section with his personal view (a sentence of a 2015 study, which was not well received by later studies). I have already warned him, that making misleading edit summaries will result in consequences, but I think it will not stop him from making unconstructive edits again. Take a look at the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetic_history_of_East_Asians#Southern/Northern_route_models_recent_unconstructive_edits

I hope this dispute can be settled now.2001:4BC9:911:EE16:7145:5476:354C:9D9A (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've notified the involved editor that this discussion was created. JellyMan9001 (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are making the mistake of trying to explain all of the origins of East Asians as sources on the formation of specific ethnic groups, rather than claiming your opinion as sources on the formation of East Asians. The research papers I suggested were direct studies on the formation of East Asians. And there are three main hypotheses in the papers. It is not neutral to claim that only a single path hypothesis is correct.--SsSsSs0909 (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Hsinchonglam persistently using awful references
has received a series of warnings about unreliable references, yet persists in making edits such as this, this and this. FDW777 (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, blocked. Any unblock would be contingent on acknowledging your repeated warnings. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 15:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I accidentally made a bunch of pages
Hi, can someone nuke the pages I just created? Thanks. Qwerfjkl talk  12:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Belligerent behavior from IP user 68.132.114.72
Belligerent edit history replete with personal attacks. Was previously warned on talk. Doesn't actually engage when approached regarding content disputes (see talk). DrIdiot (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 1 month by . PhilKnight (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

EKP70
User EKP70 continues to replace content of pages with nationalist material, such as in the article Morenada. In a nutshell, EKP70 believes pre-Columbian and colonial traditions predating the existence of modern nation-states in South America should be redefined as "belonging" to present-day countries (specifically, in this case, Bolivia). Most users have expressed, through talk page comments and article edits, that shared ancient cultural traditions do not have a specific national origin. Despite numerous talk page messages and reverts from different users, EKP70 refuses consensus and continues imposing their POV through edit warring. This same behavior was reported 10 days ago by (see here: ANI Report). Thanks in advance for administrative assistance in this matter.--<b style="color: Olive">MarshalN20</b> <sup style="color: maroon">✉ 🕊 17:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's quite enough of that. Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Revoke TPA - Scholar Medical & Research


No lessons learned here. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's taken care of. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. { &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

IP pushing conspiracy theory that the COVID vaccine kills
This IP user is suggesting that athletes collapsing in sporting events must be due to their taking the COVID-19 vaccine. They have suggested this without any evidence on several talk pages. Block? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a month, there are many venues which welcome conspiracy theories but we are not one of them (and that they cite the Sun to back their standing up does not help).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Requesting unblock of Ruthaylett
Hi, as a lightly involved admin, I am requesting review of an indefinite block, towards unblocking. I've contacted blocking admin, but he has not been on the project since November 19th, which is why I'm bringing things here to WP:ANI.

As a brief summary of the situation: Ruthaylett was caught up as a meatpuppet in a messy canvassing event when one of her academic colleagues,, was unhappy about the article Ernest W. Adams being up for AfD. Since Ruthaylett is a relatively inexperienced editor, she did not understand about WP:MEAT, and therefore unwisely participated at the AfD, as did other meatpuppet and sockpuppet accounts. After a complaint at SPI by, the relevant accounts were blocked indefinitely by Checkuser Oshwah.

I actually know both Ernest and Ruth off-wiki, and can verify that they are different people. I was not involved with the AfD, but since I heard about the canvassing, I have now counseled both Ernest and Ruth (at length!) about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ernest's response was not as, hmm, constructive as I might have hoped, but I can verify that Ruth now understands what she did wrong, and she has apologized on her talkpage. I don't want to unblock her since I'm somewhat involved, so would someone else please be kind enough to take a look? I am personally quite confident that Ruth is no longer a danger to the encyclopedia, she would just like to get back to editing in a constructive way. Thanks, --Elonka 05:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This should've probably been posted to WP:AN which is normally used for block reviews. Otherwise and regardless, I think that an unblock would probably be best for this situation given Ruth's willingness to listen to your advice. Can you at least close the third unblock request to avoid having two active ones on the talk page? &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks to me like we can unblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, an unblock is reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd support an unblock, given Elonka's vouching and her latest unblock request show's a willingness to listen and she seems to want to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. Swil999 (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved administrator, I have unblocked. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts. But if ya'll are 100% certain that he's not a sock of ? then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

BradfordXxx is adding links to his own website from celebrity related articles
User:BradfordXxx was on IRC Help recently asking why their changes had been reverted. I noticed that many of this user's edits were additions of links to latestceleb.com. This editor informed me that they were an editor of that web-site, and just wanted to "add useful information" to Wikipedia. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This user attempted to revert a discussion at WP:SBL in order to prevent his web-site from being added to our spam blacklist. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page. Conflicts of interest are always a little concerning but we do have robust policies around this. BradfordXxx has declared that they are a contributor to latestceleb.com and other publications on their userpage. Provided those publications are reliable sources and the citations don't add undue emphasis, WP:SELFCITE allows editors to cite themselves. BradfordXxx is, however, guilty of adding inline external links which is against policy, and that revert at WP:SBL is absolutely outrageous, so it certainly looks in this case like they are not here to build an encyclopaedia. Now that BradfordXxx has been properly notified of this discussion, let's see what they have to say. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  12:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no way that latestceleb.com is a suitable source for BLPs. Their about page claims that they were founded in 2020, states that they publish "gossip and opinions" and compares their reporting to a chat in a coffee shop. It also makes it clear that most of their content comes from "contributing writers" and that they are owned by "The Boring Agency" which appears to be an online advertising agency in the Netherlands? Their terms and conditions page claims that the webite is owned by "Creators Studio Lab", another internet advertising agency, this one seems to be a couple of years old and is based in Nepal. I had a look at a couple of biographies that they have and they seem to consist primarily of text copied from wikipedia. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've just noticed that Salimfadhley did indeed notify BradfordXxx of this discussion - not sure how I missed that before. Anyway, I'll give BradfordXxx a warning. If they add any further links to these sites after that warning, please report them at WP:AIV. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  13:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I'm not very observant today. User:Kuru has already done the honours. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  13:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No doubt a confusing situation made worse by the user having deleted warnings that were issued before he was originally reported to AIV. I also noticed that the user seems to rely on close paraphrasing - maybe something to watch for in this user moving forward. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To Larry Hockett If you can do a better job than let me hire you lol. I just see people here trying to be big shots. Btw, if someone does something wrong you should validate it with reasons, rather than showing who the big shot is. Furthermore, I was a donor before i just started using wikipedia as a wikipedian, no longer i am going to support this cause of having an encyclopedia, where people are just a big shots. If i was doing wrong adding links than people here who are showing that they are big shots should atleast tell you rather than being insultive. Besides that, i used to be an editor, so i thought you guys need editors, but seemms stagnent information is what people want, that's why small blogs are doing 10000x times better.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradfordXxx (talk • contribs) 15:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In response to your comment at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, you do realise that everyone here is an unpaid volunteer? None of the admins or editors get any money for their work here. People did explain what you were doing wrong with reasons - you are adding spam links to a site where you have an obvious conflict of interest. The site is full of articles where someone with not particularly amazing English skills has very obviously copied a Wikipedia article while slightly mangling the wording, they have the exact same information in the exact same structure just with more poorly written sentences. Combined with the fact that this site has unclear editorial policies, is owned by what seems to be a recently founded SEO company, accepts submissions from contributors and has no established reputation means that it is a completely unsuitable source for information on living people. We need more editors, but we don't need more people misusing Wikipedia to post spam. 192.76.8.95 (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So you mean i am not welcome here? Okay fine, ill leave wikipedia to you guys.
 * If you're here only to promote your website, then no, you're not welcome here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And no, Wikipedia couldn't care less if you don't donate anymore.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is about SEO, nofollow may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I love when users threaten to stop donating as if any of us give a single shit whether they donate or not. Mlb96 (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "Wait, you guys are getting paid?" should be the default reaction to people threatening to stop donations. Padgriffin  Griffin's Nest 02:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Given that the user has left, I propose we close before crows come in droves to pick at Bradford's reputation before it can necrose (especially since he covered himself in birdseed by declaring he wouldn't donate anymore) ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ  02:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do have to say that with Bradford's response as a guide, the accuracy and journalistic qualities of any website he edits is in serious doubt. I'd come down on a fourth-grader with as little command of the English language as all of that.   Ravenswing      06:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposing indefinite block on User:Maihe101


I am proposing an indefinite block on the editor, they have been here for 6 years with 112, indicative of a WP:SLEEPER, & all they have done is create promotional articles on non notable persons. As far back as 2019 asked them this which they failed to reply today, Infact take a look at the entirety of their TP here which paints the whole picture. The breaking point for me is today they have created yet another promotional article see here I believe they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Celestina007 (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Maihe101, it's really simple. Are you getting paid for these edits? Are any of them your employer, or somehow related to your employer? Do you have a conflict of interest with your subjects in any way? You must answer, here, because from my point of view it looks like you are writing up resume-style articles on people who otherwise wouldn't have gotten them. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for an Indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE

 * Support - As proposer. Celestina007 (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the user is clearly having problems with promotional sounding material, they're clearly productive in spite of this, and I think we should look for a response that mitigates future problems instead of trying to punish them for past ones. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ  18:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem for me is jumping straight to a !vote. I looked at this earlier & the presented evidence left the research to me so I was waiting for someone to dissect their contribs. I believe their edits need to be reviewed & discussed, yes, but only then would anyone be willing to discuss any sanctions.  The user has replied on their talkpage to you twice, once in 2020  & yesterday . They do have a few extant articles, albeit one is currently also at AfD.  There may be other reasons for a sanction as well, but as this editor is writing on Nigerian subjects it makes it harder for me to judge.  Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I don't get paid to edit Wikipedia. I have answered this a number of times. I don't have any affiliation with any of the subjects. If anything, it does seem that the person that nominated me for indefinite ban has a thing against me. I understand that we are all passionate to contribute to the growing pool of knowledge on Wikipedia in a fair, ethical way, but hounding me makes me feel like I don't deserve to be here. I only just found out that CKay, one of the subjects I made that was speedily deleted now has a namespace. For the sake of clarity, let me restate that I don't have any incentive to make edits on Wikipedia. Thanks. Maihe101 (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest one thing, when you create a new article you might want to use Articles for creation instead of creating them in main space. Would this be OK with you? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

User:ACtiling
. This is a newish editor, who is solely focussed on making changes to one article - List of people from Merseyside. They probably mean well. However, I have never before come across an editor who is so unable to listen to advice on basic editing skills - for example, they appear to believe that it's only possible to add a name to the list while removing one at the same time. They have been repeatedly advised, and occasionally warned, by several editors on numerous occasions, and directed to places like WP:Teahouse, but appear to be completely unable to comprehend what makes an edit allowable, and seem unwilling to learn. I would far prefer that they were not blocked but rather improve their skills - but sheer inability to achieve a modicum of competence appears to be an unresolvable problem. Any advice? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor is either unwilling or unable to add list entries in alphabetical order despite countless warnings. Another editor suggested Adopt-a-user but there is no sign of any attempt to learn.  Probably not malicious, but the lack of basic competence means definitely an unacceptable time sink.  --David Biddulph (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * He's still having trouble understanding WP:INDENT, but hopefully he's finally learned 'not' to keep creating 'new discussion' headings within the same discussion. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd guess that the editor is now asleep. If they return, I'd want to see both an end to the truculence and evidence of competence. If the latter is missing, enough: CIR. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've since left a few detailed messages for this editor on their talk page. Hopefully, they're beginning to see the problems they're causing by their carelessness and poor communication skills. I will continue to watch this user's edits and take steps if necessary. Others are trying to help too, and I do feel they're trying to act in good faith. I was initially concerned this user was also operating with a promotional username as there happens to be a tiling company of that same name on Merseyside. But their lack of WP:COMPETENCE is hardly likely to ever win them any customers, and I feel they've enough to contend with without us soft-blocking for potentially spurious reasons. (There are enough genuine ones if we need them!) Nick Moyes (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm the editor who suggested Adopt-A-User and they don't seem to be changing their behavior. I support a block of a moderate time period (say, 6 months) so that they have time to either mature or lose interest in the project. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ  02:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

201.187.68.208
Hello, administrators…

The IP I have listed above is doing some… shall we say… interesting things. Apparently the IP is removing warnings from its talk page by RainbowLover334148, and has reverted their edits over 10 times!!! (Probably going to be more than that since the IP is still doing that.) Anyway, to the point: This IP seems to be violating WP:3RR. Even while the user listed above has given the IP a warning for edit warring, this IP seems to just not care. Should we block this IP? — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — S ANDBOXES  — L OGS  — 14:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah I can't even restore removed warnings after adding edit war warning. RainbowLover334148 (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP can remove the warning from their talk page. Removal is acknowledgement of reading.  Its a bit disruptive to keep adding a warning to someone's page who has removed it. Slywriter (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec), Users are allowed to remove messages from their own talk page. It's treated as an acknowledgement that the message has been read. Edit-warring to restore them is inappropriate, especially when the warning were for vandalising the sandbox. Please leave this IP alone unless they do something that is actually a problem. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 14:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for letting me know. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — S ANDBOXES  — L OGS  — 14:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a little protection to the IP's talk page for good measure, before seeing this thread. It's likely that if they're not being reverted the disruption will stop. As for the edits at the sandbox, it's a place which is designed to allow people to test things that would otherwise be considered unconstructive (within limits). Today's appearance from WP:LTA/SBT is what started this edit war. It's very rare that sandbox edits need reverting. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You may wish to impose a temporary interaction ban on me. Make it however long you want. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — S ANDBOXES  — L OGS  — 15:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm sure that won't be necessary. You made an honest mistake. My advice would be to learn from it and move on. :) <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 15:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It would seem humiliating to the IP, but I guess I’m good, assuming that I didn’t violate WP:3RR. (1 revert) Thanks for letting me know. I trouted myself as a reminder. :P — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — S ANDBOXES  — L OGS  — 15:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well we can't stop you trouting yourself. Just know that you are not the first to have been set on a course of action by this LTA, and you won't be the last. Lesson: If someone is reverting, don't just revert. Anyway, I'm not sure if anyone's linked the actual guideline on this: WP:BLANKING. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well we can't stop you trouting yourself. Just know that you are not the first to have been set on a course of action by this LTA, and you won't be the last. Lesson: If someone is reverting, don't just revert. Anyway, I'm not sure if anyone's linked the actual guideline on this: WP:BLANKING. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Kaş, Turkey
Hello
 * Added pagelinks Adakiko (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The city of Kaş in southwestern Turkey was once, and recently (around 100 years ago), known as Antiphellos.

Two editors, Adakiko and Alessandro57, are edit warring because I removed a travel guide as "source" for the so-called Turkish name for a nearby island. They are now deleting the Greek indigenous name in the lede

Please help resolve.

Thanks a lot, Sainihånser (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I simply reverted as an unexplained deletion. This is, I believe, my first edit to Kaş, and I'm now "edit warring"? Adakiko (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are participating in an edit war started by Alessandro. If you looked at my previous 2 edits, you would have realized that it was the same edit, only this time without an edit summary. Sainihånser (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * So hang on. First  objects to there not being a source for the Turkish name of the island, and then reverts when one is put in?   Cut that out at once.  Beyond that, what is this with the "so-called Turkish name?"  Obviously, Kastellorizo ought to be the name given first, being that it's Greek territory, but if the Turks just one mile away call it something else contemporaneously, it's appropriate for that name to also be in the article, appropriate for a source to exist for it, and appropriate for a travel guide to be that source ... what is your reason for believing that guide's name to be inaccurate?  Whether what the Greeks used to call the place a century ago belongs or not in the lead -- and this is nothing that's been in the article, it's something you put in -- is a content dispute that ought to take place on the article's talk page (and not otherwise appropriate for ANI).  This is a conversation you haven't attempted.   Ravenswing      06:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I object to having a travel guide as a source. It's the same BS as having no source. Cut that out at once. Beyond that, if you wanna give Kastellorizo a Turkish name, approach me with a scholarly, third-party source. Until then, this is a conversation you haven't attempted. Sainihånser (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, if you need to feature the "Turkish name" of Kastellorizo, then do so in the proper article, and not on the Kaş one. It is of no relevance. Sainihånser (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh. You seem to be making some serious errors here.  First is that you do not own this article, you are not the exclusive arbiter of what constitutes a reliable source or not, and no one needs to solicit your permission before using one.  Second is your battleground mentality generally; judging from your talk page and your edits to other talk pages, you routinely lash out when you don't get your way, and you've already been warned for it more than once ... which is impressive, seeing as you've been on Wikipedia for all of three days.  I'm not saying this in an attempt to get you to realize that your behavior is objectionable and against policy here on Wikipedia -- editors in your shoes almost never do -- but so you've been duly warned as to what comes next.    Ravenswing      06:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation, and thanks also to  . Ravenswing, you summed up the problem very well. Kaş and Kastellorizo are reachable each other  by a good swimmer, that is why it is important to mention their names in both languages in the two articles. By the way, I know the area well, and the first time I arrived in Kaş from Antalya, and asked the Turk next to me what the name of the island closing the bay was, he answered "Meis". Only later did I find out that its native name was Kastellorizo. That is why I find it necessary to have the name in the article. I would like to point out that I did not delete the Greek name from the article, but only the "formerly" adjective, because the Greeks of Kastellorizo still call Kaş Antiphellos (or Andifili). Regarding the "edit war", all articles about geographical names in this region are subject to edit wars by users (mostly Greeks and Turks) who try to ethnically cleanse the names of the other side: mine was just a patrol intervention. User:Sainihånser complained about the lack of a source, and I put it in, and to do it I made a second revert, that's all. Moreover, I left also a message on his talk page, explaining that in this case one should first add a "Citation needed" template instead of canceling the information. If he disagrees with the quality of my source he can open a thread on the discussion page instead of opening a thread here. I will now insert a Greek and a third party reference in the article, I hope the case is closed with these ones. P.S. Regarding the comparison with the Balearic islands, the distance from the African coast is more than 1200 kilometers. I would say that the example is poorly chosen, to say the least. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is this WP:content dispute at ANI? The last time someone commented at Talk:Kaş was over 10 years ago. (Discounting an IP modifying someone else's signed comment to push a different POV over 6 years ago, and my reversion of said modification when I noticed it from this ANI.) I've said it before, bringing a content dispute to ANI is generally a fail. Bringing a content dispute to ANI when you haven't touched the article talk page is generally an extra special kind of fail. Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Despite his comment above, Sainihånser's spreading his edit warring to the offshore island's article as well, removing the Turkish name for it.   Seems he's also got a mad on for the nomenclature of geographical names in Turkey generally.   Looks like he's here as a language warrior, and WP:NOTHERE when it comes to building an encyclopedia.   Ravenswing      08:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. It's also highly unlikely that Sainihånser, who found ANI with a new account and knows our ways so well (compare e.g. "scholarly, third-party source" above), is a new contributor. But I'm not familiar with the blocked language warriors in this area, so I can't do anything with that. I can, however, block as not here to build an encyclopedia, and I have. Wikipedia is not for nationalism. Thank you, and . Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC).
 * And I've already had a very fine response, promising more socking. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC).
 * Good call, Bishonen, thanks.   Ravenswing     09:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The Pollster immediately returning to disruptive behavior


Only yesterday, we closed a long discussion about whether to indefinitely block Heavy OWN, TENDENTIOUS and PA behaviour by The Pollster for their repeated personal attacks, edit warring, and WP:OWN. Everyone who took part in the long discussion agreed The Pollster's behaviour was unacceptable, opinions differed on whether to block them indefinitely, for a limited time, or just give them a warning. In the end, the closing admin settled for a warning. As many of us feared, The Pollster construed this close and the warning as a carte blanche to behave as he pleases. This includes: I feel enough is enough. If The Pollster reads the long discussion of whether to block him, and the final warning he was given, as vindication that he was right, then something is very wrong. Several users already suggested WP:COMPETENCE and that The Pollster does not seem to able to edit. Given that in less than 24 hours after the close and the warning, The Pollster has doubled down on his personal attacks, on the edit warring, and on the own-issues, it seems clear they are right. As the warning to The Pollster clearly did not work, I repeat my suggestion that Wikipedia is better off without this highly disruptive user. Jeppiz (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Claiming that the discussion about their edit warring and personal attacks was to "censor" him
 * Returning to personal attacks by claiming those who disagree with him "are applying a double standard, even accusing users of wanting "to sustain corruption".
 * Immediately returning to the same edit warring, restoring his own version of the contested article once again (and deceptively trying to hide it by a misleading edit summary).


 * Your first diff is bogus, so I stopped reading your complaint there. The first diff you site is a comment made prior to the warning I gave upon closing the thread. I now must warn you to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground.  Jehochman Talk 14:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure Jehochman, who per Jeppiz "settled for a warning" in the previous discussion, is the ideal admin to close this new thread without anybody else having had time to comment. For that reason, I do want to state that I agree with him (with Jehochman), and would have closed in a similar way, and would also have warned Jeppiz. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC). (Bad Bishonen for editing inside the closed discussion.)

TBAN proposal: The Pollster
It's true Jeppiz messed up the diffs in this report. The first three diffs (in the first two bullet points in the OP) are all the same diff, and they did technically come before the warning. However, that diff (Special:Diff/1054626602, 05:03 Nov 11) was a comment made at the bottom of the tban proposal, and did, in fact, say and  Neither of these comments suggests that The Pollster understood the discussion about them. I was surprised that Jehochman closed that thread with a warning a few hours later (Special:Diff/1054652842, 09:39 Nov 11). Frankly, had I seen The Pollster's comment at 05:03, I may have changed my !vote from oppose to support.

More importantly, that same 05:03 comment stated That's WP:IDHT in its purest form right there. Worse is that The Pollster went and restored their edits: The Nov 12 edit is, in fact, a direct continuation of the exact thing that led to the ANI thread in the first place. "Added new poll" is, in fact, a deceptive edit summary. Given they previously asked for this content to be restored, I don't think this was any kind of good faith error. Clearly, Jehochman's warning was ineffective. (I also very much object to Jehochman's comment here, "First thing to do is scrutinize the filer", which I think expresses an attitude that is at the core of why ANI doesn't work well. First thing to do is to read report, and the diffs, in full. I also think that shows a bit of anti-filer bias which may have influenced the premature closing of this report.)
 * Here are some of the edits that led to The Pollster's first ANI thread (there are others):
 * 04:53 Nov 7 - restoring their reverted changes (which included segregating out certain polls into a separate table and collapsing that table), with the edit summary
 * 11:17 Nov 7 - restoring their reverted changes again, with the edit summary
 * As a reminder, 05:03 Nov 11 is when The Pollster made the comment linked above, in part asking admins to restore their preferred version, and 09:39 is when Jehochman warned The Pollster
 * 05:19 Nov 12 - Pollster, in their next edit after making the above comment at ANI and after being warned, again restores their edits (separating out certain polls into a new table and collapsing that table), but does so along with an addition of content, and uses the edit summary.

Jeppiz, since being warned above, has posted a wiki-break notice. Meanwhile, another editor had to revert The Pollster. I don't think it's good that this ends with other editors having to revert The Pollster again, while an editor who is trying to stop that disruption is run off the project. As such, I'm now proposing a TBAN from polling against The Pollster.
 * Support TBAN from polling, broadly construed as proposer, per my comments above. Subsequent actions by The Pollster have convinced me that I was wrong to oppose a sanction last time. Within a day of being warned, they've gone right back to edit-warring in their preferred changes (05:19 Nov 12) after asking admins to restore their preferred changes (05:03 Nov 11). The warning (09:39 Nov 11) clearly was not effective. Levivich 16:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I think the warning has not had the desired result, and it doesn't look as if Pollster is going to change his behavior. Paul August &#9742; 17:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with everything Levivich has written. This is a sorry incident and Jeppiz and Impru20 (the original filer to be supposedly “scrutinised”) are owed apologies. DeCausa (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Levivich has summarized the situation well. An imperfect filing should not result in disregard of the ongoing issues that led to the filing. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  18:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as per filer of initial ANI thread (since the original rationale persists) and because of Levivich's neatly summarized rationale: it's a matter of IDHT as of now. The Pollster's restoration of the disputed content under a misleading and deceiving edit summary while discussion with other users was still underway in the talk page, coupled with a failure to re-engage in such discussion once the previous ANI thread was closed, clearly showed a bad-faith intent in this. A TBAN would also be a less harsh remedy than a full block, and can give The Pollster time to reconsider their current approach towards Wikipedia. Sincerely, he should really take the rope that is being given to him if he wants to avoid the risk of being indeffed in the future.  Impru 20 talk 18:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting that a mere minutes after I posted my message, The Pollster has re-engaged the discussion. In his reply, he argues that "I have addressed everything in proper manner and it’s well sourced. I reverted it to my previous edition incl. the new poll because you guys are ignorant of the required changes of the modern design despite my sources and repeatedly act like cyber-bullies in reverting my version to the corruption-filled outdated version." Note that this was said with this ANI sub-thread ongoing and following everything that has transpired (including a piece of advice made by Jehochman in his talk page right today after closing Jeppiz's thread). Oh well.  Impru 20 talk 19:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Impru and Co. act like cyber-bullies by reverting my edits. My edits hide corrupt polling to a minimum, while their version is highlighting it for everyone to see. Wikipedia must not be a place that highlights and showcases corruption and fake polling, when everything is very obvious and well-sourced. Wikipedia is not a vessel of Donald Trump-style fake news. I am therefore in the opinion that my version is still very much correct and I ask you admins to reconsider your position because tolerating fake news and faked polling in an official corruption probe in articles on here sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and you as moderators. Thanks. Long live accuracy, facts and freedom. --The Pollster (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's much simpler to say WP:IDHT. Just a thought for the future.  Cheers all, and happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that TP may have a legitimate point on the content issue here, but just doesn't understand how to argue it starting from WP:PAG. He's trying to remove polls made by a polling bureau that has been compromised in a corruption scandal, but instead of pointing out that this may render these polls unreliable sources, he unhappily focuses on the "faking" of the polls by the polling bureau, which cannot be asserted in wikivoice without original research. Naturally, this is how his arguments are being received by other editors (i.e., as OR), something which TP does not seem to understand nor to engage with in the broader discussion. TP has been here for ~15 years, but has only made ~1700 edits in that time, which may explain why he has such a poor grasp of core content policies. However, that wouldn't be so much of a problem if only he would take a more collaborative approach. There's no point in being right if you can't convince fellow editors that such is the case, and have to resort to aspersions and personal attacks. But how is TP going to learn this? Given what's on their user page, topic-banning him from polling, broadly construed, would be more or less equivalent to an indefinite block. If we really want to give him a chance, I think it would be much more appropriate to issue a time-limited block (perhaps a partial block from Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election, since that's where most of the disruption seems to have taken place?) that would show in his (now still clean) block log and that can be escalated if similar issues should arise in the future. It seems to me that he would benefit from a wiki-break at this point, and he may do better next time. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I so strongly oppose this type of thinking at ANI. As proposer, I do not want to give him a chance. He already had a chance. This isn't about TP learning anything, or about rehabilitating TP, it's solely about preventing disruption. That is, it's about protecting other editors from TP's disruptive editing. I don't care if TP learns anything or not. If they can't edit productively, then they can't edit. Remember, this is the guy who reverted people with "go back to Spain" as an edit summary. Nobody should have to put up with that. When someone acts like that, our response shouldn't be, "well how do we teach them to be better?" This is not therapy, this is not a school, etc., we should not "reverse the victim and the offender". It doesn't matter if TP has a point on the content dispute or not, and it doesn't matter if polling is all TP is interested in: they risked their privilege of editing when they were uncivil, and then after being warned, went right back to edit warring. The goal here is to protect everyone else, not to teach TP. The way TP would get a tban lifted (if it passes) is to prove to the community that they can edit productively, by editing in another topic area. This gives the community the chance to review TP's editing before deciding whether it's safe to lift the tban. A time-limited block would not give the community this very important information. Levivich 20:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This user is clearly problematic in this area, their response here gives me no confidence it is likely to stop. Hopefully a topic ban can be effective in preventing them from this disruption and allowing them to be productive in other areas. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 09:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Another problem: copy-paste machine translation - I've noticed that The Pollster is copy/paste-ing machine translation of newspaper articles into 2021 Graz local election. Special:Diff/1051428847 =, and Special:Diff/1055038402 = . I've removed it from that article but haven't looked further to see if there are other instances. Levivich 17:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as per the argument I already made in the initial post. I also wish to thank Levivich for their kind words and for having taken the time to look into the matter. I was both surprised and disappointed at how the first admin immediately closed down the thread on a technicality (though I take full responsibility for having messed up the diffs in my post), and I am glad to see the consensus in the subsequent thread in line with Levivich's summary of my post. Parallel to this discussion, there is ongoing harassment as many of us involved in this situation have seen heavy attempts to hack our accounts since this thread was started. At least DeCausa, Impru20, HighInBC and myself have seen multiple attempts to hack our accounts (we receive a wiki-notification of this; in my case it informs me there have been 65 attempts to hack my account). None of us ever experienced this before, and this thread is the only thing that connects us so while I don't want to speculate on who is behind these attacks, it passes WP:DUCK that it is because of this situation. Jeppiz (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC) In line with keeping the focus only on the TBAN, for which there seems to be broad support, I've struck the part about the hacking attempts as the CU showed it to be unrelated to this.Jeppiz (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That happened to me, too, over 20 attempts in the last day or so. Although without knowing how widespread it is, hard to say if it's related (we might be 5 of 500 who this happened to, or 5,000). Levivich 18:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is true. Had it just happened to me, I wouldn't have thought about it. The fact that it never happened to me before in over 10 years (and apparently never to DeCausa or Impru20 either), and suddenly all of us are targeted, well, it makes me suspect a link. Jeppiz (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I confirm this happened to me as well, having never suffered anything like it before. I spoke with DeCausa and we both confirmed that the attempts on our accounts were at similar times of day and that those matched the editing patterns of TP. Further, HighInBC confirmed that the attempts on his account was made following DeCausa's approachment to him on the issue. So far, it looks like circumstantial evidence, but all people affected as of now has been involved on this issue and has opposed The Pollster's stance.  Impru 20 talk 18:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, if the five of us go on a vandalism spree, we'll know why. Levivich 18:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just want to say a quick "me three" about unauthorized login attempts. Circumstantial, but interesting.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I too finally became part today (around 00:30 UTC) of the not-so-select (?) club of people who've gotten the infamous There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device message (6 attempts). I've been involved in a lot during the last few days (reporting in two separate SPI cases and opening two ANI threads), but this is perhaps more than a coincidence. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 18:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Err, 7 of us who contributed to this thread have had multiple login attempts on our accounts over this weekend? HighnBC gets it just after I post about it on his talk page? Other than tt’s just bonkers, how obvious can this get? DeCausa (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's happening to me as well. Paul August &#9742; 19:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So it's 8 now. If this is really him, then a TBAN may not be enough.  Impru 20 talk 20:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I have experienced this many times over the years. The timing is suspicious though. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 00:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. If he didn't pay attention to the last thread, then he needs to face the consequences. Assuming he (or someone on his behalf) is also intentionally failing password checks, I would consider this a bad attempt at harassment. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 19:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong support. Despite my having advocated for a pro-forma wait-and-see approach in the previous discussion, I felt the writing was clearly on the wall with ThePollster's massively IDHT screed at the end of that thread, which evidenced not a shred of understanding of the significant an expansive concerns about their conduct raised by literally every other community member who commented on that thread, but rather (quite to contrary) expressed their opinion that everything about their approach had been vindicated--a view that nobody operating from anything less than complete confirmation bias could have possibly taken away from that discussion. In fact, I would have certainly struck and revised my !vote on the behavioural issues (and suspect I would not have been the only one) after that troubling post, had the discussion not been closed somewhat hastily, immediately thereafter.  At that point, based on the clear pattern of behaviour and utterly complete lack of ability on this user's part to recognize (let alone attempt to address) community concerns, it was a pretty foregone conclusion that we'd be back here in a matter of days.


 * Indeed, I'll go one further: probably we should just be indeffing this user right now: they seem to have very narrow interests on this project (their username is literally the subject matter we are now TBANning them from engaging in...), and they have 1) demonstrated clear WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR issues, 2) evidenced attitudes towards open collaborativeness that are fundamentally at odds with this project's values and processes, and 3) adopted a disregard towards feedback which makes me virtually certain that they will not respect the TBAN. Based on the level of refusal to either take community concerns on board or to adjust their approach, I can't imagine this doesn't end up the indef regardless. If this discussion closes with only the TBAN as a sanction, it is my hope that the closer clearly summarizes the end of the rope on community patience and makes clear any violation of the TBAN should be met with an indef. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 05:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been confused by a potential Joe job. Checkuser found that The Pollster is not connected by technical evidence to the failed login attempts. That activity could be any long term abuser who watches this board and feels like a little giggle. It would help to refocus discussion solely on any disruptive edits after the warning. Jehochman Talk 15:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact that this thread overall is about a topic ban, and that thus far there's a lot of support for it regardless of Architect134's impotence. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 21:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I disagree that it’s been “confused” by the CU. I opened a separate thread on that specific issue for that purpose. The TBAN position n this thread is clear and unrelated to the other issue. DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree completely with both Jéské Couriano and DeCausa above. Jeppiz (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. I voted oppose when the indef proposal happened, but it looks clear the user hasn't improved their behavior since then. JellyMan9001 (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On a more procedural note, how is the discussion closed? Apparently there's a clear consensus (the only 'oppose' is the user concerned) and discussion seems to have ended. Jeppiz (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for your interest, The Pollster has attempted to (once again) introduce his edits into the article under a misleading edit summary. They have also reverted an IP user's edit at 2022 Austrian presidential election as "vandalism" despite there being no trace of vandalism in such edit.  Impru 20 talk 06:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * MFG had a wrong value: 3% instead of 5%. I corrected it based on the source in my summary from the pollster Unique Research. It was also corrected on German Wikipedia. Also, in the 2022 article, Sebastian Kurz is NOT running for President, that's why I reverted the edit as vandalism.--The Pollster (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) No, you took advantage of a minor error in the article to once again re-introduce edits that had no consensus (which you yourself acknowledged the second time you reverted Mvbaron, as well as in this reply in your talk page). 2) No, just because someone has made a wrong edit does not turn such edit into "vandalism". It was not the revert itself that was criticized, but your coming down like a ton of bricks on what was probably just a good-faith edit by a newbie. 3) Thank you for acknowledging that you are keeping track of everything that's being said in this discussion and that, despite that, you are still going on with the behaviour that brought you here in the first place.  Impru 20 talk 14:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support: Per Ravenswing's Second Law. (shaking his head)   Ravenswing      10:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Special:Diff/1056753190 shows they are not here to work in a collaborative manner. Slywriter (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, can't believe The Pollster is edit warring today over this same content:  . Levivich 17:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In light of the latest developments, can I move a close with an indefinite block. It's perfectly clear by now that The Pollster views any lack of block as a carte blanche to acts as he pleases. As Levivich explained at the start of this thread, after the previous ANI discussion closed with just a warning to The Pollster, they immediately returned to both personal attacks and edit warring. Now, this thread has been running for eleven days already. Eleven supports for a TBAN, nobody opposed. And despite this, as Levivich also points out above, The Pollster goes on edit warring actively, three reverts already today. So with that in mind, I change my 'vote' from a TBAN to an indefinite ban. The Pollster has been given more WP:ROPE than any user I've seen in eleven years here. Jeppiz (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear that not only is The Pollster edit-warring today per Levivich, he is yet again restoring his edit stating that certain polls were “fake” (sic) despite inadequate and WP:SYNTH citation (as highlighted to him by multiple editors) on the talk page, by using edit summaries that disguise what he’s doing. The problem with deceptive edit summaries (as well as the fundamental sourcing issue) has been highlghted to him multiple times in recent weeks. The Pollster has made it clear that he just thinks he’s right. Either this is extraordinarily brazen behaviour or it’s WP:CIR. No idea which, but either way there’s no place for him here. DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Failed login attempts
At time of writing 8 editors have reported in the above thread that they have had unauthorised attempts to login to their accounts over this weekend. This is unusual. 6 of those editors supported The Pollster being made subject to a TBAN. The remaining 2 made what could be considered adverse comments about his editing behaviour. Circumstantially, it’s reasonable to believe that this may be WP:HARASSMENT by The Pollster. I’ve asked The Pollster to respond here. Subject to seeing his response, I believe there is grounds for an indef CBAN by reason of their WP:HARASSMENT of those he’s decided he has a grudge against because of this thread. DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As one of the eight users targeted, I must still oppose an indef CBAN unless there is proof. If a CU reveals who is behind this harassment, as we have asked of EdJohnston, I'd support a CBAN for that person whoever they are. I cannot support a CBAN without proofs. Devious minds could start similar harassment directed at users who have disagreed with someone they dislike, to paint that user in a bad light. I don't believe for a moment that that is what's going on here, but we must consider what precedent we set. So at the moment, I continue to support the topic ban, for which there is ample proof, but withhold support for any CBAN in the absence of proof. Jeppiz (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, but just to be clear what I said was “subject to seeing his response”. In other words I’m not proposing it now - I’m asking him to respond first. And it’s a different response to the issues raised in the TBAN discussion. DeCausa (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that even without the WP:HARASSMENT-bit (which nonetheless seems quite evident as of currently, barring any other explanation), we have a new WP:COPYVIO issue now (relating to a series of edits that came after the TBAN was proposed) that joins the existing list of issues.  Impru 20 talk 20:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) I've seen joe jobbers do all sort of bizarre stuff before. This would not be out of character for a certain LTA I'm thinking of. I'm more interested in seeing what CUs have to say. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, a CU is the optimum solution. I asked EdJohnston if that’s possible here. But what I don’t know if our usual checkuser process has access to IP addresses of Wikimedia failed logins to do that. If anyone else knows, please comment. DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, checkuser has kept records of failed login attempts since 2018. see T174492. To flag down a checkuser on an admin noticeboard you can use Checkuser needed. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So i just flag it here like this? Checkuser needed. DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, just like that. If you wait 5 to 10 minutes for the bot to update the table the request should appear at Sockpuppet investigations. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, that just takes it into SPI. I hadn’t thought that was the right forum as it’s not actually socking. DeCausa (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's technically a "Quick Checkuser request", which are what you use when you need a checkuser to investigate something other than sock puppetry. The bot that clerks the SPI page only edits the table though (because it's kept in its own user space and therefore doesn't need a bot approval), so it's easier to stick it at the top of that than at the bottom of the page in the proper section. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank very much. I’ve been trying to find out what the right process was since this came up yesterday. DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the check I ran revealed nothing suspicious. Salvio 23:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * From the looks it above, users in another dispute in the Banana Republic case also reported attempts on their accounts, perhaps a CU can see if it was the same people that tried both, possibly to stir up trouble at ANI? OmniusM (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose CBAN based on lack of evidence. This could just as easily be someone who want to see them CBAN'd. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 00:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose CBAN based on lack of CheckUser evidence; see 's response above. The circumstantial evidence is too weak for a CBAN on just that alone. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 00:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I created . I'm glad you all find it useful. If there are WP:COPYVIO problems, I think we should indef the account until there is a convincing promise that the account will start being productive and stop being disruptive. Where are the relevant diffs to establish COPYVIO? I don't like it when my assumptions of good faith prove wrong so quickly. Jehochman Talk 02:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Levivich pointed them out above. Basically, TP copy-pasted a machine translation of newspaper articles into 2021 Graz local election (relevant diffs can be found in the provided link).  Impru 20 talk 06:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can guarantee you that I didn’t try to hack anyone, because yesterday was Sunday and I had other things to do (in real life) and I am way too stupid to do this anyway. I have never tried to hack anyone, so it must have been someone else. --The Pollster (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose CBAN for now, would still support an indef. I oppose CBAN because of the lack of CU evidence; circumstancial evidence points to him, but it's still circumstancial (note that I had another attempt about 5 hours ago btw. Don't know if this may be helpful to someone in order to solve this weird issue). Nonetheless, the evidence for other misconducts is there already, IDHT issues have been widely commented, and The Pollster's latest comment above in which he suprisingly uses as an argument for excusing himself that he is "way too stupid to do this anyway" (when you only need the other guy's username to attempt (and fail) to log in through their account using random passwords, which is a really simple task to accomplish) again points out to a serious CIR issue at the very least. At this point, I think a TBAN will only delay the inevitable.  Impru 20 talk 06:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't you think that I am way too stupid to do this anyway was rather meant as 'I'm too stupid to know how to do stuff like hacking an account, so I wouldn't even think of trying anything like that'? Anyway, given the fact that these things are almost impossible to prove, and that they're an ideal target for joe jobbers, I think it's best not to focus too much on it, as they may distract from the real issues. If the combined WP:CIR, WP:IDHT and WP:COPYVIO are enough for an indef, I'd recommend proposing that in a separate section. There was already some hesitating support for that above. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 09:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh? So, do you think that that now getting a message that I have had 627 failed attempts to log into my account from a new device since the last time I logged in, happening to me ever since I got involved into this issue, is something that I should not focus too much on? It is a real issue for me. TP should probably be indeffed at this point, but that still leave us with the issue of how to stop such massive barrage of hacking attempts...  Impru 20 talk 15:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Close this sub-section. No hard evidence as a CU stated. The CBAN proposal was made solely based on now-unprovable hacking suspicions.  This sub-section is now a distraction to above discussions. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I realise this discussion has been closed, but I think this is an important addendum, based on checkuser evidence. The following failed login attempts over the past week (and frankly I suspect any others) can be definitely attributed to the troll LTA known as (the number of attempts in parentheses): (30), (6),  (25),  (51),  (24),  (12),  (69),  (12),  (12),  (18),  (6),  (28),  (33),  (24),  (6). One suspects mischief rather than competence, but do make sure your passwords are secure, eh. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pinging me. I was wondering why somebody tried to break into my account.
 * I have a high degree of confidence that my password is strong enough that unless billions of attempts are made, my account will not get broken into. Banana Republic (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was wondering why I was getting so many failed login notifications. Changed my password just to be sure. Many thanks for the heads up! <b style="font-family: Tw Cen MT; color: FireBrick">HapHaxion</b> (talk / contribs) 20:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I also received at least 45 attempts to break into my account last week. I am involved in a dispute with Banana Republic (as can be seen above) so I would believe it if the reason for trying to break into my account was to use it to disparage them. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They're certainly reading the thread, since those 6 failed attempts happened after I commented above. I'm not concerned, given I have a strong password. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 21:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed my password to a stronger one a couple days ago, so I feel relatively secure. However, the number of attempts I see in general does not match the assault I suffered today (the 627 figure was not an exaggeration, I had to took a screenshot of it as I did not believe my eyes). Has anyone else experienced such a large number of attempts?  Impru 20 talk 21:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely more than I received. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As the discussion above shows, checkuser can sometimes be a bit of a hit and miss affair, and I wouldn't claim I've provided a complete picture. Some of us have seen tens of thousands of failed attempts in a day before. My advice: stay secure, then ignore it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As Impru20 notes, mine is way way more than 24. I also don’t feel an actual security concern because of the strength of my password. It’s more of an uneasiness about imagining hundreds of unhinged attempts of the person desperately tapping away in a basement somewhere with no hope of success. DeCausa (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Foundation has asked me to confirm the security of random editors' passwords. What's yours, please? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 22:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, when I say that this is not normal, it's because this-is-not-normal.  Impru 20 talk 21:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So thankful that this has been cleared up. It has never happened to me before but over the course of a few days I must have had a couple of thousand (the highest at one time was about 650+ and I had a few of those, then loads of smaller numbers). Don't know why I was targeted when I am not such an active user. Connorguy99 (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I kept getting the notifications, at one point I think it said there were 87 failed login attempts. Wasn't really sure what was happening, but I changed my password that day. The Doctor Who  (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's worth mentioning for those who are unfamiliar with the concept, that WP:Committed identity can add an extra layer of peace of mind. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 11:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Late to comment here, but yes, I had several hundred attempts. Wondered who was doing that and if it was random.  Montanabw (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My Aunt Esther was recently committed and it's added to my peace of mind for sure. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 04:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen’s behavior hasn’t improved
<div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

was warned about this earlier I believe, but they haven’t improved their behavior:

Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron

Redirecting the Article Rescue Squadron:

Prop: Conspiracy mongering about “stifling reasonable minds” with “prior restraint” Prop 2: Calls editors he disagrees with “trollish” “sharks” who “pounce” (a bizarre triple mixed metaphor) on AfDs, without evidence Prop 4: General passive-aggression

Is ARS still here?: Conspiracy/persecution complex mongering, unprovoked haranguing/canvassing-lite of prospective new member, I’m a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” for wanting to reform ARS, the “inquisition”, importing the below-mentioned drama from AfD as “evidence”

Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination)

Disruptive personal attack conspiracy mongering in the middle of an unrelated discussion

Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Neither of you come out of those two spats very well, to be honest. But I don't see anything worthy of admin action.  Can we keep the ARS drama away from ANI for a few week unless something really egregious is happening? Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d like multiple opinions first. Dronebogus (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , this is at least the third time this has come to ANI since I've been here, and you said something like this the last two times (last year, this month). What's he gotta do, kill somebody? :-P I don't get why this one is different from the other two (against whom you supported sanctions last time). Seemed obvious to me that if we tbanned two out of four, the other two would continue. But more to the point, your thesis that "some admin will handle it/community's patience is clearly not endless" gets undercut when you're more-or-less against an admin handling it ("not worthy of admin action") and in favor of extending the community's patience ("unless something really egregious is happening"). After however-many years, maybe it's time, you know? Levivich 15:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If this isn’t enough evidence he just wants to feud with and WP:HOUND me I don’t know what is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron&diff=1054689154&oldid=1054687222 Dronebogus (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that at Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) Dronebogus started the nomination with Nomination a few days ago closed as no consensus and was tied up in ARS drama so I’m renominating in hopes of a clearer consensus. But not one regular member of the Article Rescue Squadron voted there, although two did discuss things in the AFD and also edited the article to make improvements. Dronebogus seems determined to blame the Article Rescue Squadron for things they didn't do.  Also why don't we have a rule that if you don't like how a deletion discussion ends, you can't just renominate it less than two days later?  Isn't that a bit disruptive?  Or gaming the system? In that AFD instead of focusing on the article, he keeps making accusations against the Article Rescue Squadron.   D r e a m Focus  15:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What rule? Where? And why can’t I re-nominate it after it closed as no consensus? Dronebogus (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO, referring to the re-nomination of no-consensus AFDs as disruptive is one of the tactics ARS use to badger nominators. Similarly to the practice of referring to no-consensus results as a "keep" (and recording them as such on the rescue list). Thus, they make the argument we see in this AfD that this article was kept twice and a third nomination is therefore disruptive. But of course it isn't: re-nomination is the natural thing to do after a no-consensus result. Similarly, ARS will badger post-AFD merge/split discussions, saying that if the article was kept (even if it was actually no consensus), any efforts to merge/split is "back door deletion" (or similar). Let me know if anyone wants diffs of examples of these tactics being used. Levivich 17:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen rapid renomination labelled as disruptive in the past. If it is okay, then what is the point of WP:DRV? Just keep nominating until you get the result you want. NemesisAT (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I recall being told calling someone "paranoid" is not acceptable. Dronebogus does that in his rant. I'd also like to point out his previous rant against the ARS when he nominated it for deletion at  He seems determine to cast accusations against "its four dominant members".  Please list specific evidence against individuals you believe are doing something wrong, and stop making vaguewave accusations.   D r e a m Focus  15:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I literally presented evidence about one member above. With links. What more do you need, fingerprinting? DNA tests? Dronebogus (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Evidence about this ridiculous and relentless canvassing accusation is what I meant.  D r e a m Focus  16:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn’t about the earlier ARS drama. This is about 13’s recent antics. This doesn’t involve you or the two tbanned ARS users. Stop dragging this away from the topic. Dronebogus (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is about you arguing with him at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron and both got a bit unpleasant towards each other, and over at the AFD I mentioned . You don't just make accusations about him but the Article Rescue Squadron.   D r e a m Focus  16:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Look we’re obviously never going to agree on the ARS but the main issue is 13. And yes I may have gotten a bit snippy with him. But based on his reaction to this ANI issue he’s clearly interested in making this a matter of personal “honor” and not a professional dispute. Dronebogus (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is about User:Dronebogus's wilfully disruptive behavior at WP:ARS and at various deletion discussions. He never misses an opportunity to cast aspersions on me and WP:ARS.  The whole fiasco at Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) and its predecessor was apparently intended to make a point.  He should be WP:Topic banned from the ARS pages and participation at articles for deletion.  I have not called on him directly, but I have been firm in my expessed belief that ARS should be allowed to conduct its business withhout the saboteurs taking over.  Indeed, I should not be personally harassed, which this is.  It is time for a WP:Boomerang.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You’re the one who made the snarky overly personal remark about this discussion at the ARS talk page, not me. You’re the one who has ended up here at least two unrelated times, not me. You’re the one who immediately walks in here demanding sanctions, when I just wanted a review of your behavior and offended no comment. Dronebogus (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Read the whole pages and the AFDs. User:Dronebogus is not alone in this. But his part and intent is clear and unmistakable  The WP:Harassment has got to stop. Do your duty.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You think admins are just going to do what you want because you demanded it? The first admin who showed up wasn’t even on either of our sides. The fact that you respond to any criticism by WP:HOUNDing me and ranting about Deletionist conspiracy this or that is telling. Dronebogus (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur. Topic bans are required. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn’t a place to get revenge on rivals! I opened this because I wanted an admin to look over this matter and see if anything needed to be done, not because I want to start a grudge match! Even if you believe my behavior to be out of order you’re not going to correct it by coming in here eagerly calling for heavy sanctioning before even a warning or significant admin comment. Dronebogus (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "I'm (Dronebogus) making fun of your (7&6) group (ARS)". We can see that. They disrupted a neutral question by "making fun" of people. Maybe the connection between ARS School and WP:ARS is "funny", or not even by accident, but I'm trying to solve a puzzle (finding more sources) and when a user disrupts that process with mockery it shuts down the process and becomes, as they say, "drama". -- Green  C  17:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for that. But that isn’t topic ban material. Dronebogus (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that that was my joke and Dronebogus stole it. Can he be blocked for that? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I observe and . Doesn't exactly inspire confidence. (And no one better say that ARS regulars post there to draw attention to discussions where they hope like-minded editors will look. Heavens, no!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is just a bad faith discussion from Dronebogus after reviewing the AfD mentioned. Extremely WP:POINTY and this discussion is just adding a disruptive nature because they won't WP:DROPIT. – The Grid  ( talk )  18:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m probably going to get topic banned again for posting here but I’d like to ask why everyone is focusing on whatever crap I’ve done wrong in my brief time here when LB is violating their topic ban and 13 is behaving uncivilly after multiple warnings over a multi-year basis. Dronebogus (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Because your behavior is obviously disruptive and problematic in various ways, and your response when people point that out is to argue instead of introspect and change your behavior. --JBL (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And their behavior somehow isn’t? Dronebogus (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dronebogus, I mean this with all due respect and in sincere good faith, but your continued participation here is actually detrimental to your cause. Do with that opinion what you will.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What Dumuzid said ^. Both "sides" increasingly have unclean hands, and both "sides" should take a good look at WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing a clear-cut illustration of exactly my point. --JBL (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban between Dronebogus and 7&6=thirteen
This argument is not going to cease and will continue in ARS and across various AfD's. I propose a no-fault, time limited, interaction ban between and  to prevent further disruption. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC) And while you are at it, ban the bomb throwers from the ARS pages. Read them and you will understand that this has been going on for years. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Please. Dronebogus (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I propose that Dronebogus stay off the WP:ARS page.  And his participition at AFDs likewise.  He proposes and supports a lot more AFDs than I participate in.  I do not interact with him but I should not be curtailed from parfticipating in AFDs by his broad brush.  That we are going through serial nominationsd at the ARS School demonstrates the problem.
 * Might help if you didn’t just assume everyone knows what you’re talking about. Dronebogus (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with ARS sanctions because I want to work on reform efforts but that’s for an admin to decide. Dronebogus (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reform as in spread rumors when a new comer shows up then arguing with others? You aren't going to reform it, you just insult it constantly, and did nominate it for deletion even.  It would be great if those who had a wikiproject were not allowed to be bothered this way.   D r e a m Focus  17:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I could say “no you” but this is obviously going nowhere so sure topic ban me from ARS. And set up n interaction ban between me and DF since we always just end up fighting. Dronebogus (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that might be the wrong person to topic ban, assuming this is needed. Qwirkle (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * By that you mean…? Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not quite at the stage of suggesting an interaction ban, but to be quite frank I feel like blocking the next one of Dronebogus and 7&amp;6=thirteen who slings mud at the other. Please, just calm down, both of you. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * blocking is more reasonable than an interaction ban? Dronebogus (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It means I would like both of you to stop arguing and thinking that the other one is "the enemy". I'm off out in a mo, but on my return I would love this thread to be closed as "The two parties have agreed to disagree and avoid each other voluntarily - no administrative action required". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes please. --JBL (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I came here because I was of this edit:, and was going to request 7&6=thirteen not to change discussions without timestamping: (The case of the additional sentence here was likely minor and inconsequential, but the fact I noticed it meant it was disruptive). However from their talk page I note this ANI drama.  Given Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083 closed 4 November 2021, the nomination by  of ARS Public School at AfD two days after the Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (2nd nomination) non-consensus close by  rather than the two months suggested by the guideline Renominating for deletion pointed to by the BEFORE instructions was a probable WP:SEALION attempt, which looks very likely to succeed in bans/blocks for one or more other editors.  The ARS acronymn in the title is likely to allude to "Article Rescue Squadron", so the article selection here looks very POINTy.  But I agree with Richie/JBL, this has to stop, so I hope people listen to what they say.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Boomerang Dronebogus is being disruptive. They have followed, and grave danced, and repeatedly brought editors to ANI. Their behavior has been POINTY. They also pulled me back into ANI last week for essentially more drama and harassment. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Here here. I hadn't heard of Dronebogus before a month ago, now it seems their name is all over these boards. That's not a good thing. Seems like they're trying to stir and are going looking for trouble. How about avoiding the drama and concentrating on editing and improving the project? <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 20:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note for admins. Isn't this a violation of Lightburst's topic ban? This discussion is focused on behavior at AfDs and ARS. No one with such a topic ban should even be thinking of commenting on those discussions. The whole point of that ban was to keep Lightburst from continuing in the battleground mentality related to this subject or related editors. KoA (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The wording of that topic ban is "Lightburst is banned from deletion-related activities for 6 months. This includes but is not limited to XFD, deletion review, PROD, and CSDs that are not covered by WP:BANEX." and this isn't a deletion related discussion. As someone with no prior knowledge of this topic ban, coming across this ban criteria wouldn't make me think they cannot participate in this particular discussion as it's about user behaviours, not deletion. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The topic ban included things related to ARS. Which this discussion has to do with. Also, [here] he commented on an AfD. Even if this isn't technically a violation the other comment clearly is. I still think it is though. Plus there a few other things like him participating in an ARS discussion and comment about deletion related topics on his talk page. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The remaining text of the topic ban was "Two important caveats. This does prohibit Lightburst from notifying ARS members of deletion discussions as it is "deletion-related". That said, it does not prevent Lightburst from improving articles that are nominated for deletion as long as Lightburst does not participate in the deletion discussion." I don't see that this is constituted in that. It was not generally related to ARS, and doesn't prevent them from participating in improvement discussions etc. I make no comment on their edits elsewhere, and I'm not looking at this, just on this discussion. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 13:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow I'm surprised your reading of the TBAN discussion is that the community wanted to ban LB from from deletion-related activities but still allow him to comment in a thread about how a fellow ARS member behaves in AFDs and suggest sanctions against the reporting editor. That reading doesn't make much sense to me. To me, this is a deletion-related discussion because it's about an ARS member's behavior in deletion discussions. I can't think of another example when someone was TBAN'd from "Foo" but allowed to comment in ANI threads about someone else's behavior in articles about "Foo". The more I think about it, the clearer a tban violation this becomes. Levivich 13:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's literally no other way to interpret this discussion then being "deletion-related" and there's zero reason he would have participated in this if it had nothing to do with ARS and (or) AfDs. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually yes you're right, looking to the top section. I didn't sleep well last night, so this is probably my que to exit this thread. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 14:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Canterbury Tail is correct that I am not banned from discussing any matters in this "community". I am not surprised that Levivich and Adamant would want me shunned or would want to remove my voice from this "community". I am not participating in any deletion related activities at all. I am free to comment on sanctions for editors who have been entirely unproductive, and have been following, needling and harassing me on talk pages. DB has brought me into ANI twice in a week just to be disruptive. But they already caught a one day block today I see. Lightburst (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Canterbury literally just said it did apply. You need to take this seriously Lightburst. Keep in mind you are also engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS at this point without diffs. You can be blocked for that. If you truly want to make accusations, then provide diffs relevant to this ANI. Keep in mind since you are posting in an ANI about behavior behavior in deletion and ARS topics you should already know that providing diffs related to that would also be a violation of your topic ban. It should be clear as day to you that you should be avoiding discussions like this with your ban, not jumping into them. KoA (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the accusations are WP:ASPERSIONS. I've defended him and other ARS members multiple times since this whole thing started. Apparently it's harassment to not show 100% undying deviation to them and their cause in the interim though. Otherwise I'd like to see some evidence of the harassing behavior and the agenda that he's repeatedly accused me of having. I'm not sure how I could have an agenda when I've been defending them, but whatever. I'm willing to see his evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely a TBAN violation per Levivich. Buffs (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I propose that (1) Dronebogus, at any time that you feel that 7&6 and/or Dream Focus has said or done something you object to, just ignore it. Let it go. No matter what it is, just let it slide, and move on to something else. And (2) 7&6 and Dream Focus, at any time that you feel that Dronebogus has said or done something you object to, just ignore it. Let it go. No matter what it is, just let it slide, and move on to something else. And the rest of us, let's bring down the hammer on whoever breaks that silence first. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a support or oppose, just a note that if, after just 2500 edits, you find yourself repeatedly embroiled in conflict without even getting into DS topic areas, and have more than three times as many edits just to ANI as to the entire talk namespace... you may want to experiment with helping out in different parts of the project. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 21:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tryptofish, Rhododendrites and others! Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You talk above about those who had a wikiproject. But note, a project is not owned by its "members", each project belongs to all of us. Paul August &#9742; 01:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I should've wrote "those who are active members of a Wikiproject". Note I wrote "I would be great if those who had a wikiproject were not allowed to bother it this way."  So obviously I didn't proofread or think it through before writing.  I just fixed it so now it sounds more coherent.   D r e a m Focus  01:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban of Dronebogus from ARS, per their own recommendation above. The pattern of behavior here is simply unsustainable. This AN/I thread about an ARS member comes a scant four days after Dronebogus' previous AN/I thread about ARS members, created while they were in the middle of a heated argument with said members (in which they made posts like "Why do you think that the founder of this website wants to hear you complain about some drama at ANI? Why are so self-important as to think that your personal disputes warrant the Immortal God Emperor of Wikipedia’s direct attention?"). No action was taken. That thread itself came just a couple days after this AN/I thread about the ARS (one of the longest in the history of AN/I), which Dronebogus also started. The degree to which they seem to be fixated on these editors is concerning. I think that it may be more productive for everyone involved if Dronebogus and ARS members simply did not interact. jp×g 07:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at this in a little more depth, I find bizarre conversations on WT:ARS, with Dronebogus contributing posts like "this is the reason ARS has so many enemies. Not because we hate you and articles and Wikipedia or whatever, but because the first thing you tell new users is that you’re victims of an evil Deletionist conspiracy and everything you hear from outsiders is filthy slander" and accusing ARS members of "paranoid hostility". In what way is this intended to be a constructive discussion? jp×g 07:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with those who dont yet think  topic or iBans are needed. DroneBogus seems a smart editor & hopefully has begun to learn the importance of winning gracefully. Their original ANI caused the first substantial damage to the squad in almost a decade, despite many other attacks & plotting. Even some who found it woefully misguided can respect the achievement. But while understandable they let the success go to their head, these further ANIs are having the opposite effect, and just wasting the communities time. I agree with giving them perhaps a one month block if they launch any further attacks. And also for a similar block in the unlikely event any ARS editor goes out of their way to harass Dronebogus. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn’t trying to “win” anything, imo, but I agree I’ve been wasting time with these further squabbles. Dronebogus (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 13 called me thin-skinned a few days ago on the Article Rescue Squad talk page when I was making a good faithed effort to discuss the problems they have been having. Which was after the civility warning. Also, LightBurst posted multiple messages on Jimmy Whales talk page related to deletion discussions after he was tbanned from talking about the subject. He's also participated in this ANI complaint against the t-ban. Sure, we could all just ignore it, but then there could also be consequences for their actions. Seriously, which one of those is good for the project and which isn't? In the meantime "Is ARS still here?" is a perfect example of 13's continuing poor behavior and attitude about this. In it he compared ARS to Jean d'Arc and accused other people of being part of the Inquisition. He also said people who have issues with his behavior are gaslighting, and making deliberate hollow threats to disrupt the project. Is all that really acceptable behavior for someone who was just warned to be more civil? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Sure, we could all just ignore it, but then there could also be consequences for their actions. Seriously, which one of those is good for the project and which isn't?" Ignoring it allows you to forget about the problem and concentrating on improving the encyclopedia. In your case, Adamant1, I notice you have made one edit to the entire mainspace in the last month (at least that one edit was a good one!) while, conversely, you have spent quite a bit of time chatting at WP:JIMBOTALK. My advice is for you to ignore 7&6=13, Dream Focus and Lightburst, and in return I'd like 7&6=13, Dream Focus and Lightburst to ignore you. We might then be able to get on with more interesting things. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude, but that seems like a rather dismissive handwave of serious problems. For one I haven't been involved in 99% of the problems that 7&6=13 has had. Including his comments on the ARS talk page that I added a reference to where he said this whole thing was an inquisition. So it's ridiculous to act like me ignoring him has any bearing on his uncivil behavior or resolving this. Nor do I have any issue with DreamFocus. I didn't even mention him in my comment. So I don't know why your bringing him into this. Outside of that, I find your insinuation that working on AfDs doesn't improve the Encyclopedia rather insulting. If you really want us to get on to more interesting things then sanction 7&6=13 for his lack of civility and LightBurst for discussing an area he's t-banned from. Then we can all get on with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am happily editing main space. I am improving Tuskegee Airmen articles, and I even started three articles this week. I am not missing the friction. You on the other hand are seeking friction - the proof is in the pudding. My talk space conversation at JW is about this ANI process and not as you say. Your own involvement at JW is needling and following and essentially NOYB. Lightburst (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I empathize with Adamant1 and would also like to state that it’s hard to edit in mainspace when you’re in the middle of a long in-depth discussion, heated or not. I understand I’ve been uncivil lately and should stop bashing the ARS but 13 has been warned about this multiple times over several years and shouldn’t just get away with it yet again because the’ve been around longer and “two wrongs don’t make a right”. Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Gosh if only there were some way not to keep starting or joining or commenting in long discussions .... --JBL (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support a six month timeout for Dronebogus from deletion-related activity. That's not a TBan proposal, but really: go make content, do something else on Wikipedia that you find enjoyable. There will be articles to delete later after you've taken a break from the activity, and other people will likely be less tense and AGF-strained than they are now. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not support this. I have civil interactions with most other users at AfD; it’s just I don’t get along with 13 and the ARS. A functional “voluntary” topic ban, especially one-sided against me and for six months, seems drastic for such a narrow issue. Dronebogus (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't, and no one would expect you to, but that's what external input is for--to encourage things that you're not seeing. Everyone takes voluntary, informal topic bans if they linger around Wikipedia long enough: interests change, people give up, admins ragequi... err, retire for a while after their decisions are questioned. That's a natural part of the interest lifecycle, and if you want to hang around for a while, you need to develop a sense when doing something else is necessary to help you rediscover your joy in volunteering here. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Just sanction the person that's already gotten a recent warning for civility and be done with it. Outside of that, it's ridiculous to sanction someone for bringing his behavior to ANI just because the warning was recent. 7+6=13's behavior was an issue long before Dronebogus got involved and will continue to be after Dronebogus is sanctioned. By not dealing with 7+6=13 now we're just kicking the can down the road. Are we going to T-Ban everyone going forward that he gets into it with? ARS isn't an exclusive club or fraternity house either. Anyone should be able to participate in it, without having to worry that they will be T-banned from doing so if they don't kiss the rings of the main contributors. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a six month timeout for Dronebogus from deletion-related and ARS following activity. Dronebogus has been following, harassing, needling, grave dancing and engaging in POINTY behavior. Dronebogus has been especially disruptive. Also as Ritchie has pointed out Adamant1 is heading in a similar direction with unproductive following. Neither editor is contributing to the project. Lightburst (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey wait, why you are trying to cancel me and Dronebogus? I thought you were against that and ANI because it's unfair and just about trashing people. I guess that whole thing only applies when your being sanctioned. Go figure. I knew I should have created some G7 articles before commenting on this. Darn it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I'm just a part-timer that got pulled into Dronebogus' deletion frenzy. Their behavior has been WP:HARASS for anyone that votes against theirs in AFDs. I'm talking about WP:HOUNDING on talk pages and running to ANI when people get miffed, including several significant editors who make enormous contributions to WP (just search the archives for Dronebogus and you'll see how aggressive this person is). I echo JClemens suggestion that they find a project where they can actually contribute to WP, rather than simply tearing down others' work. There is a need for weeding out bad articles, of course, but it's been an exhausting few months in the AfDs because of this user. I, for one, had to step back from WP because of how much time it was eating. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose taking action exclusively against Dronebogus; insufficient evidence of a long-term problem to justify something like this, especially since it's clear the problem is not one-sided. --Aquillion (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose banning Dronebogus from AfD. They seem to be one of the very active members, like Lightburst, and just because they are very unpopular in some quarters and have done their share of whatever they are accused of doesn't mean they or anyone else should be cancelled without totally grievous cause. As a wise man once said, "Can't we all just get along?" Randy Kryn (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * While I fundamentally disagree with you that anyone is being canceled, I respect that your consistent in the believe and don't just use it as way to excuse one sides behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support timeout from AFD. As confirmed by others, Dronebogus has been disruptive at AfD recently. Their first edit to Wikipedia was a "gnome" userbox template, then began noming articles for deletion. From the start they showed in-depth understanding of NOTE. They are obviously a very quick study of how Wikipedia works, with a focus on controversial deletions and user blocking. They can leverage that intelligence to do something else for a while, such as content creation/improvement, AfC needs help. -- Green  C  17:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to state that this seems like a biased party-line vote since GreenC and LB are both ARS members and I reported TM for disruptive behavior a while back after we had a dispute. I explicitly supported an interaction/topic ban from ARS but a one-sided “restraining order” against one of my primary interest areas for scattered fights with certain users (who I repeat are now voting against me) feels vindictive. Dronebogus (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose sanction, support warning - I agree there is battleground behavior per above, but as I believe this is their first time being at ANI for it, it should be a warning and not a sanction. Levivich 00:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and warning the problem here is 7&6's battleground behavior as detailed below. Dronebogus has been drawn into that battleground behavior but should receive a warning as it is their first time at ANI. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like no one is commenting on the original proposal in this section? I think there are several reasonable proposals above to deal with Dronebogus's highly combative approach; I think a topic bad would be more effective than an i-ban, but I would support either. --JBL (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose topic ban, support one week block I'd support a one week block to allow him to cool down and let this and the ARS Public School AfD work themselves out without his involvement. 99% of his AfD participation is perfectly fine though and a topic ban due to one issue is rather extreme. An iban isn't really going to solve anything either. Especially if 7+6=13 is topic banned. Also, as a side to that it looks like the ARS Public School AfD is probably going to close as delete. Two people from India have said it isn't notable. Given that all the haranguing that was done about it being re-nominated turned out to be a massive time sink I think Dronebogus' push back of it was totally warranted. Although he could have done it in a less bludgeoning way. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose sanction, support warning. Also, support moratorium on ARS related posts at ANI, broadly construed, for the rest of 2021. — N eonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 19:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Boomerang sanction on Dronebogus - This report comes across as Dronebogus using an ARS witchhunt to get the edge on 7+6=13 in a mutual dispute, and that doesn't sit right with me. I don't oppose the IBAN, however.  Dark knight  2149  20:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support interaction ban - This seems the best way to curtail the drama. I'm surprised this is ongoing. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for dealing with AFD disruption at ANI
From this point forward, let's handle ANI reports of AFD disruption thusly: Same rules for everyone; doesn't matter if they vote "keep" or "delete", are an ARS member or not, or how many great edits they've made elsewhere. Levivich 18:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Would be best to let AfD closers evaluate whether a 'keep' or 'delete' vote, should be dismissed. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3 recent diffs of disruptive edits in AFDs brought to ANI = warning
 * A 4th diff for anyone who's been warned = 3-month tban
 * A 5th diff for anyone who's been tbanned = indef tban
 * Editors who make these reports can just post the three diffs (or the 4th or 5th with a link to previous warning/tban), and editors reviewing the reports can just comment whether they agree/disagree the diffs are disruptive
 * Personally I'd TBan (permanently) any editor who persistently votes "Keep" or "Delete" at many AfDs with continually shitty rationales. It shows they're not here to actyally improve the content on Wikipedia, but to push a POV, whether that be "inclusionism" or "deletionism".  Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that would be an example of "disruptive edits". Under my proposed system, five times would get an editor indef tbanned. Under our current system, as it's worked historically, editors have done it many more than five times before being tbanned. Levivich 19:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And how do you define a "disruptive edit"? Bear in mind you may have editors making "bad" arguments simply because they're not aware of the guidelines, or interpret them differently to yourself. NemesisAT (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If it occurs repeatedly then the person should know better by then. No one is going to be sanctioned for making a single ignorant vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:DE defines "disruptive edit" and as stated in the OP,, meaning whether or not the diffs are violations of WP:DE. Levivich 21:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like we might want to define that somewhere and reach a clear consensus on it, especially if we're going to make it a guideline that a user !voting similarly on large numbers of AFDs without reasonable individual rationales should be considered disruptive and merits a ban from AFD if the behavior continues. That's the real crux of the debate - editors should approach AFDs on an individual basis, and if there's a reason to think they are approaching them as part of some larger battleground over the nature of AFD or deletions in general, then they need to be told to stop and shown the door if they refuse. Given that this is such a long-running problem and has caused so much bad blood, a guideline to try and put it to rest seems reasonable - it'd just be a guideline at most, so people could (and would still have to) decide on an individual basis, but a guideline would be important both to establish the general consensus and to warn people who do that sort of thing that their behavior is generally viewed as inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Repeated bad voting can still be disruptive to the process if the closer ultimately disregards it. I don't think the good faithed users who are here to improve the encyclopedia should have to suck it up and deal with the ones who aren't just because the closer will eventually ignore them. Closers disregarding bad votes does nothing to curb the behavior either. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know about this specific proposal, but I have thought for a while that there needs to be some kind of neutral mechanism for addressing misconduct at AfD. The main problem with dispute resolution, to me, seems to be that the main venue for it AN/I; threads here tend to be created about one person (or a couple people) engaging in the same type of behavior. That is to say, there are no AN/I threads about rapid-fire, low-effort "keep"s and rapid-fire low-effort "delete"s, so people will participate mostly along "party lines". Of course, both forms of drive-by voting are obviously bad for the deletion process, and both cause people to become extremely mad. One idea I had was to simply write a tool that performs database queries (similar to the ones done by AfDstats.py) and indicates the interval between each !vote. This would make it very easy to tell if any given !vote was made, say, thirty seconds after the user's last edit. Perhaps there could be a version of the canvassed template automatically applied to AfD !votes made in less than a minute. Of course, there are other ideas: per my analysis of all AfDs, the rate of deletion discussions has declined markedly over time, from a peak of 54,000 in 2006 to around 18,000 in 2005 (i.e. from around 149 per day to around 50). Perhaps it would cool things down a bit if discussions ran longer -- it would certainly make it less important to argue quickly and forcefully before the close. jp×g 22:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't personally see the rapid fire nominations as that problematic or anywhere near on par when it comes to being disruptive as low effort, party line voting. Maybe some research multiple articles ahead of time. I do that myself sometimes. If so there's zero reason they shouldn't nominate them all in one go. It might also be possible that there was already a discussion about the articles as a group that would warrant it. I think that happened with the articles about Tuskegee Airmen. Whereas, there is no legitimate reason to do low effort, party line voting. As far as resolving disputes goes, I've always thought the AfD guidelines make it sound like are suppose to be self-regulating to a degree, but that clearly hasn't been effective. So something else is needed. I'm not sure what the best solution would be though. I like Levivich idea, but then I'm not sure if a random ANI complaint is the best venue to decide on it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It takes seconds to make an WP:AFD nomination. Especially when WP:Before is ignored or poorly done.  A statement of fact when that occurs.  But I've been told that pointing that out is a "personal attack."  Responding and doing article and source improvement takes a lot of time.  Figure it out.  You think that deletion discussions  are being instigated and voted on in a "party line".  We agree, but your accusation is misdirected. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I could really care less if you say the nominator didn't do a WP:Before once in a while when it's warranted and you have evidence. The problem is that you say it as a generic vote rational without providing evidence and then brow beat the nominator about it multiple times after they and other people tell you that one was done. Like you did in Articles_for_deletion/Daniella_van_Graas where the nominator and another user told you they both did before multiple times and you refused to get the point. For whatever reason you keep obfuscating this into me just having a problem with you saying it in the first place though, when that's never been my issue. If you didn't use WP:Before as a generic vote rational and cheap way to discredit nominators then I would really care less about it. I don't think anyone else would either. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the sources to the articles, which proved the statement. And the deletionists remove them, which does not evaporate them.  It is a fact.  And I don't care how you "feel".  Your open hostility is admitted here and elsewhere.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You finding a reference or two isn't evidence of anything except that you found a reference. It's almost like your so paranoid and prejudiced against people who nominate articles that your unable to accept basic facts like that people get different results when they search Google. I can use the main Google sites search right now and will get different results then if I click the links in an AfD. It doesn't mean the nominator lied and didn't look for references. As far as your accusation of "open hostility", I've defended ARS and it's members, including you, multiple times since this whole started and I made suggestions to improve the project that were ignored. Sorry I committed the heinous crime of not throwing palm branches at your guys feet in every single message wrote. The only thing you and other ARS members will accept is 100% undying deviation and adoration or the person is out to get you and destroy the project. Seriously, get over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are the source of apathy, not antipathy.
 * If you defended ARS and me, thank you.
 * Otherwise, own what you said. And give it a rest. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll own that I defend people when it's warranted and I don't when it isn't. That's it. I'd expect the same from everyone else here. Otherwise, we are just playing a quid pro quo game of hide the ball. I rather not. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Against, AfD is not a closed club or shut to the rabble. Myself, I only vote Keep, and only enter discussions where I'll keep. Just my style. And my style would qualify for cancellation? Ridiculous (Harry Potter reference). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Against also, but like Randy, I only vote Delete, and only enter discussions where I'll delete. The Keepers can deal with the obvious keeps, and now that we are in a post-brouhaha era, I note that ARS members are behaving a little better, having had some casualties, and a few close shots across their bows. I still think that it is too soon to evaluate ARS' new behaviour, but community eyes are on them like never before. The community should be commended. Barnstars all round. -Roxy the dog . wooF 15:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Against just a handful of extraordinarily stubborn and zealous users, not a documented contemporary phenomenon. Making a systemic solution for an individualized problem. Dronebogus (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I generally vote delete, and (apart from times when I'm among the first participants) almost exclusively enter discussions that are controversial and where I don't know where my !vote will land. I think it would be helpful if closers explicitly said they ignored the low-effort cookie-cutter !votes and closed against numerical consensus more often. This would encourage better AfD behavior in the long run, hopefully... JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment That there is such a thing as "disruptive editing" in AfD to begin with suggests that the problem ultimately lies on those responsible for closing the discussions. Per WP:NHC, arguments that that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue are to be disregarded. And yet many closers don't do so, and it becomes possible to change the course of a discussion simply by having enough pure votes, even when the argument accompanying each is clearly bland or disingenuous. The only admin at AfD whom I've seen regularly weighing votes in a dispassionate, objective, efficient, and clear way is probably Sandstein. Maybe the NHC standards should be increased or better enforced; perhaps closers should be forced to give more than a superficial vote assessment ('the result was keep/no consensus/delete', followed by nothing else) when closing contentious discussions; maybe a stricter burden of proof should exist for those providing sources, in order to prevent the common occurrence of an article being kept but not subsequently improved. Avilich (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Along with, I've seen , , , , , and make well-reasoned, against-numerical-consensus closes in athlete and other BLP AfDs. This should be the norm everywhere. JoelleJay (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Whatever we can do to improve conditions I'm all about it. AfD closing is a thankful task and I've been disrespected by newbie and experienced editors repeatedly and I think I do a very good job - even if I have occasional slip ups (I am human, gasp!). It causes burn out and is one reason so few of us participate in the closure process. (It's even worse on Commons...!!! The closure backlog is like 3 months LOL) Missvain (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the proposal is too subjective and political. Decisions to block would depend on how many deletionists or inclusionists attended the board at that time so it could unfairly effect both deletionists and inclusionists. One solution to poor afd votes would be to make participation subject to confirmed status as there is an increasing number of brand new editors speedily voting keep or delete in order to reach confirmed status so they can in many cases publish a third rate promotional article into mainspace, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been into that idea for a while now. It would also help deal with the sock voting. Although, it wouldn't have helped with the current issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose wrong place for this discussion. Though it might apply, this would require a much wider audience in its own separate topic thread, not buried in a discussion. Move to close. Buffs (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposal closure: Wrong place, borderline off-topic.  Dark knight  2149  03:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Look. There's certainly a side I'm on in this. AFDSTATS has me at 84% Delete, and somewhat amusingly, when I do vote to Keep, I'm much more often doing it against the eventual consensus.  And I get there are a number of constituencies here: the jihadists certain that their opponents are the wellsprings of evil on Wikipedia and must be put down no matter the cost, the ones who are tired of the whole mess, the ones who want someway to idiotproof the deletion process against kneejerk, biased and/or inaccurate voting, the ones who want the closers to rule only on policy, the ones who want the closers to rule solely on headcount.  Most everyone's destined not to get their way.  Me, here's where I'm at: drop the damn stick already, everyone.  Whether you think that the crusade's been thwarted, completed, or halfway done -- whatever you do think the "crusade" is all about, anyway -- can we at least have a little bit of peace for a while and, y'know, go improve some articles with all that energy?   Ravenswing      10:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Block
I have blocked Dronebogus for 24 hours from ANI for persistent bludgeoning of the debate, despite being asked not to and after being advised that a block might occur. I want to emphasise this is not an endorsement or criticism of any other editor's behaviour, which I have not looked at. As per usual, any administrator is free to lift the block without needing to consult me. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting for the record that per xtools Dronebogus has about a fifth as many edits to ANI alone as to all of mainspace and a grand total of 5% mainspace edits this month compared to 63% projectspace (70% WP+WT). There seem to be some priority considerations here. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You should do the same for LightBurst since multiple people agree that his involvement in this is a violation of his topic ban and he is still contributing despite it being pointed out. I guess I could start another ANI complaint for it, but I rather not be straw manned for grave dancing, harassing him or whatever other nonsense people on his side decide to invent to excuse his behavior. Adamant1 (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple editors meaning you and Levivich? Got it. I will leave you to it. Lets all go back to main space now. Lightburst (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm no Lightburst aficiando and I think his chart could be a lot healthier too, but hell, so could yours (0% mainspace twice this year?). I think you could all do with finding something better, and in the specific case of Dronebogus, a relatively inexperienced user (2.5k edits), a pretty serious warning that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write articles and not to make 63 comments in one AfD. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find the whole thing about how many mainspace edits someone has made a rather pedantic way to dismiss someone's opinion by citing meaningless credentials. I'm sure if I had a bunch of mainspace edits people who are acting like it matters would just move the bar to something else. In the Jimmy Whales discussion Lightburst tried to say I had no room to participate in the discussion or have an opinion about his behavior because I haven't created any G7 articles like he has. So there's always going to be some arbitrary bar. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , You only need to search for "Malleus Fatuorum" or "Eric Corbett" on this board to see that having a large total of mainspace edits lets you be excused or justified for a hell of a lot worse than any behaviour on this thread, up to and including throwing the "c" word at Jimbo Wales. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Vaticidalprophet I am certainly going to very quickly back out of here after I said my piece. Lightburst (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Multiple editors meaning the user who first made the observation, the one who agreed it was a deletion related discussion, and then yes me and Levivich. It wasn't just me and Levivich though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It was myself and Canterbury Tail you allude to from the above section initially pointing out the violation. I'm pretty sure we're both relatively uninvolved too with myself mostly only being around from the last ANI (Lightburst's topic ban) when I commented after seeing how much space it was taking up on the board. It's definitely not just heavily involved editors "out to get" Lightburst who are concerned here. KoA (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is an obvious topic-ban violation as well; obviously the ban was intended to cover Article Rescue Squadron (as the crux of the deletion-related behavior that led to the ban), and clearly discussions about the actions of one of Article Rescue Squadron's most active members, taken as a part of Article Rescue Squadron's activities, with Article Rescue Squadron mentioned at the top of the section would fall under that scope. --Aquillion (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No matter how broadly this line is define: "banned from deletion-related activities" ...commenting here is not a deletion related activity. This is a TBAN discussion. I am not debating the merits of any content which is what a deletion-related activity is. I am not making deletion rationales. The TBAN does not extend to discussions on this board as long as they are not discussing deletion of content. But as I said at JW talk, all you need is enough editors with grievances and you can further an agenda. Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * TBANing from what? From deletion. Levivich 23:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unblock all of them, that's my two cents. As for Lightburst, they're looking more and more like a hero, wounded but not fallen. I can see why some want LB gone, a voice quieted. I literally heard of (or at least got my attention drawn to it) ARS very recently. Seem like a fine bunch who've done a lot of good. If they enter en masse sometimes to save an in-their-eyes worthy page, good for them, because that doesn't put more than a dent in the seemingly daily waterfall of deletion attempts of articles, categories, templates, and other Wikipedia user creations. AfD is certainly the tar pit of Wikipedia, and if a few of the herd can be saved with concentrated effort, nothing spectacularly wrong with that. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ritchie333, I agree that Dronebogus had to step back (block or not) as it was clear they were getting too riled up by other pot-stirring going on. That said, can we get enforcement of the existing sanctions here as Aquillion points out? This is an ANI about behavior in deletion and ARS articles. Those like me who've seen this on the periphery at ANI have been getting exhausted from seeing this subject repeatedly, but when already topic-banned editors like Lightburst jump back into it, that only exacerbates issues (and blows up the ANI boards even more).
 * The whole spirit of Lightburst's topic ban is that they stay away from these deletion-related behavior disputes whether it's AfD itself or commenting on behavior in those discussions on other boards in any plain reading of normal topic bans. I've seen editors try to test the limits of their topic ban or thumb their nose at warnings they were crossing the line with much less and still get blocked. Like Dronebogus not stepping back, skirting topic bans like that is just destabilizing this topic even more for those of us trying to sort through this all. KoA (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have dropped a warning on Lightburst's talk page to stay away from ANI; for now, that will suffice. If he comes back here and continues badgering, a think a block would be justified. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate Ritchie's issuance of a warning, but I also think that we are getting to the point where the testing of the limits of the deletion/ARS tban, noted by others here, is getting to the point of just about no "rope" left. I've had some discussions with Lightburst just before this newest ANI began, about what I see as stepping over the line, where I attempted to treat it as AGF and tried to give helpful advice. But Lightburst took a pretty clear position of thanking me but disagreeing that the deletion restriction was "in the broadest sense". Here are the relevant diffs: first, at ARS: (later revised, after my advice),, and . Then at his user talk:  and . And then at my talk:  and . It's all very cordial, from my reading of it, but nonetheless there's a real resistance to accepting the extent of the existing restrictions, and if compliance does not end up happening voluntarily after Ritchie's warning, I think that a block will be inevitable. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously this block was insufficient in getting the message across, which is exceptionally disappointing; since the badgering has continued, perhaps something broader or of longer duration could be applied? --JBL (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban 7&6=Thirteen from deletion related activities
7&6=thirteen received a final warning on 3 November. Recent inflammatory comments on the ARS talk page after that date demonstrate an ongoing battleground mentality and continued unwillingness or inability to participate in a civil manner.
 * 1) - Decribing ANI thread as a "purge"
 * 2) - Comparing delete !voters to great white sharks in a feeding frenzy
 * 3) - Calling someone "thin skinned"
 * 4) - "There are a lot of folks now participating in this talk page whose avowed objective is to kill off those who might oppose them at AFDs.  And euthanize WP:ARS."
 * 5) - The "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" comment mentioned above, along with a comparison to the Inquisition
 * 6) - Something about firearms on the table?
 * 7) - When an editor discusses revisiting prior AfDs potentially affected by ARS, 7&6 accuses them of seeking "do-overs" because they didn't like the results.

These comments show that 7&6=thirteen has repeatedly assumed bad faith and failed to remain civil, hindering the efforts of other editors to refocus ARS in a more positive direction and repair some of the damage that has been done. This is the same attitude that Andrew Davidson and Lightburst were sanctioned for. It's also not limited to their interactions with any particular editor, so an I-ban will not suffice. –dlthewave ☎ 23:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per the history and what's happened since the last time:
 * 2019 ANI, 2020 ANI, 2021 ANI (closed 10 days ago), and now we have our second 2021 ANI. Each of these was brought by four different editors, and involved 7&6 having disputes with different editors. The common thread here is 7&6.
 * Canvassing the Arabeyes AFD ; discussed at User talk:7%266%3Dthirteen (7&6 notified everyone except the two editors who !voted delete)
 * Canvassing ARS Public School AFD: ;
 * Canvassing this discussion at ARS with a non-neutral heading (see WP:TALKHEADPOV) ; when another editor makes a neutral heading, edit warring to revert to the non-neutral heading: ; warning the other editor for neutralizing the heading: ; complaining about it: ; and saying "I own this comment"  (compare with WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN: )
 * Reverts when an editor hats a discussion:
 * Combined with the other diffs linked above in this proposal and the OP, and the prior history, it's a pattern of persistent disruption surrounding deletion, for years. Levivich 00:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that less than two days after the previous AFD ended, Dronebogus started ARS Public School (3rd nomination). Everyone who participated in it should've been told it was restarted again.  As for the section heading being changed on a talk page, after someone pointed to where the rule is about that, he didn't change it again.  And there is nothing wrong with unhatting something if you are one of the people who is still having a conversation in the hatted section.   D r e a m Focus  02:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, take everything you're pointing to out of the equation, and what's left is still a pile of problematic diffs from the last ten days. Between each of these ANI threads over the last two years, there has been little or no improvement in behavior; the only thing that changes is who is complaining. Levivich 02:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We are not discussing Dronebogus' behavior in this section, nor should we. We are discussing 7&6=thirteen's.  Whatever the antics of Dronebogus or any other editor's, 7&6=thirteen's obligation was to walk away if he felt incapable of the level of civility he was told two weeks ago was expected of him.  And in fact, per WP:CIVIL, that's the response expected of any editor as a matter of course, no matter the alleged provocation.   Ravenswing      10:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support this is an ongoing pattern of Battleground behavior from 7&6, here are just some of the cases that I have experienced with them:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5) Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Today he left this message on the ARS talk page in response to me saying that we should try to find a clearer consensus on the more contentious AfDs that have closed as no consensus and were posted at ARS. I've been clear in multiple places that I could really care less what that consensus is, but that we should find one. His response to that, as well articles that are closed as no consensus chronically being called "keep outcomes" by him and other ARS members, makes me think that he is trying to use no consensus outcomes as de-facto keeps. Which is why ARS members (including him) always have an issue with articles being re-listed, the ARS Public School AfD being one of many examples. Treating no consensus closes as de-facto keeps is battleground behavior. It also shows an utter lack of caring for the notability guidelines and AfD process. Plus he called me thin skinned after receiving a civility warning, but that's not my main issue or why I support this. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support an indefinite topic-ban from AFD, ARS, and any discussions related to them, broadly construed. Looking over their history they have been a consistent source of AFD-related WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior for literally years. Given the confusion Lightburst seems to have had about their topic-ban above, the wording should place a particular emphasis on extending to discussions of ARS, its activities, or any sort of allegations of misconduct related to AFD by any user, in any forum - that ought to be obvious, but it doesn't hurt to be sure. --Aquillion (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Evidently has not taken the final warning seriously as demonstrated above. This was probably a good opportunity to take a break from deletion activities but the battlegrounding has continue. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also add that if 7&6 does receive a topic ban I would support a strong warning to Dronebogus who has engaged in activities no less problematic than 7&6 since that massive AN/I. The difference here being that Dronebogus has yet to receive a warning (although returning back here straight after a 24h ban isn't a good sign). Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I consider myself a moderate inclusionist and the evidence for that is the list I maintain on my user page of articles I have learned about at AfD and helped save by improving then substantively. But I consider extreme inclusionism and extreme deletionism to be disruptive editing behaviors if they continue after warnings. This editor should spend a year or so actually improving articles without any participation in deletion discussions, and then explain to the community how they are prepared to contribute to deletion discussions without engaging any any knee-jerk and poorly reasoned inclusionist misbehavior. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Cullen honestly I can't imagine anymore who has done much more to improve articles than 7&6, their work has been prodigious. They take on the really hard AfD projects that require deep research and days to find sources, build out articles and take through DYK. The lack of recognition for his work in this regard, and blinkered singular focus on Keep votes is mostly a fun-house mirror view. --   Green  C  07:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is truly the case, then participation in AFD, or the lack of it, will not be needed for them to continue improving articles and their work to improve sourcing and quality can be done independently of that process, which would alleviate any concerns of battleground mentality. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is the third attempt in 10 days, if it fails there will be a fourth until it succeeds. Mostly by the same users. Nothing significant has happened since the last topic ban failure, 10 days ago.. 2 days ago. The diffs presented are old, or ARS talk pages, elective reading, for many a place to vent including for non-ARS members whose history of disruptive behavior there is long. Come on, if 7&6 was really that bad he would have been blocked long ago, would not have support from other editors. When you deconstruct what happened in these diffs, they are complex multi-page multi-editor interactions. There are provokers and provoked and he is often responding to provocations. -- Green  C  07:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * His "The firearms are on the table" comment was made in response to Dronebogus alerting him of the ANI complaint. Can you point to anywhere that Dronebogus has made similar analogies? Because there's a point where this whole "both sides are at fault" nonsense doesn't hold up to scrutiny anymore and he's long past it. Same goes for your assertion that this doesn't have any merit because he hasn't been blocked yet. No one is blocked until they are blocked. You should really have more valid reasons to oppose this then the same circular talking points that ARS members have repeatedly given to defend each others behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose any block t-ban longer than 6 months. The only reason I don't oppose a 3-6 month t-ban is just to give the community a break. As GreenC says, if this attacks fails, we'll very likely see round 4 very soon. 13 is clearly too honest to do the tactical thing and bob & weave in the face of the persistent baiting they've received since two of their colleagues were taken down. To be clear, I don't see merit in the diff pile here. If anything 13 is to be commended for their apt use of figurative language. To address the first diff: The original Halloween ANI sought to take out all four of the squads active article defenders. How was it not a purge? I've never seen such poor conduct by the attacking side in all my years on Wikipedia. Sure certain squad members have been engaged in frequent banter/minor attacks, so cant blame the community for piling on with calling us arses, etc. But never have I seen an ARS editor give out an insult any where near as mean spirited as "disturbingly obsessive". And talk of confronting editors in real life, would normally guarantee at least a stern warning. Oh don't worry, its the ARS, they are too noble & kind to ever fight back! At least the spotlight on the ARS has drawn attention to lesser known editors like 13 & Lightburst, showing they warrant a place in the Wikipedia half of fame. Whatever happens to them, at least while perceptive editors still draw breath, their names and deeds will never be forgotten. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * legitimately cannot tell whether you’re being ironic. I wouldn’t exactly call the above diffs “noble and kind” by a long shot. This kind of exaggerated, hagiographic language is going to weaken rather than enhance your arguments. Dronebogus (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yub yub. Anyone who votes keep on AfDs is a luminous being of angelic purity, no matter what else they get up to. I mean, Feyd still worships the likes of Ikip and A Nobody who- well, they're long before your time but you can look them up in old archives if you want to see what a disruption the Squadron was in its heyday. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 13:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Hopefully people will click on the differences presented and make their own decisions, reading not just what he said but what he was responding to. This editor has done quite a lot of editing on articles to improve them, and is thus a valuable member of the Wikipedia community.   D r e a m Focus  11:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support indef ban. They haven’t improved their behavior after multiple warnings over several years, and think they can demand harsh unilateral sanctions against a user one minute while mocking and antagonizing them the next. Also note that so far the only “oppose” votes are from fellow ARS members. Dronebogus (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let’s also question whether the ARS public school massacree would’ve gone down if it wasn’t for 13’s antics. Dronebogus (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just waiting for one of them to say the user from India voted delete because they have an anti-ARS agenda. They are about at that point with this whole thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support because of blatant canvassing. When I pointed out the issue with his selective notifications for the Arabeyes AfD, I assumed it was an oversight. But two days later, 7&6 repeated the same selective notifications for the ARS Public School AfD, failing to notify two "delete" editors from the previous AfD. At this point, it just seems intentional.  Schazjmd   (talk)  16:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, all of the prior discussants on both sides were notified on the second example your proffered. As to the first, I corrected that, and you know that.. There was no repeated "selection."  I did not make the same mistake after you called it to my attention.  I apologize for the first mistake, and I urge you to reconsider. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Describing an event as a 'purge', editors as 'white sharks in a feeding frenzy', or complaining about a 'daily flood of AFD nominations' sounds more like a harmless PoV description of recent events than actual disruptive behavior. Not much can be said of these minor examples of canvassing, considering nothing has ever been done about ARS itself despite that it serves no purpose other than asking low-standard inclusionists for backup. Conspicuously belligerent behavior for someone who has just been warned, of course, but very little of this so far will translate into AfD discussions being actually derailed: the original cause of complaint. 7&6=13 doesn't like 'deletionists', and 'deletionists' don't like him: inevitably interactions between these two parties will be, according to some definition or another, battlegrounds. I certainly don't like how he has handled sources and voting in the past, and to that effect I submitted diffs against him in the last discussion, though I stopped short of supporting any concrete sanctions. Both the nomination and closing statements against 7&6=13 in the last ANI were poorly conducted, but there's little justification for changing the final verdict – a warning, not a block – a mere days after. Unless, as per the warning, he's doing actual vote-stacking or mishandling sources – which result in actual disruptions, and which are more objective grievances than 'battleground behavior' or 'assuming bad faith' – then maybe he can be allowed to enjoy the chance he's been given. Avilich (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Within days of being warned at ANI, 7&6 blatantly canvasses AFDs, notifying past keep voters with non-neutral messages but not delete voters, and you want to give it a pass because it was ultimately unsuccessful. I'm surprised anyone would say 7&6 has to successfully disrupt AFDs, and not just attempt to disrupt AFDs, before 7&6 should be excluded from AFDs. Levivich 16:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I missed the Schazjmd's cmt due to edit conflict. It's not strictly accurate, since 7&6 does (correct me if I'm mistaken) seem to have given appropriate notifications for the Indian public school discussion: user The Banner, of the deletionist party, was apparently the first one he notified. As for the Arabeyes one, eh, perhaps. He did post both noms on the ARS list, which is arguably a form of canvassing itself, but nobody has until now successfully taken serious action against this, and lack of enforcement has allowed it to become standard practice. Anyway, the main complaint here is 'battleground' behavior, which I don't consider to be good grounds for a permablock. Avilich (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Crossing out my vote. Reviewing the evidence more closely, it does appear that the notifications for the ARS school AfD were disproportionately handed out to keepers, even to notorious inclusionists who hadn't participated in the previous two discussions. His recent indiscriminate source dump here makes me doubt that the old custom of passing by solely to drag an AfD through the mud and not genuinely improve the article won't go away. I have certainly no ground to oppose any action anymore. Avilich (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support' This thread highlights everything wrong with their approach, and swiftly followed by what may be termed inflamatory to say the least, indicates that they are congenitally incapable of approaching deletion discussions objectively. Everything must always be personalised—and usually uncivilly as the numerous recent threads collected above show. ——  Serial  16:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per dlthewave and Levivich's diffs. Their canvassing and battleground behaviors are clearly not going to improve. JoelleJay (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I was honestly going to just ignore proposals at this particular ANI as I was hoping giving the topic some space to settle down after the recent topic bans would be best. The diffs on canvassing, battleground, etc. after the last warning though tell me that isn't feasible and this sanction is now needed. I personally tend to give people leeway after a warning, but this degree of doubling down is clearly not going away now without sanctions. It comes across as 7&6=Thirteen just working to waste community time whether intentional or not, and that's where my hard tolerance line is crossed. KoA (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Very weak support: (and I am very seesawing on weak opposed): Real concerns was set up on a WP:SEALION especially given the POINTy nature of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) and perhaps the "Is ARS still here?" section at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron which was a real trouble magnet of a heading (I AGF it was not a SEALION). The keeper biased WP:CANVASing is however a different matter and while not referenced at the 3rd November 2021 warning should have been considered.  While discussion on deleted related discussions DRV/AfD's should be banned the placing of a rescue list on a discussion should be permitted with a neutral statement.  Its ugly, very ugly, the way this discussion has been set up and a possible victory for SEALIONing Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, per the convincing evidence that the combative approach has not abated following the previous monster ANI thread. --JBL (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 10 days later, and 13's behavior in this discussion strengthens the case for a sanction: total commitment to a combative approach, 0 self-reflection in response to criticism, 0 evidence of any recognition that their behavior is problematic. --JBL (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the user hasn't been given any breathing room. Can anyone seriously argue that this is a separate discussion rather than just a continuation of last week's? I suggest that all those opining there be ping'ed, lest this be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of everyone except those who thought the matter might be left alone for a while. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This vote and Djm-leighpark‘s vote seem like they’re relying on technicalities to discredit the discussion rather than addressing the actual issue of 13’s behavior. How many minor guideline violations can dance on a pin and whatever, when it’s obvious that 13’s behavior is a persistent problem that they’ve already been warned about. Dronebogus (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why should they get away with things like the above because I renominated an article for deletion too early, or a discussion from a few weeks back didn’t arrive at a consensus against them for unrelated reasons? Dronebogus (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @ I consider between this recent comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) and what I see as your resumption of your bludgeoning following your block I am choosing to remove myself from these discussions and strike my !vote above. Thankyou. 22:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)


 * Support Whoever closes this will find that there is a fair amount of party line voting so should look closely at the reasoning for the votes. For me it is the refusal or moderate in any way their rhetoric aftef a severe warming and the partisan canvassing that shows that 13 has learned nothing and needs to step back and restore their perspective. Battlefield anything in any discussion is poisonous to effective consensus building. Spartaz Humbug! 20:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, albeit with some ambivalence. I did support the previous proposal that ended in "no consensus", but I looked at all of the new diffs as well as my own observations, and I think that anything based only what has happened post-the last discussion is borderline, but just over the line. Some of the diffs raised are not as bad as they look at first glance, when one looks at the context in its entirety. But I won't belabor that, because there is also enough here to conclude that this is a net-negative situation. (Personally, I am especially bothered by the "love letter" section referring here, and the edit warring over it.) So I come down on the support side. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as there is too much political voting going on here in favour of removing editors from AfD to aid their own objectives. If thirteen's behaviour is sufficiently bad then they should get a complete block not just to remove them from deletion matters. A warning is sufficient in my view and ive seen far worse battleground language from respected editors not to mention admin (an example admin using the F word in block notices).Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for other people, but personally I've defended ARS members multiple times since this started. So I don't really have an "objective" outside of wanting the disruption 7+6=13 is causing to end. His behavior has clearly passed the threshold of what should be acceptable since he has already received multiple civility warnings and couldn't keep his behavior in check for more then a few days past the last one. Given that, there's zero indicator at this point that more warnings are going to be effective. I don't think he should receive a full block either though. There's no reason he can't edit productively in areas where he doesn't have behavioral issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose (now Strong Oppose, see below), I just ran across this and thought it was an old thread, then looked at the dates and it's real time. Seriously? Another cancel-an-editor-athon over in AfDland brought to ANI? Haven't at least two AfD regulars (more?) been shooed out, now there's another? What a place! Randy Kryn (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just read the links where the sins were supposed to be, and aside from some colorful language that seemed entirely metaphorical, which has been cherry-picked and highlighted, what I read (the parts that weren't quoted) was astute analysis and personal complaints about the current good faith bouncing of long-time editors who save articles. Let 7-13 blow off some steam in-between fair points, is anyone really actually offended enough not to take the rest of the comments and real concerns into consideration? Makes me think that they would have hated Lenny Bruce, but that's a personal aside. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but a project page where editors are trying to move forward and clean up the mess is not the place to "blow off steam" or recap an ANI discussion. They're actively distrupting productive discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I've been observing all this drama recently and find it both fascinating and exhausting. What I think the examples above most prove is that 7&6=thirteen and Dronebogus really, really don't get along. So the best course the action is for the two users to stay as far away from each other as possible. I'm hopeful that apart the two can get back to making good and productive edits. If not, and the negative behavior for one continues even without the other being involved, then that would prove harsher actions are needed as others above have suggested. But right now, I wouldn't support them. Rhino131 (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the seven diffs I provided (except maybe this) have anything to do with a conflict between Dronebogus and 7&6=thirteen. –dlthewave ☎ 15:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I almost never !vote in ANI, but this one boggles my mind, so I will drop off two cents due to an alarming number of supports.  The earlier ARS restrictions were sorely needed and a good change.  This particular complaint, however, stinks to high heaven.  I don't see any convincing rationale that something changed in the past two weeks aside from normal salty talk on a talk page after some friends were sanctioned, which is hardly shocking.  If anyone should be sanctioned here, it's Dronebogus for deciding to needlessly re-poke a drama mill that had calmed down and been resolved in shockingly reasonable fashion off of very shabby accusations.  So yes, 7&6 should probably try to keep the temperature a bit lower even on the ARS talk page, but that is not really reason for sanctions.  SnowFire (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, nothing has changed after the last warning, and that's the problem. –dlthewave ☎ 15:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, the links above are just the latest in the extremely long history of Thirteen’s incivility and either incompetence or blatant disruption. Thirteen is probably the most egregious of the ARS regulars at bludgeoning XfD discussions. Further, during deletion discussions he bombards articles with information cited to terrible, clearly unreliable sources, many not even relating to the subject, and then casts aspersions at anyone who challenges them. The encyclopedia would be improved if this TBAN included a prohibition from editing any articles under XfD discussion. Cavalryman (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC).
 * Oppose per and . While the recent selected diffs do show some incivility, it does not appear to be without provocation. Several users here are very keen on rubbing salt in other user's wounds and need to be careful where they throw that boomerang. There are at least two users here who need to be sanctioned for persistent bludgeoning. Banning those users (I don't need to name them, right?) from going anywhere near ARS (and indeed ANI) would be a good start. Polyamorph (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "not without provocation"? The diffs which I provided show 7&6=thirteen entering into discussions which did not involve them in any way (aside from the ANI notice) to make uncivil comments. –dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the points raised by . The two users alluded to by Polyamorph should, at the very minimum, be asked to desist from their battleground mentality and politely time out from ANI. If the community finds that the supposed problem regarding incivility and incompetence by certain editors is still ongoing and not resolved by the ANI Tbans and sanctions, then ArbCom should reconsider their decision to recuse and proceed to accept the case and resolve it once and for all. Haleth (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't this proposal kind of the community finding out if the supposed problem regarding incivility and incompetence by certain editors is still ongoing? How long should 7&6's problematic behavior be able to go on for before it would be appropriate to open another complaint or see if ArbCom will re-consider the case? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, as proposer the last time this came up. I would prefer an equal topic ban for Dronebogus who is not improving AfD either. We need to make AfD work better now and that requires removing the drama creators.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ten thousand times this. --JBL (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose; it's not clear to me what they were doing to cause drama. I think that "editors who hate them will create an unending stream of increasingly perplexing AN/I threads until they are ousted" is a very bad reason to take action. jp×g 12:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: While the examples above are not stellar behavior, I'm not seeing anything here serious enough to take action on, and suggest that people stop looking for reasons to get rid of the top ARS contributors as an end-run to eliminiating the ARS itself. BOZ (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The language used by 13 may be over-dramatic but its not worthy of sanctions in my view. AfD will always create conflict, that is unavoidable. Apparently, according to an above comment, this thread highlights everything wrong with 13's approach but what I see is a wind-up attempt by Dronebogus. NemesisAT (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I have been taking part in Afd's for decades and I got to say that 7&6=Thirteen is one of the worst editor's I came across. For years it was a continual stream of obsfucation designed to promote uncertainty and doubt to ensure at the very least no consensus was reached, before the ARS section arrived. They basically gamed the whole system. As a group I suprised they never all got indeffed blocked. The worst part, which suprisingly was the most unpleasant, was they're was no logic to it. I really wish the ARS could could get shut down. The original vision of trying to save genuine notable article is long gone. It is completely corrupt and biased. Here is an example of 7&6=Thirteen at Articles for deletion/Arabeyes (2nd nomination) Clippings. 23:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)    scope_creep Talk  23:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure that's a good example - I closed the AfD as "keep" because I saw consensus that the article could be improved further instead of deleted after several editors did so (WP:HEY), although not 7&6=Thirteen. A better example might be one where 7&6 argued vociferously for "keep" but the consensus was "delete" - have you got one? (I know their username trips a bug in the AfD stats tool so I can't easily find one myself). In fact, looking at that AfD, the comment that jumps out as worrisome is Levivich telling Adamant1 "This is not a debate club. If you don't think the sources people put forward meet GNG, then say why, and then shut up. Skip calling them "trash", skip replying with things like "are you seriously going to argue", and skip cherrypicking two out of five as if that proves something." <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That was an example I used on the day. I was planning to look for other examples from my own Afd's, but it has been happening for at least two years. Everytime you saw them, paticularly 7&6=Thirteen, it would become a kind of null return gig, because the whole Afd was horsed. It seemed there were no concerns regarding honesty for following policy during proceedings. The kind of refs that "7&6=" returned was often barely related to the subject, wether it was an old photograph image, or blank profile, any junk. Just in attempt to stymie the Afd until the rest of them arrived. A stalling tactic. They would be trying to get there first, to alter the flow of thought. It was massively frustrating and a bit cruel, nasty and corrupt. They had and still do, complete disregard for WP:AGF, Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia itself.    scope_creep Talk  21:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. All editors, whether they trend to a "deletionist" or "inclusionist" perspective, have the right to be heard -- so long as they do so civilly and without engaging in personal attacks. While the cited language is colorful in its use of metaphors, it reflects an understandable sensitivity given the recent, unrelenting efforts to "purge" (yes, "purge") the members of ARS.  And, honestly, I see nothing so egregious in the quoted excerpts that it would support the relief sought here. Deletion discussions (and Wikipedia as a whole) operate best as a democracy of ideas, weighing all points of view. The recent campaign to "purge" editors with a strongly inclusionist point of view brings to mind the words of Harry Truman during the Second Red Scare: "Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." ... Will I now be asked, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the ARS party?"  Cbl62 (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry but how do you write and then in the next sentence write ? Isn't that uncivil and a personal attack? Do you think I am part of an unrelenting effort to purge the members of ARS? If so, what do you think my motivation is? When people are disruptive, and other people are like, "hey, those disruptive people should stop being disruptive or be removed," is that a "purge" in your eyes? Levivich 15:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There it is. Merely voicing opposition to the purge is proof of incivility. As for whether or not this is a "purge", see the freedictionary definition: "To rid (a nation or political party, for example) of people considered undesirable." See also Cambridge dictionary: "to get rid of people from an organization because you do not agree with them." And Collins dictionary: "To purge an organization of its unacceptable members means to remove them from it." You make think there are valid reasons for the purge, but calling a purge a purge is not incivil. Cbl62 (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Purge" implies an illegitimate attempt to ban/remove editors simply because one disagrees with/does not like them. I think that this accusation is a violation of our WP:AGF guideline and our WP:CIVILITY policy since ample evidence of incivility has been brought forward and no evidence has been provided to support the notion that this is somehow politically motivated. This type of language only perpetuates the WP:BATTLEGROUND environment that we're trying to deescalate and I wish folks would stop using it. –dlthewave ☎ 16:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Check the dictionary definitions cited above. Purges can be either legitimate or illegitimate. That said, I am all in favor of de-escalating and found Dronebogus's "new proposal" (below) to be both graceful and diplomatic -- just the kind of de-escalation that this discussion needs. Cbl62 (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When numerous editors complain about an editor being disruptive, over a period of time, with different editors and new diffs each time, I think it's pretty terrible that you'd describe that as a relentless purge. Way to support your colleagues and take their concerns seriously. Levivich 17:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're "terrible" and am sorry you see me that way. From my perspective, we simply disagree as to whether 7&6's actions are T-ban-worthy. I value civility greatly (for example, I am in the minority on our project's tolerance of extreme profanity), but I have seen 7&6's work, find it generally constructive, and do not believe that the proffered diffs warrant the proposed T-ban. Others disagree, and that's fine. My use of the world "relentless" (definition: "Steady and persistent; unremitting") was driven by the fact that this is, I think, the third attempt in a single month to T-ban the same user. As noted above, I would like to see everyone de-escalate which is why I support Dronebogus's "new proposal" below. Cbl62 (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not say you are terrible, and your comments about civility and de-escalation ring hollow when you accuse me and others of engaging in a relentless purge. Quoting the dictionary is also insulting: we all know what the words mean... and Oxford defines purge as being "abrupt or violent", it clearly has a negative connotation in the way you used it, and for the record I do not want to remove anyone because I disagree with them. I don't even want to remove anyone from AFDs at all. The reason I support a tban is because there have been so many complaints from so many different editors over the least few years that I think it's necessary to protect everyone else at AfD from 7&6's disruption. I would much prefer 7&6 just stopped being disruptive and participate in AFDs in a non-disruptive manner. This is impossible so long as other editors, such as yourself, when reviewing concerns of disruption, cast those raising the concerns as engaging in a relentless purge. By your comments you have perpetuated the very battleground behavior that is the problem we're trying to solve. You say you want to de-escalate, but your comments do the opposite. Note, by the way, I'm not even attempting to get you to change your !vote--only the way you describe other editors and their motivations. Levivich 18:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't believe you have the gall to try and play moderator on this one. I'd agree with Cbl62 you're normally a valued member of our community. Yet your behaviour on the Halloween purge thread however was both terrible and relentless. You posted to it over 50 times, supporting sanctions on all viable subthreads. Yet despite obvious non neutrality, you took it upon yourself to moderate the thread. You overturned an attempt at sanction free closure.  You deleted a sub thread encouraging an end to the nightmare. You relentlessly tagged most of those who opposed sanctions, including long posts discrediting even non ARS members.  Your complaining on civility would be easier to take seriously if they said a word against the gross incivility that was aimed at the ARS (I don't mean mostly harmless jokes about us being arses, but the nastier stuff). And now you're trying to moderate this thread to in a way that disrupts attempts at peaceful de-secalation.  Get a grip  Levivich! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When someone describes me as engaged in a relentless purge and I object to it, that's not attempting to "moderate" a thread. An example of me calling out incivility aimed at the ARS is in this thread (I support a warning above) and another example from an AfD is quoted somewhere in this thread by Ritchie. I stand by my identification of ARS members block-voting in response to canvassing as they did in that thread, in this thread, and many other threads. (The diffs of canvassing this thread is in my support vote.) Levivich 19:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - Per and . I feel this ARS-witch hunt proposal was Dronebogus' intended result when he filed this report on what is essentially a mutual dispute with mutual incivility. On a side note, I'll add that tag-teaming and political voting is an underrated form of disruption that needs to be cracked down on more.  Dark  knight  2149  03:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: indef Tban. Look.  People can complain about witchhunting, and complain about it being too soon, and complain about baiting or gravedancing, and complain about all the things they're wont to complain about.  But the upshot is simple: 7&6=thirteen was given a final warning to clean up his act.  He has demonstrably not done so.  His obligation given the warning was to act civilly, and ignore (or following accepted rules, report) provocations, and to cease battleground behavior.  This was apparently too much to ask.  It should not be so very hard as all of that to wrap one's head around dropping the stick, especially right after a serious controversy and a serious warning, especially right when the ARS remains under heavy scrutiny.  Continued sniping from that point isn't so much ignoring the warning as defying the warning.  Fair enough, so be it.   Ravenswing      10:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Way too many times we keep poking and poking at people and eventually they are going to respond in the manner they are being talked to. 7&6 has done amazing work building this encyclopedia for over 14 years and has been under a microscope for the last two weeks. Indefing them shouldn't be on the table. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> spryde |  talk  20:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not that we're proding and proding at them. They are trying game the system, to their advantage and our disadvantage. They are rational human beings. The original vision of WP:ARS is subverted. If the same gang was there 10 years ago, we wouldn't be here.   scope_creep Talk  22:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of us were around ten years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members I joined February 26, 2009. Andrew Davidson joined on February 2008 as Colonel Warden.  If you have any specific examples by all means, compile the evidence, and present it.  Since most of the AFDs we do are as individuals, we not together, I don't see a problem.  I just went to an article for a writer I originally said Keep, finding some reviews that convinced others.  Turned out Kirkus Reviews now allows people to pay for reviews, so any reviews tagged as being part of that program don't count as notability, so I changed my vote to delete.  I didn't tag it for Rescue even though almost all the votes before I arrived were delete.  The few times I do tag an article for Rescue its because I believe there are sources and need help accessing them.  Many over the years have looked at all the articles tagged for Rescue, and found that a lot of them get no one to go and say Keep at all, and others just have some members going and not others.  Even articles added by regular members sometimes get ignored by others.  No one is gaming the system.  We are a legitimate Wikiproject.   D r e a m Focus  22:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 's description of the situation is correct. Ten years ago, Dream Focus and Andrew Davidson had not yet made any posts on the ARS nomination page. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The first archive of that list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_%E2%80%93_Rescue_list/Archive_1 is January 2012 and the first thing listed is an entry I made. Things before that were on some other page.  History of the current Rescue list shows Northamerica1000 created it at 02:55, 22 January 2012‎.  Anyway, on the history at the main page of the ARS  I see that I was editing it back in 2010 and Andrew Davidson(known as Colonel Warden back then) even before then.  So yes, we were around and active ten years ago, and surely did put some things on the list, wherever it was at, back then.   D r e a m Focus  02:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that you had made made edits in January 2012, but that is not ten years ago. Besides, even in early 2012 the main contributors were Northamerica1000 and Milowent, not Andrew Davidson or yourself. Given that this discussion is in the context of Scope_creep's statement about it being the same gang as ten years ago, your initial response (that Andrew Davidson and Dream Focus's accounts were created prior to then) is therefore misleading. Also, I am concerned that the ARS attitude of regarding a "no consensus" result as a "win" seems very much like WP:GAMING the system. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You misread what I wrote. I mentioned the date that we joined the ARS, linking to the members page.  We were both active in it, editing the main page of it over 11 years ago.
 * Some administrators still close AFDs with "no consensus to delete, default to keep".   D r e a m Focus  04:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A closer can say whatever they want in a closing message. It doesn't fundementally change the outcome of the AfD though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , what do you think I misread in your reply? The point here is that it is not the "same gang" at ARS today as it was ten years ago, despite the cherry-picked examples you presented. Yes, the AfD practice of "when in doubt, keep" has been very effectively exploited by ARS in recent years. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support 7&6's WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and disrespect shown to other editors means that their contributions in this area is not a net positive to the encyclopedia. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, per WP:ROPE. Insufficient improvement after a warning. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support T-ban - apologies accepted 7&6=thirteen, but your initial non-WP:AGF regarding me above is not <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 08:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Most of the diffs provided are the result of Dronebogus's antagonistic behaviour towards 7&6 and ARS, essentially baiting some of the responses given. This included a blatantly out of process nomination for the ARS school, which while correct on the merits, was done with an unhealthy battleground mentality against ARS. It's definitely understandable why 7&6 reacted the way they did, even if it was unwise. It would be a different story if 7&6 reacted this way without any provocation. The remaining diffs are on the melodramatic/frank side, but not to the point of incivility. If the community feels that 7&6's behaviour deserves a sanction, then Dronebogus's behaviour should be similarly examined. But since that's not in play here, I think it's better to close this without further sanctions and let people go back to editing. Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: If it is in play here, then what do you think? Levivich 02:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Some topic/interaction ban on Dronebogus in respect to 7&6/ARS/deletion and rephrase/reiterate the current warning for 7&6 to discourage behaviour such as Dronebogus's. However, since sanctions for Dronebogus are not really in play, so I haven't thought about anything more specific than that. A warning against further incivility should not be an invitation to goad the target of the warning into further sanctions. Given the context of Dronebogu's actions, the diffs are so terrible as to prove that in the course of normal, unheated editing, 7&6 isn't able to adhere to the warning.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * SupportTo prevent this ongoing disruption. And it's time for the ARS to quit circling the wagons every time one of them is brought up for their bad behavior. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

new proposal
This discussion is clearly a disaster and I’d like to apologize for starting it and wasting everyone’s time. I’d like to get back to productive editing but waiting for a potential sanction is causing me immense stress and frustration, and it probably is doing the same for 13. In light of this I would like to propose: Would that be acceptable? Dronebogus (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * a voluntary interaction ban between me and 13
 * a six-month topic ban of me from the ARS (this includes ANI threads against members)
 * a voluntary topic ban from the ARS public school AfD until it closes, with a promise not to renominate it for at least two months if it’s kept (unlikely but still)
 * giving both me and 13 a courtesy “pardon” for any potentially sanctionable behavior (at any point, not just now), with the understanding that this does not prevent anyone other than each-other from opening threads on ANI against us for whatever reason


 * You promise not to renominate the same article again for two months if you don't get the result you want?! Sending it back to AFD less than two days after the previous AFD closed was bad enough, but you are now planning on doing that yet again?!  How about you agree the same person should not send the same article to AFD twice under any possible circumstances and to never start any AFD over again unless its been at least two months since the last AFD?   D r e a m Focus  14:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay, in the unlikely event that it’s kept I will never renominate it EVER. I don’t support banning same-user renoms because sometimes an AfD is just incredibly slow with only 2-4 users who vote against one another (with lousy rationales from at least one) and is closed as no consensus because of it, like the AfDs for Gina D’s Kids Club. Dronebogus (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that he should stay away from the ARS Public School article going forward if it isn't closed as delete, but people are allowed to re-nominate articles that they originally listed and doing so wasn't what caused the problems. So there's zero reason he should be blocked from re-nominating articles if he wants to and waits the proper amount of time to do it again. Just as long as it's not ARS Public School. Also, on the interaction ban 13 should agree to it also since he was rather antagonistic toward Dronebogus several times in conversations he wasn't even involved in. It's not going to help having an interaction ban if 13 can still rant like a violent crazy person about Dronebogus in the meantime. Nether one should have anything to do with each other. Including in conservations to other people. Also, 13 should receive an actually final warning, with zero allowance for any of the scape scapegoating nonsense when he breaks it again. Since there is currently more consensus for sanctions against him then not and it's as much on him as Dronebogus. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as a gracious & welcome resolution, now Dream's amendment has been accepted, as long as 13 is happy with the iban. I'd recommend the iban is truly voluntary in the sense that it's not logged at WP:RESTRICT - some see that as a sanction, and count it as a blot on an editors record. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support with condition I support this with the condition that 13 receives an actually final civility warning and also commits to not go on unhinged sounding conspiracy laden rants anymore. Not just in relation to Dronebogus, but also anyone else who he thinks is out to get him and (or) ARS. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Very acceptable. Unexpected offer essentially offering to restrict own behavior without trying to force restrictions on others.  Seems like an excellent example of a lead to how to help de-escalate the situation and one the community is likely to accept.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment While apologies and voluntary disengagement is welcome, the bludgeoning by Adamant continues. The behaviour demonstrated here by Dronebogus and Adamant, at ARS, and AfD has been so disruptive that formal sanctions are required. Polyamorph (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I am trying to stop over-posting for that exact reason, but Adamant1 could stand to step back a little. I think sanctions are uncalled for at this point against anyone since they inevitably heat up rather than cool down the situation and seem punitive after voluntary disengagement. Dronebogus (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You have literally broken your voluntary six month topic ban with that comment. Polyamorph (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn’t think it had strictly “begun” yet, since I usually thought these things took force after a community consensus, but I can stop posting now. Dronebogus (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to say about this. I was actually done participating here already. Except I do kindly ask Polyamorph to AGF and stop casting aspersions. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Only a few hours previous to your comment you wrote (if 13 can still rant like a violent crazy person about Dronebogus). No aspersions are being cast, simple observation of how disruptive the behaviour of several users is here, at ARS, and AfD. Polyamorph (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you read the various complaints here and his rant on the ARS article talk page in response to Plutonical? Calling me and Dronebogus "members of the Inquisition" and "bomb throwers", as well as the "guns on the table" comment. I don't know about you but those sound "like" something a violent person would say. The key part there incase you don't get the nuance being "sounds like", not "is", because I don't think 13 is a violent person. I do think such violent sounding comments aren't good to make though. Which should be pretty uncontroversial and is why I asked you to AGF. Hopefully that's a satisfactory answer. Now that I've given one I'd appreciate it if you dropped it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Although I appreciate the deescalation attempt, this proposal just has too many little caveats that could easily turn into "gotchas" and arguments about technicalities down the road. In my experience the best way to implement a "voluntary interaction ban" is to just quietly walk away from the topic without making a big fuss about it. There's no drama and nobody can accuse you of violating it if you slip up. This is why you don't really see me commenting at ARS: Regardless of who's right or wrong, I know that I'm probably not going to accomplish anything productive there. Dronebogus, Adamant1 and 7&6=thirteen would all be well advised to step away from ARS for a bit. Rest assured that others will address any great wrongs that may happen in your absence. –dlthewave ☎ 18:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To some extent, the community at ANI cannot really declare that a voluntary agreement is enforceable by admins, in the way that a community sanction would be. But that doesn't make a voluntary deescalation a bad thing – indeed, quite the opposite. We can, however, say that, broadly speaking, it's a good idea, and broadly speaking it is a good one. And we can point out, as other editors have done just above, that there are pitfalls in the wording of the offer, that should be avoided. And later, if there is evidence of non-adherence to the voluntary agreement, that can at least be taken into consideration as disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Oppose I don't see any reason why Dronebogus should be sanctioned while 7&6 just gets another minor slap on the wrist (which they will undoubtedly ignore based on their unchanged behavior while this discussion has been running). Mztourist (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. If this is successful, I hope the closer considers classing the whole set of restrictions as voluntary, with nothing logged at WP:RESTRICT. So there are no sanctions for either. It would be a shame if such an admirable attempt at de-escalation can't be rewarded. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree.    scope_creep Talk  12:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. A diplomatic gesture. Cbl62 (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: While the drama between Dronebogus and the ARS has been pretty entertaining, it's bad for the encyclopedia and this proposal seems like it's just kicking the can down the road. I say we give Dronebogus an indefinite topic ban from pages that are directly related to ARS and an indefinite interaction ban with ARS members. That way, we don't get any more drama after 6 months, and even if ARS acts up, it will be seen through the neutral lens of an uninvolved user rather than the lens of someone who's had conflict with them. Please note, I'm not picking sides or saying ARS is right or wrong, but Dronebogus is clearly not neutral because he's been in conflict with ARS for a while. After a bit of help from, I see the benefits of this and the lack of punishment. I fully support it. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ  15:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "I'm not picking sides but you should punish this guy and not that guy". That's exactly what picking sides is. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 15:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Reyk It's not punishment, it's just meant to separate Dronebogus from ARS, since they're not reconciling very well. Since it's a group of users against one user (Dronebogus), a topic and interaction ban for that one user would solve the problem much more efficiently than individual interaction bans against every user in ARS. Not to mention there is no topic ban that would solve the problem on ARS's side (save for a ban from AfD, which is probably too far) but since ARS could be considered a topic in itself, banning Dronebogus from the topic of ARS would effectively isolate him entirely from them and therefore solve the drama and prevent it from coming back in six months. Nobody here is right or wrong, and it's not meant to be punitive, but it IS meant to be preventative. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ  17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The effect would be purely punitive regardless of the stated intention. Any topic ban is just going to be treated as a red badge of shame: "this guy was one-way topic banned from ARS so he's a bad hombre and they're the good guys." That's how it always works. Always. Nor do I imagine for a moment that this would insulate Dronebogus from the ARS- experience with other editors has shown they'll gravedance and cackle about him behind the scenes, wave their hands an inch from his face and go "I'm not touching you!". Kicking someone in the teeth just because it's easier doesn't make it right. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 21:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, that's not what I was going for. I want something that will separate them (and prevent the issue from flaring up again) without being punitive. Do you have any suggestions that will prevent this from just flaring back up as soon as the 6 months are over? (UPDATE: Just realized that's what Dronebogus's proposal is. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ  15:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per Cb162. Buffs (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This doesn't seem unreasonable, given the circumstances.  Dark knight  2149  03:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Color me confused: You know, Dronebogus, there is nothing in the wide green world preventing you from just walking away. Why are you proposing an interaction ban on yourself when you can just voluntarily stop interacting?  Why are you proposing a topic ban on yourself when you can just walk away from the topic?  Why are you suggesting a ban against dealing with the ARS when you can just choose to stop dealing with the ARS?  Are you saying that you're incapable of doing these things unless we make it a community-backed formal sanction?  Because with all the good will in the world, we're not therapists here.  If all this drama has you so wound up that you keep diving in, I urge you to take a Wikibreak generally -- walk away for a few months, take in a concert or two, play with kittens, smell the roses.    Ravenswing      11:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe he wants the other parties to back off too? You need two to tango... The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There wouldn't be anything for other parties to back off from if Dronebogus stepped back himself. See, the way I see it is that ARS and its cronies had a pretty stinging -- and long-merited -- rebuke a couple weeks back.  It is reasonable to keep a careful eye on their doings, and reasonable to be sure that the sanctioned editors comply with their topic bans. But Dronebogus doesn't have to be one of those watchers, and we don't have to keep poking the hornets' nest with a stick.  ARS-aligned editors displaying dismay over the outcome is no more unreasonable than the triumphalism and schadenfreude from the other camp, and barring egregious violations, the best thing now is for everyone to just settle down and give it a couple months to see if the process did indeed work.   Ravenswing      20:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been following this pretty closely and I haven't seen any triumphalism or schadenfreude from "the other camp." Whomever that is. Neither on par with the "dismay" over the outcome being shown by ARS members or at all for that matter. It's also an extreme stretch to call 13's and Lightburst's behavior since the blocks just showing dismay about the outcome. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support This doesn't seem unreasonable, given the circumstances. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Like Ravenswing posted. Just walk away from all of it, there's thousands of other areas to putter around, in Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose If Dronebogus and Thirteen mutually agree to this, it works. If they don't, it doesn't. Community consensus at ANI will not help the matter, but only potentially encourage gaming of the system. I and others may think Thirteen's actions merit an AFD ban (I would argue about as much as Andrew, who at least was usually civil in his presentation of fake sources, and never plagiarized my comments and/or forged comments in my name—something I can't say for Thirteen [the actual text of the diff implies plagiarism, but his response to my calling him out on it, i.e., the historical links you here and there provided have nothing to do with me, implies that he was merely transposing my comment, in which case his adding a final sentence in his own words would constitute a forgery]). But if that proposal doesn't pass and this alternative is the only way to stem the drahma, then both of them need to agree to it without a bunch of advocates of one "side" or the other tagging on extra baggage that will only allow whichever one has the most loyal allies (or perceives themselves as having the most loyal allies -- I guess Dronebogus, if he looks at my history, would probably count me as an ally, but I have very little interest in weighing into this matter or patience for the idea that I am on anyone's "side" apart from the side of building a good encyclopedia) to effectively flout it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I should say that if Dronebogus wants to withdraw from deletion discussions and avoid the ARS, there's nothing stopping them from doing that immediately on their own initiative. I did this about two years ago (I don't even remember what the "last straw" was at this point); I was briefly followed to a non-deletion-related discussion on an article talk page, but that was, IIRC, about it as far as reprisals went. I enjoy editing the encyclopedia a lot more as a result, and I hardly ever get people talking about how I have more edits to the Wikipedia space than the article space anymore. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , did you experience some ARS retaliatory WP:FOLLOWING also? After pointing out some ARS disruption at the 2020 ANI discussion and tackling some further ARS disruption elsewhere, I realised I had omitted some merger notices in a (to that time) uncontroversial merger discussion. So I rectified the omission  and made a note of it at the discussion . Within six hours  arrived to oppose the proposal, followed by Thirteen  and of course ....
 * WikiProject Dogs/Article alerts only listed the merger 16 hours after Lightburst’s arrival, two of them had never edited either page to that date (LB and DF ); Thirteen’s last edit to one of the lists was six years previously  having never edited the other . I doubt they will respond to the above, Dream Focus may state the ends justified the means and explain that WP:HOUNDING is allowed when trying to chase off a nasty deletionist. I guarantee none of them have the character to admit any wrongdoing. Cavalryman (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would rather not go into details, but basically everything that happened at Talk:Mottainai between February 2018 and early November 2019 were tied to ARS. There was subsequently some kind of sockfarm activity, but it seems likely that the ringleader was not directly retaliating against me for criticizing ARS but rather something else. The last direct involvement of ARS was this. It's possible that without that, the whole thing would have died off after a week rather than dragging on for another year, but the biggest problem editor there actually seems to have had only indirect ties to ARS: he had a grudge against me from long before I had even heard of ARS (I think going back to 2014...?) and was subsequently site-banned for unrelated reasons. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we avoid using small text please? Per [Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Font_size the Manual of Style], it should be used sparingly. Making entire comments small makes it harder for partially sighted people, who'll have already chosen their desired font size and won't want to suddenly come across a comment in smaller font. NemesisAT (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Cavalryman, I used to see how I got there.  We were arguing in a different article, Talk:Ratonero_Murciano, and you mentioned List of extinct dog breeds in a post you made on 01:27, 6 August 2020.  I have participated in quite a lot of list articles, they of interest to me, so of course went there and posted on 19:45, 9 August 2020.  Now kindly stop trying to shift the conversation to something else.  This thing is far too long already.   D r e a m Focus  11:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Please move towards close - In hindsight, maybe some ARBCOM involvement wouldn't have been so bad after all. At the very least, Dronebogus should stop butting heads with the Article Keep Squadron and move elsewhere. I support an interaction ban but I'm not seeing much consensus for formal action to be taken, and the discussion has outlived its usefulness. No doubt that within the next 12 months the ARS crew will have generated new ire by defending more lousy articles and antagonizing more bystanders (I never saw myself as a "deletionist" but now I'm apparently in that camp because I don't think WP:OR and using blogs is a good thing). But let's not go around starting fires now, and hope for the best. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * - Dronebogus is responsible for his own behaviour, no one else. From what I can tell, this was an instance of a mutually uncivil dispute between Dronebogus and 7&6=thirteen, and it seems that Dronebogus thought that if filed a report against his opponent and waved around the magical words "Article Rescue Squadron", he would automatically generate support. It's honestly disheartening to see so many people take the bait.  Dark knight  2149  17:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * More disheartening is reading all the editors who are assuming bad faith. Here's another explanation for Dronebogus's behavior: after the last ANI thread ended in a warning, the problematic behavior continued for over a week, and so Dronebogus brought it back to ANI. Levivich 17:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just went back over some of the spats at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron and the others linked here, and Dronebogus' behaviour isn't any less problematic, uncivil, presumptive, or WP:BATTLEGROUND than 7&6=Thirteen's. If you want 7&6=Thirteen sanctioned, then I would recommend against defending Dronebogus' disruption to do it.  Dark knight  2149  17:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want 13 sanctioned, what I want is for 13 to stop being disruptive, and whether 13 is disruptive or not has nothing to do with the actions of any other editor. It wasn't Dronebogus that made 13 disruptive this time, or last time, or the time before. And anyway if you scroll up above you'll see, I support a warning against Dronebogus (a warning because it's a first trip to ANI, unlike 13), and you'll also note I opposed sanctions the last time Dronebogus filed an ANI request against ARS members. Sucks when facts get in the way of narratives, eh? :-) Levivich 17:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Was there ever a time when 13 wasn't disruptive? My interactions with him were relatively brief, but they were also a long time ago, and recent evidence indicates that very little has changed in three years, except that now (thanks to the recent TBAN) he has one or two fewer editors to reflexively oppose any attempt to sanction him. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (Full disclosure: there is an ongoing IBAN between me and Hijiri88) "Want" was perhaps the wrong word, but all of my judgments come specifically from this situation. I am not familiar with 7&6=Thirteen's history, although I have seen him around in administrative forums. My primary point is that, in this situation, Dronebogus wasn't much better than 7&6=Thirteen, and neither 7&6 nor the ARS are responsible for his side of it. Coming to ANI during a mutual dispute and evoking the ARS controversy on your opponent in the opening paragraph of your report is also not a very good look. If not for Dronebogus' own behaviour (or if someone else filed the report), my stance here might have been more hardlined against 7&6.  Dark  knight  2149  06:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose As per Mztourist. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support no action closure of whole thread. Looks like several feel Dronebogus's suggested resolution was overly generous, which isn't unreasonable. Dragging this thing out so long is starting to feel like unintentional emotional torture towards 13, little wonder they made the long & not especially wise or coherent omni-response.  Wish I was non-involved & able to otter close this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point someone should close the whole thing since it seems to have mostly ran it's course. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Omnibus response
I note first that User:Hijiri88 has answered the call of User:Cavalryman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&type=revision&diff=1055836760&oldid=1055836684&diffmode=source

Let me note that this interaction was 2 ½ years ago. So I have no personal recollection of it.

User:Hijiri88 makes a ridiculous claim against me. Note that what he links to shows what really happened in the next edit  edit summary from you (duplicate Sorry!) when you undid it. So I saw a request for help, posted it on the wrong page, my name signed perhaps automatically, and I saw the mistake and erased it.

Pointing this out should disredit his nonsense.

Also he states he doesn't remember why he stopped following ARS. Its because there was an interaction ban against him after he went crazy. here.

shows a lot of people have IBANs with him.

I would note also that this was posted only after the solicication of User:Cavalryman. He and I go way back. See here. I basically gave up my participation in WP:DOGS because of his harassment. He destroyed Mountain dog. Here is the article before his destroying it. And he continues to follow me around to this day.

I would also remonstrate about the interest of User:Mztourist. He has been a saboteur of and at WP:ARS for a long time. And you may take it to the bank that we have encountered each other a lot at various AFDs. here. He too has a history of uncivil behavior and being disciplined at ANI.

I note also that I thought this ANI had run its course, but Mztourist revived it. When he did so he did not bother to inform me on my talk page. A breach of basic due process, fairness and ANI etiquette.

Mztourist wrote:

Support this is an ongoing pattern of Battleground behavior from 7&6, here are just some of the cases that I have experienced with them: He cited four instances:


 * March 21, 2021 User:Mztourist and 153 articles redirect-merged without discussion


 * September 23, 2021 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller What I wrote was: *Keep notable Tuskegee airman. Irrelevant whataboutism and Ad hominem arguments.


 * September 25, 2021 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller What I wrote in two edits: :However, gutting the article's contents while an extended and contentious WP:AFD is pending looks like deck stacking.  But you know that already. YMMV.  But I'll WP:AGF and move along.
 * You are right about his rank. I confabulate him with another.  But he is buried where he is buried.  Find a grave is right.  Unless you have imagined a contrary source and result, that is.

This included the following exchange:
 * September 25, 2021 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller
 * Keep. Moderately/somewhat notable member of very notable group. Yeah, it's not great, and the sourcing is not great, but I don't care: the sourcing indicates well enough that this man did things that would have been all over the press if the press at the time had cared a bit more. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment its hilarious that all the !Keep voters still haven't noticed the error on this page. Mztourist (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hilarity is fly specking as an argument. Stop picking flyshit out of pepper

I said that. And indeed, it was an appropriate response.

Fortunately, it is not up to you. Incessant repetition only exposes the weakness of your position. I WP:AGF, but enough already.
 * October 17, 2021 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller I wrote:

The Fuller discussion was very long and involved. Read it all if you are going to judge it

I note also that User:Dlthewave doesn't like my tone. He too chose not to inform mw on my talk page, even as he posted a laundry list of new allegations. I don't admmire him either.

There ought to be something like double jeopardy here. You keep trying to heap a second, third and fourth helpin onto dishes that have already been washed and put away

The critical difference here is that I did not take either of these folks to ANI excepting the mass deletion mentioned above.

I’ve been here repeatedly, unjustifiably and for months on end.

I tried not responding, and this discussion won’t end.

I firmly believe this is all nonsense. It should end. I also recognize that facts don’t matter to some of you. But they ought to. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried not responding Well obviously that's not true if we mean "in any venue" rather than "specifically at ANI". But also have you tried treating the complaints about your behavior as a sign that you should change how you act?  Because that would be a good way to make this stop. --JBL (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've often deplored Hijiri88's occasional tendency to go thermonuclear. But I've also seen some of the cruelties he's been subjected to. My sympathies tend to be more with the person getting ganged up on than with the gang. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 21:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume your talking about Thirteen and the many people who have voted to t-ban him. If so, I'm not a fan of people being ganged up on either, but in this case it seems to be more the result of him repeatedly antagonizing multiple people over two years then it is just the usual rando ANI mob. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm? No, I was referring to the tag team gang pestering Hijiri88 back then. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 14:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I’ve been deliberately avoiding posting in this thread for obvious reasons, but it seems like 13 and calvaryman seem to have a deep dispute that may need to be addressed separately from the “who called who a so-and-so” nonsense that started this. Dronebogus (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You know, while it was poor decision of Dronebogus to dive at you, it would help if you sought to change some of your methods. For starters, using sources deemed unreliable and listed at Reliable sources/Perennial sources (Find a Grave) after six discussions and dismissing qualms about that with "he is buried where he is buried. Find a grave is right" demonstrates either your inability to understand WP:Verify or unwillingness to adhere to sourcing policies. You've been editing for years and should know better. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thirteen left a note on my TP so here I am. Our interactions in the last two days are stellar examples of Thirteen’s revert, canvass and avoid meaningful discussion approach to disputes. Two days ago he made a number of additions to Saint Guinefort which I noticed on the WP:DOGS articles recent changes. Amongst his additions, he added four sources that I asses to be self-published from authors with no discernible subject matter expertise, so I removed those sources and everything uniquely cited to them and stated as much in my edit summary . Thirteen’s reaction was to revert me then canvass his ARS friends , not raising the issue with me on the article’s TP per WP:BRD. I could be wrong about the sources and would be happy to be proven so, but Thirteen needs to demonstrate their reliability, his citations include no publication details so it was up to me to search for them, unsuccessfully.
 * Now I have commenced the discussion about these sources here, Thirteen’s only defence of the sources is This is the same pattern of nothing responses I have received from him previously when discussing sources here and here.
 * As to the charges that I somehow harassed Thirteen out of WP:DOGS, some diffs would be helpful, such accusations without evidence are WP:PAs. I have looked at our combined contributions to WT:DOGS and can see only one interaction. Cavalryman (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think this comment from 7&6 regarding Cavalryman is acceptable either: . Mztourist (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The reason we keep coming back here is that the conduct 7&6=thirteen was warned about is continuing. Dronebogus, myself and others have provided examples of unprovoked inflammatory comments made after their recent final warning; addressing these new instances of the same issue is not double jeopardy. I can't speak for other editors but I'm not here to relitigate the last ANI (I didn't even support a tban after the sourcing error kerfuffle was resolved) or dig up dirt from long ago. Thirteen would be well advised to heed the warning and reevaluate the way they conduct themselves instead of trying to discredit those who commented here with ad hominem attacks. –dlthewave ☎ 03:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment 7&6 posted on my Talk page so here I am. It really seems that 7&6 is lashing out in all directions, blamestorming everyone else for their behavior, which further reinforces why a ban is necessary. I'll just respond briefly to one comment: "I note also that I thought this ANI had run its course, but Mztourist revived it. When he did so he  did not bother to inform me on my talk page.  A breach of basic due process, fairness and ANI etiquette." As anyone can see from looking above, the "Proposal: Topic ban 7&6=Thirteen from deletion related activities​" was initiated by Dlthewave on 13 November and I supported it on 14 November. Making a support comment at ANI does not require a notice and so all the outraged comments about my behavior are incorrect. This is yet another example of 7&6 playing fast and loose, too caught up in their own battleground rhetoric to observe the facts. Mztourist (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by creating this section, 13 is choosing to bludgeon— loudly —an argument that is puttering out towards no consensus. I had stopped giving a crap about whatever was going on besides occasionally checking back without interaction, but 13 clearly doesn’t want to drop the WP:STICK already. I understand why he wants this to end, but lashing out isn’t the way to do it. Dronebogus (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment A wonderful opportunity presents itself right now. I recommend that editors here take a look at the article Saint Guinefort and at what 13 vehemently regards as WP:RELIABLE sources. Are they? If YES, that is fine. If NO, T-BAN him for 6 months and stop stuffing around! <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 07:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have looked there and 7&6 is edit-warring to include obviously WP:SPS, further demonstrating why a ban is necessary. Mztourist (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no edit war here. There is a discussion about sources and links.  I await consensus there. Calling it an edit war does not make it so.  Apparently I am not permitted to discuss, and ought to be punished. <S>User:William Harris opines this is "a wondeful opportunity" for him to arrive at the conclusion he has supported before.  WP:BRD is being repealed. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 10:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Clear edit warring. Consensus is against you there. Mztourist (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "...for him to arrive at the conclusion he has supported before..." Explain yourself, 13. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 11:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User:William Harris You are right, and I was mistaken.  I struck it.  Sorry.
 * But it is neither edit warring nor anything unreasonable to discuss sources and external links on an article talk page. Your conclusion is still wrong.  It is an ex post facto argument.  It is a conclusion looking for a pretensive justification.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to see an explanation of how the new story presented above (I saw a request for help, posted it on the wrong page, my name signed perhaps automatically, and I saw the mistake and erased it.) gels with this posting (note particularly the final sentence, Wikipedia has a systemic language problem on this one, I think., not in my original comment) which was not immediately self-reverted; rather, I saw it almost a week later and naturally felt somewhat violated that my post had been copy-pasted with one extra sentence and another editor's signature added. The fact that 13 is apparently contriving counterfactual excuses for his misbehaviour from years ago, while also distorting the facts of his present disputes before immediately issuing insincere apologies for such "mistakes" once called out, is very concerning: this kind of behaviour, when it has kept happening over multiple years and is still ongoing, makes it impossible to assume good faith. Yes, if 13 issued me with such an apology and struck his false claims about me that might make me feel somewhat gratified in the short term (and yes, I am requesting that he do just that with regard to all of his above claims about me—everything between User:Hijiri88 has answered the call... and ...have IBANs with him. is either a lie or a misrepresentation). But even if his victims are satisfied with a retraction and an apology, the community should not keep letting him away with this kind of behaviour. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Gosh, what a truly splendid thread. Another great landmark achievement and surely a new high for Wikipedia. Drama board aficionados must be plump with pride at seeing how productive and relevant these exchanges are to the project. — Epipelagic (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your uncivil opinion, but if you have nothing relevant to add you don’t need to say it. Dronebogus (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind thanks. But that is what a civil comment looks like, and is the most relevant comment in the whole thread. — Epipelagic (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, but this "omnibus" is all about other users.
 * Do you believe that any of the warnings you've received have caused you to improve your behavior? ApLundell (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thirteen, in light of your comments directly below it seems appropriate to ask you to provide some evidence of things you have stated in this thread. You have written here of you and I:, elsewhere you wrote of me  , and I have . Per WP:AOHA, unfounded accusations [of harassment] may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly. Please provide some evidence to substantiate your accusations. Also, purely to satisfy my curiosity, can you define a ? Cavalryman (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC).

Close
I'm not seeing any consensus for anything, tbh. Heck, even Dragline knew when to stop. An administrator should step in & shut it down. Enough time (nearly 2 weeks) has passed. GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The question raised directly above your Close is probably not going to be answered by the subject, therefore I concur that it is probably time to bring an end to this epic saga. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 08:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to state on the record before the close/archive comes that I would prefer that whoever opens the inevitable next discussion simply link to my comments here rather than pinging me in. I naturally find interacting with this user (and other members of his "gang") quite upsetting and chilling, and (as an examination of my edit history in the last few weeks will attest) was extremely reluctant to come here at all. I've said my piece, and while I stand by it, I'd rather not be requested to repeatedly make myself a target. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hijiri88 came here of his own volition at the invitation of Cavalryman]. He had not been mentioned by anyone else at the time.  This inquiry was started by Dronebogus, not by ARS.  And not by me.  When he chose to intervene, he opened up his motives and history.  Particularly so when he could only offer a 2 1/2 year old incident, which has been explained. It was before all of these prior ANI's about me. In any event, Hijirii's note is misdirection and unjustified.  He jumped into the cauldron.
 * Now he wants to dredge up a lot of stuff and add his voice by saying I am a bad man. He has offered nothing after the last ANI.
 * I am sure someone will say I left a note on his talk page telling him of the discussion. That is true.  It was simply a courtesy, and would free up ANI to sanction him, if it decided that was in order, and to give him a meaningful opportunity to respond if he chose. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So you'll comment to needlessly continue an argument with Hijiri88 but you won't to answer a question about if the warnings have caused you to improve your behavior? Interesting. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't close as I've commented and taken action (especially blocking Dronebogus and warning Lightburst), but I think somebody needs to do something like this. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've considered closing it. But, I'm not an administrator & so perhaps I'm not qualified to. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support no action close. Yes, I still think 13 probably should get Tbanned at this point, but the only routes they can go from here are a) improving their behavior (doubtful but possible) b) ignoring AfD on their own terms (what I’m hoping will happen) or c) continue down their current path of vaguely disruptive behavior and eventually getting sanctioned. No need to beat a dead horse in this particular thread. Dronebogus (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: This has been here too long, its not healthly for anyone, and needs closing. If action was needed it should have been taken long, long, long ago.  I think the major actors have a pretty good idea what's going to get them into further trouble.  There's a real risk 13 will get themselves in trouble if they continue will article rescue, but they should be very careful if they choose to do so or they may get BAITed.  But this is unhealthy, draw a line, a clean slate, and close it.  I think the hope was people would exhaust themselves contributing to it (Like I've just donw), but as it near auto-close someone seems to pop-pup with another comment this I;ve just done (extending auto-close by 20 minutes). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

user:Persianprince99
User appears to have attempted to out user:User:LoriKnightKLE on Talk:Nick Carter (musician). The user in question was blocked for making a legal threat in the edit summary of their only edit, but there is nothing in that edit identifying the user, or mentioning any  professional or personal relationship with the Carters. Meters (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Meters The user used a self-identifying name and has public professional profiles available on sites, such as LinkedIn and news articles relating to their management work with Aaron Carter. nonetheless I will happily delete. Persianprince99 (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

while sometimes a fine line can be struck between outing and fixing WP:UPE, it isn't reasonable to attempt to expose someone without a good indicator of potential UPE. Upon closer inspection, I don't see any personally identifiable information in the post, or any wrongdoing on his behalf, although I may have missed something. Also,, it's a bad idea to report attempted outing on ANI instead of requesting oversight. ☢️Plutonical☢️ ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ  20:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Request to have all Wiki contributions blacklisted
After many years of making contributions to Wikipedia irregularly, I have had the most insane day in contact with one wiki user (a reverter) and two, I believe two volunteer editors, all that I assume work independently. I am deeply offended.

Therefore, I want, as much as possible, all contributions, which until today, I perceived as a honorable communal efforts, removed, that is as much as systemically possibly, and focus my efforts elsewhere. I understand the only way to do this is to be "blacklisted". So if you have the power, please do.Mrdnartdesign (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Once you click "Publish changes", the edit belongs to Wikipedia, as noted by the disclaimer below that button, "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." 331dot (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

331dot, thank you. OK. I don't know how disputes work, and I don't really know this organization. Are there good senior level people that can review today's activity, and if everything I dealt with was handed properly, can I be informed? If so, I'd be saddened and delete my account and go away, and then you do what you do with the contributions that I made. The key thing for me still is, how can this person be considered not notable, as was this revert received and dispute really handled properly? I feel like I have had three coordinated people on me, not listening, for whatever reasons.Mrdnartdesign (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I left some advise on your talk page, which might (or might not) be useful.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Very briefly: as a rule, if there is not a stand-alone article on a person, they should not be listed on an article about a town as a person from that town. If you want to argue to change that rule, you will have to do A LOT of reading about Wikipedia policies. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 21:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, do we have such specific policy? I only know this, but it is an essay. I am not at all a fan of notable residents lists (they often become span collections), but for many other lists we just use the notability criterion, which can be demonstrated by an existing article, but also can be demonstrated by a reference to reliable sources sufficient for writing an article. (I myself added several dozens redlinks to List of Mexican artists, I can (and possibly will) write an article in place of every redlink I added, and I will oppose indiscriminate removal). Do we have this codified somewhere?--Ymblanter (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a rule against redlinks on pages like List of Mexican artists when the person adding a name believes that an article should be written, though if there are too many redlinks a project-space list is preferred. There is far more of a tendency for random people to add "my science teacher" to cities, so the tendency of editors is to quickly remove that type of thing.  Regarding policy wording, WP:USCITIES was cited by a reverter, which says having an article is not the sole rationale for inclusion, since some people who might meet notability standards may not have an article, but it is a quick reference. If challenged, additions without their own article should be removed and discussed on the talk page of the city, until a consensus is reached. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 22:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see that this is indeed a guideline but about specifically US localities (which admittedly what the whole story was about).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, being a redlnk isn’t an automatic excluder. If there is RS supporting notability (s the OP claims below) then that should be sufficient. this seems to be a WP:V issue primarily. DeCausa (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, Mexican artists. This is the crazy thing I was experiencing. The Miller Co is all about her work as a top level art / design organizer and then collector famous as a key force in Pop art, and discovered Johns's Three Flags and artworks like that. I added references to a Santa Barbara mag feature, a New York Times obit (and then was told it was a "left-wing rag"). OK, fine, there are tens of other across the US. There's a profile on the Met museum site, and the National Gallery in Washington shows 80+ donated works, then there are hundreds of articles in proquest, and all over america for two big auctions that broke artist records in 1988 and 1991. It goes on and on, but she is considered by the 3 as not notable...! So when you know the field, that kicks out over 50% of all art people on wiki...Mrdnartdesign (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You may have a point (I’m not saying one way or the other) but Wikipedia works on references actually cited in the article rather than what you might know (which we call original research) which is not allowed to be used. Have you read Verifiability? DeCausa (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The first issue put forth was the person needed to have a specifically named wiki page. Well one named Elza Temary does, she was a Berlin silent film star. But it got reverted anyway. With Tremaine, I recall that I put the wiki link to the Miller Co., the first paragraph specifies her role and it is continuous. Then I  added refs around that, I recall, including one to Santa Barbara magazine-- a big article. Her time there really isn't so much on the internet, and then the NYT obit, which given its details I thought was enough plus all of the Miller Co work details, Picasso, Warhol, Mondrian, so many. I then offered to add more and showed links to a WP article, but I do wonder if any of the content was really looked at. It was like hitting a wall with no reason. I don't know, I approach unknown content differently.Mrdnartdesign (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , perhaps as a first step you would now actually respond to the requests (here, here) to disclose your connection to artdesign.com – and perhaps while you are at it also disclose any connection to R.J. Preece? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This issue has certainly changed direction since my last communication with the OP. The concern here is on the surface about whether the individual being added to the list merits inclusion, but it has evolved and is now more so about the edit warring, incivility, and conflict of interest issues that accompany it. Per WP:BRD, had the OP attempted to discuss the addition in the first place, rather than repeatedly reverting their preferred version and then adopting a battleground approach (e.g., calling other editors "arrogant" and "clearly unknowledgeable"), we might have reached this point without so much acrimony. That being said, given the OP's username (which presumably stands for "Meriden Art Design") and the links to the site they are adding, it would be helpful for them to stop skirting that issue and either confirm or deny the COI here. My opinion is that the site being added is not a reliable source and that the WP:REFSPAM concerns raise elsewhere are legitimate and need to be addressed. Finally, to the OP: you seem to take pride in being an expert on the topic. Many of the contributors at the other discussion and here are experts in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Given that you expect other editors to listen to you in one direction, wouldn't it make sense for you to return that in the other? Just some food for thought. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 23:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I prepared an answer and then another message came in and then I lost it. I'm going to do that offline now. As requested, I want everything as much as possible blacklisted. I'll prepare offline and post in a minute.Mrdnartdesign (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I said this in another place, yes I do work with artdesigncafe content. I specialize in the arts and that includes, among other things, meriden art design as indicated by the name. I specialize in several design histories. It's not a great mystery. It's a volunteer academic effort. So I come at this disputing "notability" and after years, it's now... oh... he's got a motive... blah blah... a spammer-- yeah, after I call out bad behavior. Then call me a spammer, delete everything you can that I've ever contributed and you will see important sections and pages missing, inline citations become a total mess, because not many people will contribute or know the specialism. Specialists that are interested will just look elsewhere, and that now is fine by me.

But this, whatever one thinks or whatever happens, Elza Temary is notable as is Tremaine, when any objective humanities eyes take a lookMrdnartdesign (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Not a reliable source? You were at Yale. I'm in contact with profs there... please blacklist.Mrdnartdesign (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Do not threaten editors with offline consequences for online actions. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 00:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that was not intended at all. Let me restate, "I'm not a reliable source? I'm in contact with art and design profs at the former school concerning the research. That's not a reliable source?" I understand he is now at another school in a different field. You must understand to be called "an unreliable source" is insulting here. I don't want to be around this. With my contributions under question, then just delete as much as you can because I, in this context, you should delete all contributions from "an unreliable source". I certainly would.Mrdnartdesign (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In this context, "unreliable source" does not mean "dishonest" or "untrue". You are telling what you know- which is original research. I'm sure you are being honest. Your personal relationships and knowledge are not what Wikipedia is here to discuss.. If there are independent sources that discuss what you know other than yourself, that is valid content. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. For example, if you looked at the Meriden Britannia Company page, it probably has a link among other notables, and on that page are probably, and I'm not kidding probably over 500 hard to find primary sources-- with many links to those micro-sources in a compilation for those generalists that are interested and links to exhibitions nowhere else, all hidden in history. I'll leave it here-- I wish I could delete the account and I wish everything I ever contributed was blacklisted. My efforts are best spent elsewhere.Mrdnartdesign (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I've had a conversation on this end and the wiki situation is more than it's worth on this end, and therefore there is a request for deletion of all links to the artdesigncafe site, and that none are able to be added in future. So there are two requests, if not above then this. I'm now permanently signing off. Please support my wishes. Thank you.Mrdnartdesign (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, by others, we welcome those able to contribute good content and if you feel you're able to do so we would like you to stay. This is especially if you're an expert. However there are some policies and guidelines you need to learn to be able to contribute successfully. In your case, it sounds like you may not understand our requirement for WP:Verifiability with WP:reliable sources. As has been said, this doesn't mean we think the information added without reliable sources must be wrong, or that the sources we don't consider reliable sources must be wrong. It's simply how we ensure it's right and that other editors can be confident it is. In addition, you also need to learn how to manage WP:conflict of interest which includes avoiding directly editing when you have such a COI and disclosing it when asking for help on areas where you have a COI. As for your requests, we don't delete accounts here.  You could request courtesy vanishing which if successful means your account will be renamed to a semi random name and so will appear in edit histories attached to your contribution as this. However your signature and references to you will remain the same. Note that courtesy vanishing is not always granted. And you should only do this if you intended to leave completely forever. You cannot just come back with a new account, if you do so the vanishing will generally be reversed.  As you've already been told, you cannot generally request your contributions are deleted, you've agreed to irrevocable release them under a free licence. For those 13 articles you created, if you are the only contributor of substantial content you may be able to request deletion under Db-author. Please note this too is basically a courtesy. It may be that a clear request here is enough to convince an admin to review all those 13 articles, I don't know. If not you will need to check each one, make sure you are the only contributor of substantial content and if you are tag it with the template.  As a final point you also cannot ask we don't link to your website. If your website is not considered a reliable source then most links on articles will be removed, but this is just because those links are unsuitable here. It isn't because of your request.  Nil Einne (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time for the comment above. This method of decision-making for content shown yesterday is not for me or others in my sphere, because respectfully, for the most part there wasn't a discussion of content; it was about procedures, and I'd argue, regarding some, power, in this system. That's fine, but there's a mismatch here. Assuming there is senior management, like in other content spheres, again the lead up to this page, I think should be reviewed, among the three players. If policies were followed, then fine, and if not, corrective action. Let it be known that a group here is taking the time to develop a new page for Tremaine after reviewing the case of notability. You could ask them, but I think they saw it was obvious. I encourage them in their own efforts.

For any of those that perceived bad faith or spam or comparable, I encourage you to do an aggressive takedown of contributions and links, and as before, with or without content knowledge or checking. With that thinking, that would be the right thing to do, right? Any links to artdesigncafe, as discussed last night, are no longer wanted. Unfortunately the links in, I've been told, cannot be blocked. Otherwise, as described above, the normal editing processes will weed out, case by case, which is truly not wanted. (Former mrdnartdesign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.152.70 (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no "senior management" to review anything. In fact, there's no management here at all. We are all volunteers on this site, so you can't get a manager to override community consensus. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a silly way to put it. The fact we're volunteers is true, but more importantly we are decentralized with no one contributor having more of a say than another regarding content. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was addressing the IP who specifically was looking for some kind of management authority to get what they wanted. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for comments above. In short, the penny... has finally... dropped. :-) I wish you all well. (Former mrdnartdesign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.152.70 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

RFPP backlog
WP:RFPP is that link. I can't keep watching that same LTA IP-jump at DC Universe ... User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 02:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism only account who has duplicated my user page
User:Object Replacement is a vandalism only account, this editor has been reported to the Vandalism Administrators page, however they have also copied my user page with this edit. I find this to be inappropriate as well as his vandalism.-- VViking Talk Edits 23:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Dubious cast additions by IP 2001:1C04:431F:5600
The IPv6 starting with prefix 2001:1C04:431F:5600 (7886:3FC6:61CB:5020, F0A7:D3B5:FDD8:9DAC, 447B:2C43:598D:C4CF, 91AE:2DD1:AE57:3DDA, F977:8584:4C05:AFF4 etc.) has been making dubious cast to Indian film articles en masse on a daily basis. I'm reverting them but the IP keeps returning back. Warnings are not helping becuase thier ID keeps changing. Therefore, I'm compelled to request a long-term range block here. Thanks and regards -- Ab207 (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by FOX52; intentionally ignore RfC consensus
This is behavioral issue of, initially we have disagreement whether we should put anything on native_name on Infobox military unit (specifically on Air Forces pages). He insist the we can not fill in that parameter, and I disagree with his opinion. Since there is no conclusion from discussion of just two editors, I opt to start RfC on October 2019. And we have input from other editors and finally, have consensus in the form of non-admin closure on November 2019, which states: ''"Allowed to be fill in There is consensus among editors that the native_name field should generally be permitted to be filled in as it adds useful and educational information, and displays it in a convenient summary form. It also assists in giving a keyword in the search for additional non-English sources." '' And I thought that this is the end and moved on, then pandemic happens and I took hiatus from editing WP.

During 2020-2021, FOX 52 intentionally ignore consensus result and remove contents of native_name on Infobox military unit on Air Forces pages. Affected pages are as follows: Afghan, Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarusia, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia&Herzegovina, Brunei, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Ivory Coast, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyz, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Netherlands, North Korea, North Macedonia, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Portugal, Qatar, Serbia, Singapore 1, Singapore 2, Slovak, South Korea, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Tajik, Turkmen, Vietnam.

During those edits, there are other editors who objected to his edit to remove native_name, such as (as shown here and here), but he is still continue with his edit to remove native_name. After I returned to editing WP, then I revert FOX 52 per consensus and restore native_name. However, after my edit, he still ignoring consensus, removing the content native_name and make excuses as shown here: Algeria, Malaysia, South Korea and Tunisia.

I then reach editor who put closure and confirm the meaning of the closure, in case of I missed anything on my understanding of the closure. But he pretty said that my understanding of the closure is correct. Then tried to talk to FOX 52 oh his talk page but the behavior persists. Reflect to his past edits, edit summaries and comments in his talk page, I have an impression that he never intend to follow consensus, keep making excuses and continue disruptive editing. I decided to post it here to get admin feedback on such behavioral issue. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Color me confused: if the parameter must not be used, why does it exist in the first place? (You'd think if there the consensus in its favor in 2019 had shifted, one could just, y'know, edit it out of the template.)  I'd be interested to see what FOX 52 says, and for him to point out the change in consensus stipulating that the parameter cannot be used. Beyond that, I don't understand Fox 52's objection that the information is otherwise mentioned in the article.  So what?  Infoboxes have information all the bloody time that can be found in the associated articles.  The purpose of infoboxes is not as a catchall for facts that aren't otherwise mentioned.   Ravenswing      11:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I second this as bizarre. The rationale behind the native_name parameter, from what I would guess, would be to ensure that a translation and the correct pronunciation of an article subject is provided; this is pretty standard-issue for infoboxes, cuts down on inaccessibility, and to be frank, I've encountered a number of infoboxes where I thought there to be a native_name parameter. We don't generally remove things in the vein of accessibility; I can't see the rationale behind this on face value.Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 14:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Frankly I didn't follow the debate to the end, but if the name gives accessibility then how is it to be displayed? I only changed them to Romanization per my edits Algeria, Malaysia, further don't see a parameter (native name) covering Motto(s) & March(s) South Korea - <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 16:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - the first edit you link to has the edit summary of "No for English Wikipedia Roman text should be used"; the second has "roman text only". It is not Wikipedia policy that romanised and transliterated text is used within articles or in infoboxes.
 * I think you may be confused. If, for example, the entire infobox was written in Arabic, this would be wrong. This is English Wikipedia; the bare bones of the article must rest on English.
 * However, this doesn't mean that English is allowed to be present. The bare bones of the article must be English, but we can provide foreign-language terminology to present an article's subject.
 * The |name, |unit_name, or otherwise, the lead |name parameter, is for what the article subject is referred to as  This isn't always going to be an English translation - for example, I edit a lot of Japan-related articles, many of which have transliterated titles, and not direct English translations.
 * The |native_name parameter is there to communicate - after the |name parameter - what the article's subject might be known as . This can be very useful for further reading and research - for example, the direct translation of furisode (振袖) is "swinging sleeves", or "long sleeves". That's an incredibly general term when translated to English. However, leaving the native language text in there - 振袖 - allows me to search for what I want in its native language. The |native_name parameter bridges the gaps that translation, and transliteration, to English naturally have. Not every language is a 1:1 comparison in style and structure, and so the |native_name parameter is information - meaning we can leave it in.
 * I don't know if I'm explaining this well, so let me write an example.
 * This is the infobox as it was on Algerian Air Force, before your edits:
 * This is fine. Because we've provided what the Algerian Air Force is known as in the English-speaking world - "Algerian Air Force" - we can then add the additional information of what it is called in both French and Arabic, as well as its Arabic transliteration.
 * You then changed it to this:
 * Which is still okay, but actively the additional information that was there before - thus making these articles a little bit worse. Transliterations are great for languages that don't use the Latin alphabet; but seeing what they look like in their native script is important too, as that's more helpful for later research. The French ought to have been left in there as well, as it was fine.
 * I hope this makes it clearer - I think you may have just gotten English Wikipedia's policies on what language to use twisted around. Thank you for your use of the lang and transl templates, by the way - always good to see accessibility on someone's mind.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 17:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OK fair enough - thank you the clarification. I'll leave to others fill in the native names - <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 18:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, So.. Non-roman script is allowed in infobox... Right? Not only on native_name, but also on motto, march, or other parameter that its content is using other language. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - so long as some explanation to its meaning is present - say, [motto in non-roman script] ([transliteration if applicable], "[meaning in English]") - then yes. As with all foreign-language content on Wikipedia, these should be in the correct templates, such as lang or transl. What order these go in is up to editor discretion, though I'd probably put transliteration first where present, before a foreign language term proper if its script isn't roman already, and then provide a translation in quotes.
 * Note that though references can be from non-English sources, neither lang or transl should be used inside a tag, as it messes with the CS1 and CS2 format. This applies, so far as I know, to all of Wikipedia's foreign language templates, as there are some specific to some languages - such as lang-zh, which provides more options for use of the Chinese language.
 * So long as non-roman text is marked up accurately, and so long as the correct context and explanation is provided for what a term, sentence or phrase is, means, or stands for, it shouldn't cause an issue. If you're ever unclear on something, I'd suggest visiting the WP:TEAHOUSE - editors there a lot more experienced than me would be more than willing to provide assistance.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 20:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's my understanding too. The reason I asked is related to this edit, whereas FOX 52's claimed that we can't put non-latin script on other parameter than native_name. Again, thank your for clarification. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So long as non-roman text is marked up accurately, and so long as the correct context and explanation is provided for what a term, sentence or phrase is, means, or stands for, it shouldn't cause an issue. If you're ever unclear on something, I'd suggest visiting the WP:TEAHOUSE - editors there a lot more experienced than me would be more than willing to provide assistance.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 20:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's my understanding too. The reason I asked is related to this edit, whereas FOX 52's claimed that we can't put non-latin script on other parameter than native_name. Again, thank your for clarification. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * FOX52 has also been ignoring a consensus on imagery at Republic of China Air Force, they keep trying to remove pictures of weaponry and replace them with computer generated images as well as completely remove images of indigenous weaponry with no replacement at all (generally using a misleading edit summary). This behavioral issue is not limited to native names in inboxes, it seems to be a part of all of their editing in the military aviation space. The last example of this was under two weeks ago when they claimed to be fixing a small error "141 is the total combine” but then theres changes to images which come out of left field. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Whelp I went to take another look and the plot thickens... Fox is the creator of the AGM-65 Maverick CGI image which they’ve been edit warring onto the page. I think a topic ban from military and aviation related pages is looking more and more appropriate. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hard to find an excuse for this edit in which all of the armament pictures were replaced by Fox’s choose images . Note that in this one an actual picture of an AGM-65 has been replaced with his CGI and the edit summary is "clean up the crammed non-notable text WP:WHENTABLE" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I dug all the way through the history to find when they first added it... April 2015... They added their preferred CGI as part of a negative 3k byte edit with the edit summary "overhaul update 2015 source(s)” which does not appear to mention adding imagery and critically there is no disclosure like “adding an image I made” or something along those lines. Note that ironically their next edit cites image overload "reduce clutter - image overload WP:IMAGEMOS - remve un-sourced text WP:PROVEIT WP:CBALL” as a reason to remove good pictures despite the fact that they just added two nearly useless low quality illustrations, this is a pattern that will be repeated with Fox apparently very invested in "image overload” by which they appear to mean the use of images other than their own. Since then they appear to have returned warred that specific imagery to the page a dozen times after its been removed, generally un-noted in the edit summary and mixed into a massive edit such as this example from 2019 . Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Parag Agrawal
I don't intend to come across as WP:FORUMSHOPPING but this is getting out of hand. There is almost nonstop vandalism across scores of IP ranges on Parag Agrawal due to the current event(s) associated with the subject. Semi-protection is needed ASAP. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Already done by . Amortias (T)(C) 17:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

SAMBLAman seemingly not here to build an encyclopedia


Most of this user’s edits seem to be either poorly written articles created for the sake of sophomoric humor (or edits in the same category), inflammatory political additions to articles (i.e. inserting “sexist” into multiple Japan-related articles like this one and labeling Kyle Rittenhouse a serial killer, which wouldn’t be accurate even if had been convicted since the proper term is likely spree killer) or outright vandalism. Dronebogus (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Regrettably I have to agree. While a few of their edits look like they might be constructive this editor seems to have no interest in following fundamental policies such as WP:NOR. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Either he needs to be banned or promoted to administrator. I'm not sure which.  Maybe ask nicely to stop all the jokes in mainspace and introduce him to the Category:Wikipedia humor pages where his energy can be harmlessly expended. Earnestly, he hasn't been blocked yet.  Try a warning before rushing to indef. Jehochman Talk 14:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * if all this user did was make a bad but inoffensive page about clown fetishism and then add a bunch of “lol clown porn” links here and there, then sure I’d do that. But some of their antics are clearly crossing the line into bad-faith trolling and vandalism, like this, which they received a warning for. Dronebogus (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That edit is justification for an indef. Since they received a warning and have shown insufficient self-awareness since then, I have applied the indef block. Jehochman Talk 14:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moral of this story: it’s all fun and games until someone uses the n-word. Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * the possibly that their username means “South American Man/boy Love Association man” should probably also have been considered. Dronebogus (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (nods unhappily at Dronebogus) That was my immediate takeaway, too.   Ravenswing      19:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Massive deletion of Woody Woodpecker films
user:Trainsandotherthings has taken the result of one AfD and justified removing 100+ Woody Woodpecker films, simply redirecting all of them. The first two I reviewed both had reliable references and claims to notability. I am not bonded to the subject but feel that this absolute massive deletion effort removes a lot of referenced content. It's not merged, not saved, and the history shows only a minute or two in-between redirects. Not enough to read/analyze each article. The user says "most" are not well referenced, but I am not a fan of tossing baby out with bathwater. The user will not self-revert and before I go back and revert 100+ redirects manually, I would ask an administrator to have a look. Thank-you, in advance. Ifnord (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a total waste of time. As I explained on my talk page, the vast majority of these articles utterly fail WP:N. I brought one of the articles in question to AfD before doing anything, and it closed with a clear consensus to redirect. To quote one user who posted at the AfD Articles for deletion/Puny Express "Like most WW cartoons, it has no stand-alone notability but redirects are cheap". Can you see why I was motivated to make redirects? The two examples this user brought up were actually the two I was not 100% sure about redirecting, the rest were very clear and obvious. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You know why there's only a minute or two between each redirect? Because almost all the articles were nothing but a plot summary, random notes like "Woody's neck was green in this cartoon" and nothing but 1 ref to an encyclopedia which covers all the Woody Woodpecker cartoons. Some were completely unreferenced. When there's that little, it's obvious there's not enough content present to support a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I'm being accused of not doing due diligence, feel free to review any of these diffs, all of which I stand by:           . Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm with Trainsandotherthings on this one. While redirecting all of them might have been a biy excessive, the articles in question are very poorly sourced, and don't fit the General notability guideline. Per WP:NOTE The man from Gianyar (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I will say that the two examples identified initially were edge cases (and that's why I left them for last, and why they were the first two examples Ifnord found). They are not typical of the remainder. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This really needs to go to AfD if it's contested, and it appears that this is the case. A WP:BEFORE check should be done on each of the films that are being redirected; it's often better to expand poorly sourced articles that might wind up having SIGCOV rather than redirecting them on sight. I understand the desire to create redirects if there's poor sourcing, but if this is rapidly happening, this can make it a bit more difficult to undo in the case that there wasn't a clear community consensus in favor of mass redirects. In general, before making lots of changes across a great number of pages that are tedious to undo, a consensus should be reached before doing so. There is, of course, the risk that the AfD will turn into a WP:CLUSTERFUCK with over 100 articles if people aren't careful about doing a WP:BEFORE on each one, but it's the proper way to do this procedurally. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * From a quick sampling, I'd say that Trainsandotherthings suggestion that the articles 'utterly fail WP:N' looks plausible. Making this look like a content dispute to me, and not a subject for ANI. There are several Dispute resolution options available, and perhaps Ifnord should try one: I'd suggest that rather than expecting people to look through the whole lot, Ifnord selects the best-sourced examples, and explains how they meet notability requirements. I'd also suggest that if the cartoons are actually individually notable, the relevant article has to explain why - what was the critical reception etc - and then cut back the ridiculously over-detailed plot sections to a short single-paragraph summary. That, or copy them (properly attributed) to Wikia or something, where fancruft belongs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As an appreciator of animation of that time period, I'm going to also have to agree that these redirects by Trains are appropriate, most of these shorts fail notability. That's not to say that a list of WW shorts, following the general principles of MOS:FILM/MOS:TV for short premises and adding any interesting notes to that "episode list". A few should probably be kept as articles if they have some type of production section with sources (eg The Barber of Seville (1944 film)) but the fact the plot is almost half the article content for a 7 minute short is extremely problematic per WP:NOT#PLOT. And as simply doing redirects rather than deletion that can be undone w/o admin intervention, this is not really an ANI issue, as mentioned above. There should be discussion going forward before back and forth reversion happens. --M asem (t) 03:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Reminder to the OP that WP:BLARs work similarly to WP:PRODs in that you can contest them. There is no need to "have an admin take a look"; if you truly think that any of the BLARs were wrong, then revert them yourself. Mlb96 (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * After reviewing several articles, there a few WW entries that could probably be deleted. However, having an appreciation for classic animation, quite a few are classics that deserve individual entries. Yes, the plots need some trimming and some articles need better sourcing. Rather than outright deleting a wealth of information by redirecting, tag the article for improvement and start making them. Also, Trainsandotherthings seriously failed the WP:FAIT test. Redirecting on a whim is lazy. And as one user stated, they are cheap.Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * My overwhelming experience with this sort of complaint is that the complainant has no genuine policy ground upon which to object other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT; if there were actual sourcing on individual articles sufficient to meet the GNG, there wouldn't be a problem. Redirecting rather than going for AfDs or PRODs is the better option, in that if anyone does want to do the work to source the articles, it's easy to do. It certainly is no lazier than a vague mass objection because of, well, hrm, reasons.  Instead of filing ANI complaints, or POINTy reactions such as mass reverts, I'd be interested in what work Ifnord has done -- or proposes to do -- to adequately source these articles.    Ravenswing      03:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thus far, User:Ifnord has been totally unwilling to discuss the issue further after their initial post here, though I can see they've been active on wiki as recently as half an hour ago. I'm obviously biased, but I think this should be closed with no action other than a reminder to Ifnord not to bring content disputes to ANI. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My original point was that 100+ articles were deleted by redirection in one fell swoop, minutes apart. When I looked at the first two, they were well sourced with claims to notability established. Other editors who have reviewed those two articles concur. My direct request to self-revert the mass deletion by Trainsandotherthings was refused. So, my options appeared to be either revert manually 100+ deletions (which may have appeared disruptive) or to seek more opinion. I am not bonded to the subject in any way; if the claim that every other article, deleted minutes apart, had the appropriate WP:BEFORE performed, then I would accept it and consider the matter closed unless a more concerned editor steps in. Ifnord (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to your continued use of the word "delete". Multiple editors have pointed out to you that it is wrong to say I am "deleting" articles, so please stop using that language. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I object to your limiting my vocabulary in a discussion. Multiple editors have agreed that deletion by redirection is correct, the content is no longer available to the reader. Ifnord (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly you aren't interested in actually discussing the issue, or the comments that have been made in support of my actions by multiple users, including at least one admin (though you've also been told this never should have been brought to ANI in the first place). You've made zero arguments to support the notability of the vast majority of the articles I redirected. I have not objected to you reverting my redirects on a few articles that actually have some signs of possible notability, bur you assume that just because two of them you reverted were potentially notable, all of my redirects are bad and I must revert them all. I would object to that premise whether it was 1 redirect I'd made, or 100. With only a few exceptions, which you've already reverted, these were nothing more than giant plot summaries, and a few minute details. Wikipedia is not a mirror of iMDB, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. If you had actually done your research before making this ANI thread, you'd know that these articles were created en masse by a user who's been banned for socking and copyvio, which puts all of their article creations under scrutiny. You would also know that, per Masem's comments, these all violated WP:NOTPLOT. Nothing has been deleted, despite your POINTy insistence on using that term. If someone can actually demonstrate notability for anything I've redirected, I have no objections to them reverting my actions. But you've failed to make any case for the notability of the articles as a whole, or any of them individually, other than the same two examples you repeatedly trot out again and again, which I have already admitted were mistakes on my part. Either provide some rationale that the articles I redirected have notability, or drop the stick. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no "stick", with or without a point. I have made my point; with all due respect to User:Ravenswing, it's not that WP:IDONTLIKEIT. While patrolling recent changes and finding 100+ articles were redirected without content merging, I checked the first two and found both had valid references and claims to notability. I pointed this out to the user, who refused any self-reverts. Rather than appear disruptive, I bring this for another set of eyes. I would like to see those opinions. Ifnord (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll bite. Which two?   Ravenswing      00:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ravenswing, the first two checked were The Barber of Seville (1944 film) and Ace in the Hole (1942 film), see diff. TSventon (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * https://woodywoodpecker.fandom.com/wiki/The_Woody_Woodpecker_Wiki does exist. No active administrators.  Does anyone want to adopt it, then use the import function only administrators have to important over all these articles?  Is there a way for every single article that got turned into a redirect to be put into a category called Category:Woody Woodpecker Redirects so that all of them could be grabbed at once at Special:Export?   D r e a m Focus  00:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally, I think redirecting a set of articles isn't a big problem as long as individual films can still be considered on their merits. For example, The Dizzy Acrobat claims an Academy Award nomination, so perhaps some extra care should go into determining whether we should have a standalone article. Given that there has been no AFD on that article, anyone should feel free to find sources and expand it to show it should be treated standalone. —Kusma (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In any case, if the redirects stick, the self-links at Woody Woodpecker filmography should be removed, they are very unintuitive for readers (and annoying). —Kusma (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd have removed them myself if my actions here weren't under dispute. An IP mass undid many of my redirects, some of which were returned to redirects again by other users, while others are now articles again. In the interest of not escalating this further, I have not reverted any restorations of the articles, not by Ifnord, or by anyone else (I actually agree that the two examples Ifnord identified have a plausible claim to notability). I also will not object if Kusma or anyone else restores The Dizzy Acrobat, if it was in fact nominated for an Academy Award. I have opened up a number of AfDs on some of the restored articles which are really lacking in notability, to gain consensus before acting further. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to work with Ifnord to find legit sources to back up some of these articles. It is unfortunate that more has not been published on the series, as it is quite notable. Many films deserve their own pages, but to Trainsandotherthings's point, they need some serious work (but the blanket redirect was a bit rash). I do not mind revising the self-links once a consensus has been reached. My thinking is to restore anything prior to 1955's The Tree Medic, as the series lacks any real notability after that. Convict Concerto deserves to stay based on the fact it is part of a series of notable cartoons to feature Franz Liszt's "Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2" (like The Cat Concerto and Rhapsody Rabbit). Thoughts? I am glad to put in much more time, frankly, than the series probably deserves. Thoughts?Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I have no objection to people restoring any of the redirected articles, provided they are willing to improve them and demonstrate notability. Some are just clearly not notable enough for standalone articles, however. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Some? I have not said much as I do not think my original point was addressed. The content of all those articles are no longer available to the reader, by the actions of one editor. To say some of these 100+ articles are non-notable puts the obligation on others to look through them one by one. I only did the first two I saw, found them entirely notable and referenced, and thought that the editor, once aware, would self-revert and then move cautiously to perform a WP:BEFORE. A good faith commitment from the user to look through each one and return only those which are marginal and then either WP:PROD them or AfD them, would also be acceptable. Any article which is simply, "Woody has a green neck," can be left as redirects. I am neither looking for sanctions nor a debate on the notability of a plethora of articles on which I am not an expert. I am looking for conformity to WP:FAIT and not my perception of, "I deleted over a hundred articles, most are bad - you go through look at them all and return the ones that are good." Ifnord (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If I have to take every last one of these articles to AfD to get you to leave me alone, I will, mark my words. I've already done so for 4 of them. I don't understand why you're incapable of looking at a single one of the dozen examples I gave, or listening to any of the comments by other editors that supported my actions. I don't even care that much about the subject matter, but you've wasted enough of my time that I will make sure all of the non-notable cartoon articles are taken to AfD, one by one, until every last one of them is either a redirect, or closed as keep (but that won't happen, because the vast majority are NOT NOTABLE). And maybe then you'll leave me alone and allow me to actually do something productive for a change. People have even offered to work with you to improve the articles, but you don't care about that, all you care about is demanding I revert everything because you don't like it. Your "original point" has been thoroughly refuted by numerous other editors, though you've ignored that in favor of repeating the same argument over and over again. I will summarize for you:
 * This is a content dispute, not appropriate for ANI
 * Blanks and redirects can be undone by anyone, it does not require an admin to get involved
 * You've made no attempt to demonstrate the notability of any articles other than the original two that even now you still obsess over
 * The general consensus of editors here is that my actions were appropriate, and these short cartoons are not notable enough for standalone articles
 * Redirects are not the same as deletion, and again, no admin involvement is necessary to undo them
 * I already said that the two examples you identified were the last two I converted, that I was not 100% sure about them, that they are not representative of the remainder of the articles, and that I have no objections to them being reverted. I'm repeating it again here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to add my unasked for opinion, it's pretty rare that a cartoon short is notable enough to warrant a stand alone article. So redirecting them is fine IMO. If there's any blame to be place it should be on the person who mass created the articles without considering notability. There's zero point in clogging up AfD with a bunch of articles that are just going to be deleted. That said, there's still talk pages to redirects where people can post references and have the ones that are notable restored. My guess is that the number of articles that will be is extremely small, but people are free to research it and restore the articles that deserve to be. The burden to do so isn't on the person who created the redirects though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

IF an AfD were held for each of those films, or held for all of them at once? I probably would've opted to keep. Always was a fan of old animation. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is not an acceptable reason to vote keep. In general, if you don't have anything substantive to add to AfDs, it's much better not to vote at all than to add a vote which will in the end be discounted anyway but until then usually only serves to make the AfD discussion worse, not better. Fram (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It might be true that most of the articles are not notable so not worth keeping - and therefore should be redirected or deleted. But "most" is not "all", and the onus is on the person doing the redirecting to check. Based on the discussion here, Trainsandotherthings seems to have the attitude that the onus is on other editors to sift through their edits in order to identify and rescue any articles that they incorrectly redirected, and that is clearly wrong. On the flipside, since these are redirects and not deletions, there's no need to have an AfD discussion about any subjects that clearly fail WP:N - they can be dealt with via redirects or, if no redirect is appropriate, via WP:PROD. But I think it's clear that at least some of the redirects Trainsandotherthings has performed should not have been done, and our conventional response to an erroneous bulk action is to undo it, and ask the editor to be more careful. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  11:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is good housecleaning activity, redirecting non-notable cartoons to the relevant filmography page. Trainsandotherthings is doing good work here. Binksternet (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Only if all the articles he's redirecting are genuinely non-notable. Evidently that isn't the case, and it's his responsibility to check each edit he makes and not pass the buck onto others to go through his contributions and correct his errors. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  11:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that regardless of whether a good article could be written on a particular topic (i.e., it "is notable") redirecting an unsourced stub is almost always a good idea. (And I say that as someone who once prematurely published an unsourced stub, had it speedied by a sock of a site-banned editor, and then when I tried to undo it along with a bunch of other needless deletions, and was then told by a wiki-friend of mine "Yeah, I woulda deleted that one too.") Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I am going to take a crack at restoring a few entries and will tag them appropriately. Just have to dig for some better sources, especially for the notable ones.Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk)
 * Trainsandotherthings - it would be most appreciated if you would cease doing the following while working on this: 1) stop slapping a WP:DP tag on the article the second the article has been reverted, sourced and edited. 2) be cognizant of hastily reverting articles that have been reverted, sourced and cleaned up if something was accidentally removed. We understand the inherent laziness in your edits. It is easier to simply redirect or nominate an article for deletion rather than actually take the time to perform a little research in an effort to retain articles and give them legitimacy. And the practice is outright insulting to those who look to improve Wiki. It creates unnecessary extra work and negates any effort being made to preserve the institution information contained in these pages. Thank you for your understanding during this project. Hopefully, we can salvage some of these pages and undo the damage inflicted.Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of these are not notable. Just because you are personally attached to them does not mean they are immune from processes such as AfD. It is you who is lazily voting keep without doing any sort of actual check for sources, something I have done before each and every AfD nomination.


 * And I take umbrage to your claims that I am "insulting those who look to improve wiki". You can piss off with that language, alright? I've written almost 30 articles, made multiple GAs and DYKs, and care a great deal about improving the encyclopedia. Some things are just not fit for inclusion, which is why we have notability guidelines. I'm sick and tired of dealing with this nonsense, fighting with editors who demand things be retained without providing any real rationale beyond "I like it". You know what? You win. I won't nominate any more of these ridiculous articles for AfD, redirect them, or anything else. It's a massive waste of my time and has ruined my energy to actually work on expanding content. Just leave me alone. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I have been editing since 2004. Your point? Calm down, take a breather, walk around the block a few times. Review all aspects of WP:EQ, WP:AVOIDABUSE and WP:BULLY as well as WP:AGF or you risk being blocked. Temper your heated responses. Many of us are industry professionals who are working towards a greater good. Take the time to do the research as we are and you will find that many of these are quite notable, even if they are lacking 300 different publications like the Tom and Jerry and Looney Tunes series'. Cheers... Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW - you do good work. Like you, I have a fondness for railways and appreciate the edits you have made to corresponding articles. In time, you will learn to be more rational in certain edit decisions and properly harness that energy. I wish you well. Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I admit that my last reply was less than civil, and for that I do owe you an apology. I in fact walked away from my computer after making that comment. That said, I do not appreciate the condescending tone that you're taking towards me. Did I fail to live up to AGF in my last reply? Yes, I did, and I make no excuses for that. But so did you, in accusing me of being lazy and intentionally damaging the encyclopedia, and again in saying that I'm acting irrationally. Do you understand that nobody likes being called lazy or damaging? And the implicit threat of "you risk being blocked" is not helpful either. I am frustrated because I have heard lots of "these are notable" but very little demonstration of that notability or examples of sources, with a few exceptions. For example, I did not contest your restoration of Wet Blanket Policy, though your edit summary "article restored per admin discussion" is misleading at best.
 * In general, I don't want to litigate this topic anymore. I'm not going to make any more redirects or open any further AfDs on these articles. If anything, this has been a lesson to me that getting involved in ANI disputes totally destroys one's motivation to contribute content to Wikipedia. I'm going back to my corner of the encyclopedia now, fighting here does no one any good. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it needs to be borne in mind by people of my generation and younger (and possibly a bit older, but I don't know how much older) that "films" here can be somewhat misleading, as nowadays it implies standalone feature films; but the modern-day equivalent of the Woody Woodpecker "film series" would be a television series, and these individual "films" would be (SHORT) episodes of said television series, so there's no assumption that every individual entry in the series merits a standalone article (episodes of some TV series have articles, but most do not). Moreover, several of these articles were largely unsourced stubs, which if they were submitted at AFC today would likely be rejected. Given this, I think the burden should be on those arguing to keep the standalone articles to rewrite them one at a time with better sourcing. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But I also of the opinion that many films in, say, the Tom and Jerry, Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies and Disney short canon series' do not warrant their own articles because they generally fail WP:NFO. Yes, they are shoe-ins via WP:NFSOURCES because there are an endless wealth of published sources by film experts and fans alike, regardless if their sources are fact-checked. In the cases of lesser series' produced by Walter Lantz Productions and Terrytoons, there is just as much verifiable research performed but not necessarily published in book format because it is not cost-efficient to do so. The target audience is more niche. This is a shame and makes very legit sources like Cartoon Research, hosted by published author and industry professional Jerry Beck, seem of lesser importance. Published research that loses legitimacy because it is under the guise of a blog. It is unfortunate because the sources are not being considered. Just because something is over-published does not make it significant, even if it part of a significant series. Cases in point: Love Me, Love My Mouse is hardly significant. Filet Meow, Surf-Bored Cat and most of the Chuck Jones T&J entries lack a single source, have overlong plots, and would make good candidates for redirection. Perhaps T&J needs to be reassessed. This is something Trainsandotherthings could spend his time on. Just a thought.Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * TAOT has said that they are disinterested in continuing this above. I think this is a good time to drop the dispute and return to the normal corners everyone prefers. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 04:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Very much preferred. Now we need Binksternet to stop issuing [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wk3v78k23tnsa&oldid=1057602739#November_2021 block threats] while we work on improving these articles.Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Binksternet did not threaten you with a block. All single-issue warnings and level4 warnings come with that message. It means that administrative action may be taken if the behavior continues, with one of the options being a block. I have no comment on the merits of the template. However, I find your mass reversion to the previous state of various redirected articles to be at least somewhat disruptive, and the onus is on you to provide sources with your reverts, as you revert them; not later.  Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 01:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I might need to enroll in Wiki Editor 10-Step Recovery Program after this is over. Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Venting on an article talk page rather than a personal talk page.
, has posted a personal vent against me on the Talk:Rodent page rather than on my personal talk page. I tried to remove it and explained that it is not the appropriate place but they reverted and threatened to have me blocked. They cited WP:TALKO which states "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." Which I never did. I would like the administrators to weigh in on this. LittleJerry (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Talkpages aren't shrines for off-topic gripes or personal attacks - such material may be removed in its entirety. I've done that.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Acroterion Can you explain why this belongs on ANI? Invasive Spices (talk) 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A loaded question for the person who responded at ANI? It must be Monday. I can't speak for LittleJerry, but given that you were citing arbitration proceedings and mentioning blocks in an argument about framed and frameless images on a talkpage unrelated to the article concerned, I'm thinking LJ thought it was a behavioral issue appropriate for ANI.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A question for the admin who thought this was appropriate for ANI. If this does not belong here I am very much under the impression it must be closed. I do not think this is tractable here. (I am loathe to feed this at all but: That summary is not at all accurate. I would need to revert, and that was provided as context. Why use Talk:? So I only need to revert once, after discussion. Why handle it? So it does not balloon onto even more pages. I think this is all the normal way to do things. In any case this is boring here and relevant on the Talk: page of the article where the relevant edit occurred.) Invasive Spices (talk) 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You could stop posting and let it archive, but short of that, I'll close it.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Fedepip's unexplained cosmetic edits


Almost all of the user's edits are purely cosmetic. I've asked them on their talk page the purpose of their edits and they've removed it without any explanation. Kleinpecan (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is another sock puppet of User:יניב הורון. They make accounts that farm out 500 useless edits removing blank lines from articles to get extended confirmed status, then immediately jump into disrupting israel/palestine articles. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks; yeah, I guessed that they likely were trying to game extended-confirmed. (I wish I had as much patience as the clowns who spend months and years making sockpuppets to push their POV on a website ...) Kleinpecan (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, some of their more recent edits are constructive and not cosmetic: 1, 2, 3, all from the most recent 30 hours. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

LTA evasion


So, not so long ago I reported a sockpuppet / IP hopper for disruptive editing. He has now returned (a SPI report was also made a few days ago ).

Like the previous IPs, these are also located in Istanbul, and edit in the same areas. Araxes58 attempted to re-add the exact same sort of infobox change at the House of Hannover page which one of Artaxius' known sock IPs also tried to add. Moreover, both of these IPs (176.216.75.134 and 176.216.41.1) heavily edit in the List of Iranian dynasties and countries.

They have also attempted to remove the same kind of info and once again make the same infobox change in Arsacid dynasty of Armenia. EDIT: Two new users with Turkish names also randomly just appeared and started editing the same articles. This can't be a coincidence? EDIT2: No it isn't, as ÖLÜMLÜHAYATYAÖLECENYAKALACAN has already started implementing the same infoboxes as the previous socks (compare ) and. He also attempted to sneak the anachronistic Armenian alphabet in the Orontid dynasty, also previously attempted by the IP sock.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

If suspected sockpuppetry is the issue, and you've reported it to SPI, I think you should just sit tight instead of putting it on WP:ANI (And if they're not on the SPI report, you should comment there to let them know)  ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ  14:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the report is here and nicely formatted with all the evidence, I think we can just deal with it.Jehochman Talk 14:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the three possible sock accounts for their own bad behaviors. I'll leave this open so a checkuser can do a search for any additional sleeper socks. Jehochman Talk 14:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * - there is already a CU request at the SPI, please don't make duplicate requests. Furthermore, checkusers will not connect an account with an IP address. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Two IP user repeatedly adding uncited materials in many BLP articles
2001:4451:A0E:9C00:954:534B:CE48:4C3C and 2001:4451:A0E:9C00:E959:A2B0:734E:4507 both IPs repeatedly adding uncited materials in BLP articles, and all the pages they edited were the same also. A possible one user. Anyone? — It's Ctrlwiki  • talk  •  13:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've done a short block on both to stop them because I see you're having to revert all their edits. They appear to be doing some sneaky vandalism, such as mislabeling BBC and ABC as the networks for various shows. Jehochman Talk 15:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * thankyou— It's Ctrlwiki  • talk  •  16:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do the rest of the edits in the /64 range also need to be reverted, or are they OK? → Special:Contributions/2001:4451:A0E:9C00:0:0:0:0/64 192.76.8.84 (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * that user does not exist— It's Ctrlwiki  • talk  •  00:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Page hijacked, and renamed, unsure how to restore back now that there is a redirect in the way. Darcey Croft hijacked Dobrná article
Apologies all. Someone will need to advise what is the best way to resolve this issue. At some point user Boriumiv created a sandbox article for non-notable midwife. They then changed the content of the Dobrna article to Darcey Croft, and then changed the name of the article to Darcey. This has then been sat like that for a couple of years. I wanted to restore the content / page etc but a new Dobrna page has been set-up as a redirect so unable to switch / replace without losing the edit history and all that. Anyway - I hope someone can help tidy up the mess I started to tidy up. Koncorde (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, I may have made things worse. I'll let someone else sort it out, only because I'm not sure enough of what should be done. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I decided to put things back the way they were before I deleted the page and its Talk page. So, what we have now is an empty article page (I removed the speedy tag) and a Talk page that is a redirect.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I filed a technical request. Feel free to modify or add what I missed to it. M.Bitton (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks all, looks like someone is tidying it up properly now. Koncorde (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

What have I (un)done ?
Just for my further education, what recent edit did I just (Bell (surname)) revert? Doug butler (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You undid someone's promotional spam clickbait advertisement (presumably) that had an external link disguised (or attempted to be disguised) as a wikilink to a Wikipedia article. Well done! ;) 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:BDD5:3580:625A:3321 (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , you correctly reverted an inappropriate external link that displayed as . Disambiguation pages about a common surname should only list notable people with Wikipedia biographies. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I knew it was not legit, but without clicking on it (not smart) didn't know implications Doug butler (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack by user User:Coldstreamer20
User:Coldstreamer20 asked me last night why I had moved 7th Signals Group (British Army). I answered him today at lunch and explained my reasons and let him know that he may revert the move if he feels I erred. This night he wrote me on my talk page and I answered him 9 minutes later. I explained that my reason for moving articles was that he had already moved some articles; and I made clear that I had understood his reasoning and that "I won't move any other page". This is what he asked of me and I made it clear that this is ok with me. Coldstreamer20 then wrote two more entries at Talk:7th Signals Group (British Army) and, which he followed 1 minute later (!) with this post on his talkpage: Noclador is driving me crazy!. He tagged @Dormskirk and @Rosguill and claimed "I've tried, but can't seem to get through to @Noclador. It seems for some reason he wants to change EVERY SINGLE British Army unit RIGHT NOW." He continued with "Please talk to him and calm him down, because he's driving me crazy". Not only did Coldstreamer20 ignore my answer on my talkpage, he proceeded to write a post, which grossly misrepresents my behaviour and paints me as unreasonable and agitated. He then tagged two other editors and asked them to go after me. I find Coldstreamer20's behaviour grossly in bad faith, very unprofessional, and his misrepresentation of our interaction and of me dishonest and insulting. noclador (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: after the above post @User:Coldstreamer20 apologized to me on my talkpage. With his apology this topic is closed for me. Best regards, noclador (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Revoke TPA for 50.202.176.119?
Hello, administrators…

I would like to report misusage of 50.202.176.119’s talk page. The IP has placed multiple obscenities on his talk page and links to adult websites. Although I reverted it, I don’t know whether or not I should blank the page since it contains many old warnings and I don’t want to violate WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. See this revision for more evidence. Thank you for your time. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — S ANDBOXES  — L OGS  — 17:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Spamming user talk pages
is spamming apparently random User Talk pages with requests to update a specific article. At this stage, the behaviour seems to be a purely disruptive single-purpose account.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This user had made roughly 40 requests in a span of one day on user's talk pages to expand/copyedit the article Akane Yamaguchi. These are the only edits this user has made, besides creating their user and talk page. Their choice in which users they reach out to is seemingly random, see 's response here. Most of these posts have been reverted by, apart from Blythwood (who expressed confusion), (who politely declined),  (who left it unanswered),  (who spent time giving genuine advice), and  (who gave approval). Blythwood gave a warning at UTC 3:23, and there has been no more requests from the user since.  Panini! 🥪 15:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Haiyenslna.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

(Un)disclosed paid editing
Elizachan16 has been editing Schneider Electric and Jean-Pascal Tricoire for over two years now. They have repeatedly added content that is clearly promotional in nature, and, after asking them to disclose whether they are being paid for their edits, have admitted to being paid on behalf on Schneider Electric. What concerns me is:
 * 1) They went 2+ years without disclosing their affiliation.
 * 2) They removed the advertising content template, with no consensus, on two occasions.

Therefore, I think that they should be blocked. --Wartops (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely pageblocked Elizachan16 from editing Schneider Electric and Jean-Pascal Tricoire for an ongoing pattern of promotional editing going back 2-1/2 years. The paid editing disclosure has now been made and the editor can make neutral, well-referenced edit requests on the article talk pages. Let's assume good faith that this editor was unaware of the required paid contribution disclosure until now, and that they will now comply with our guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest. This is a major multinational corporation with a history going back nearly 200 years, and I hope that this editor can help improve encyclopedic coverage of this company and its CEO without any further promotionalism. Cullen328 (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive Conduct
I am a new user to Wikipedia with a short edit count. I have recently contributed to countless deletion nominations and have had several articles I created both reviewed and approved by admins to improve the articlespace. Upon nominating a recent page for deletion, a user (User:Spinningspark) portrayed disruptive, unproductive behavior without provocation as a direct response to my status as a new Wiki user and the deletion process (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1057946044). The deletion process should be allowed to be completed without any disruption, intimidation, or personal attacks from users who may be opposed to it. The nomination process pertains to Pamela Rai Menges, created by User:Djm-leighpark. Multi7001 (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * that's not, even remotely, a personal attack. It's nothing like a personal attack. Please read WP:AVOIDYOU and understand how serious your misunderstanding of the policy is here. It's a response to this series of edits to the deletion nomination made after replies were already posted to the discussion - the main reason your previous nomination for that article failed to reach consensus. You simply need to not do that. You can draft outside of WP: space if you need to, but once you've submitted the nomination and someone has !voted, DO NOT MAKE CHANGES TO THE NOMINATION. You are verging on WP:CIR territory here. VQuakr (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ETA - you've been around for half a year and racked up over a thousand live edits. We're all still learning, but "I'm brand new here" is an excuse you should sunset. VQuakr (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not notice the other user in favor of deletion, as I was likely making those last edits at that same time. But I will not make any further edits to the nomination page given that the first user has already given input. If the impolite remark is not classified as a form of disruption or personal attack, then the ANI discussion can conclude. Thank you! Multi7001 (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Spinningspark's comment wasn't even impolite. Your decision to post here shows such remarkably poor judgement; I would definitely support a WP:BOOMERANG block if you ever pull something like this again. Yes hopefully someone uninvolved will hat this soon and you've learned something. VQuakr (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Boring nationalist edit-warring


Essentially all of this IP's edits are related to nationalist POV-pushing concerning Serbia / Kosovo; can someone do something about it? --JBL (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * They've been inactive for 12 hours, and one of their two most recent mainspace edits appears to have been constructive and is still live. It could very well be a variety of people in the same geographic locale.  Unless there is active, persistent or severe disruption, it's not all that helpful to block IPs. Jehochman Talk 17:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking something similar. They blanked their talk page, and since their controversial edits died down I think it's a sign of submission. It's noteworthy to note that their most recent edits after the edit war are still focused primarily in the same field, but until more major problems persist (like another edit war) banning isn't necessary. I would propose a topic ban, though (can you topic ban an IP user?) only if there's a future issue. Panini! 🥪 17:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted most of his edits as they appear to be unconstructive, I do not know what should become of him however, (i'm just a recent changes patroller, just for the information). -- Internet Scavenger 89   — Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nationalist editors are rarely boring. But, 'tis good you've reverted his mess. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, just wanted to find some way to help ig.--InternetScavenger89 (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC) -- Internet Scavenger 89


 * He's Reverting my reverts! Somebody please help me! I don't want to Edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetScavenger89 (talk • contribs)
 * If this IP were a registered editor, I think they would be alerted to WP:ARBEE by now. We might already have blocked them for this personal attack: you are a joke with imbecile and laughable anti-serb pov pushing bias. They were referring to User:JayBeeEll. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have given him a warning and a final revert warning of his edits. I have no other power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetScavenger89 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I reported the IP to WP:AN3, that might be a more appropriate page. Thank you. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — S ANDBOXES  — L OGS  — 17:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, i will continue recent changes patrolling. I am sorry for the trouble i may have caused, and i ask for y'alls forgivness. InternetScavenger89 (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC) -- Internet Scavenger 89.
 * I will also work on signing my posts to the best of my ability. -- Internet Scavenger 89  18:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, glad this was handled by ... a bunch of people who've been editing Wikipedia for somewhere between a week and a year? :/ --JBL (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, at least we fixed the problem.
 * We actually didn't do much but help prove that the IP editor was being disruptive. The administrators are still the only people who can block users. Panini! 🥪 14:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The administrators are still the only people who can block users. When you find yourself explaining trivial facts about Wikipedia to people who have been editing 10 times longer than you, you should stop to reflect on whether you really are being quite as helpful as you think. --JBL (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There wasn't too much to go off of on your user page for me not to state the obvious to you, and since policies can be out of the way I assume its always better to explain things in depth a little more. I'm also active in multiple fields of helping newcomers (Teahouse, adoption, growth team development), so slipping in details on how Wikipedia works has become second nature to me. I'll explain to people how to write a good video game reception section even if they've been on the site for ten years, because that's just how I do things. Panini! 🥪 17:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP's been blocked & the report closed. Let's be content with that, folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Succcculent's abusive message
Could another admin take a look at this? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User blocked, though I messed up my attempt to revdel the PA. I need more practice with revdelling. (I thought about blocking when I saw the user's edit to the Teahouse this morning, but since it was a first edit I figured it was better to wait and see what further edits would show.) Deor (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Cordless Larry (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * is now open. Depending on their response, I might offer them template:second chance, but they've lost TPA. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 17:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Continued to disruptive edits
This IP user User:103.144.225.75 (talk) (contributions) has been continue to disruptive, unsourced edits at the page of Myanmar National Airlines. I've tried to say anything but he/she not stop editing of unsourced material edit. I hope this user deserve to block for like 2 months prior to his/her disruptive edit. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a month; I wonder if they know they have a talk page.  Mini  apolis  23:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably not. I gave up trying to advise IPs even on uncontentious technical matters such as MOS:ITALICS, MOS:QUOTES and WP:INTDAB several years ago because they never pay any attention. Narky Blert (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Transkar


The user's recent edits, I think, show that they are here only to push a certain point of view and do not require any further description. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hell, just looking at the guy's edit summaries ought to be enough. Definite case of WP:NOTHERE.   Ravenswing      14:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I blocked for 48h for edit-warring, but probably an indef block per WP:NOTHERE is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeffed. Edits like this convince me that this block should not have an expiration date. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the nothere ban, although the user should definitely be topic banned from politics in general, as they have proven incompetent in that area. Just my two cents, of course. ☢️Plutonical☢️ ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ  18:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't quite say that each and every edit this guy's made in the last decade has involved biased edit warring. After all, two of the edits weren't actually reverted.    Ravenswing      18:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Use the sarcasm template, jeez. Anyway, upon closer inspection, yeah, it makes sense that he was ibanned. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ  19:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The hell? Why’d this guy go from being nearly inactive since like 2007 to suddenly POV-bombing random articles? Dronebogus (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Progress on the Julian Assange Basketcase
I have a modest proposal. I will boldly create an article entitled Assessments of Julian Assange (when I get the time/patience to do the research). I will recruit Comrade to the scheme and try to abstain from trimming the overlong Julian Assange article. I propose "Assessments" because that appears (on reflection) to be the consensus on the page. I will include everyone from Jemima Goldsmith to Julia Gillard, from Michael Head to Stormy Daniels, and even Comrade Pamela Anderson. It will ideally be organised BOTH thematically and chronologically and footnoted up the razu. If anyone has a better title, speak now. I think - nay, hope - that this will take some heat out of the constant bickering and point-scoring and soap-boxing etc that has dogged this page from the outset. I trust that this will meet with your approval.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm that BLP's saviour. But by golly, I've not the ability to get the guy out of prison ;) GoodDay (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 06:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with EEng. <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">foliar❧</b> 06:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh? Why should ANI adjudicate a proposal to create a content fork about the opinions of random notable people about another specific notable person? Some (or all) of those people have zero competence or expertise to assess the life and career of another living person. That idea seems bizarre, but the most important point is that is not an issue worthy of administrative intervention. Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice pun comrade Jack. Burrobert (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please take this to somewhere relevant. AN/I is for behavioral incidents where the problem cannot be solved without administrator help, but is still below Arbcom or Foundation levels. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ  20:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I remember a comic strip I saw once, where a bunch of fire trucks were tearing around corners with engines screaming, all the firefighters getting out and standing silently in front of a perfectly normal warehouse. The manager comes out to see what all the commotion is here, and says "You guys have it all wrong, there's no fire here. We installed this high-tech alarm system a few days ago, it must be acting up or something, I apologize for wasting your time." So the fire chief steps forward and looks at his watch and says "No, your high-tech alarm system is working perfectly... it says the janitor's going to drop his cigarette in the solvent tray in seven minutes and fifteen seconds." jp×g 04:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Sumausa edit-warring violations of WP:BLP, WP:RS etc into the 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade attack article.
is insistent on edit-warring material into the 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade attack article, in clear violation of WP:BLP, of WP:RS, and quite probably in violation of WP:NPOV and other policy too, despite repeated requests to discuss the matter on the talk page. Their only response is to accuse "biased Wikipedia moderators" of "censorship". . This is a new contributor, and accordingly I'd suggest that for now at least, all that is needed is a topic-ban from the article itself, along with a strong warning that policies need to be adhered too even if they don't agree with them, and that personal attacks are no way to resolve anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

This is sumausa speaking. Let's be clear about some things here:

1) I did not violate any rules.

2) My edit consisted of two main portions, first the contribution I made towards describing in detail the criminal history of the alleged murderer Darrell Brooks. The second portion was a contribution to the motives of the killer; both portions of my edit were cited from numerous sources including NPR, Fox News, Townhall, and others. You, Andy, decided to delete my ENTIRE contribution, rather than make any specific claim of a specific wrongdoing or falsehood that I or my sources made. That seems totally unethical to me. You can't just destroy someone's entire work just because you disagree with a small part of it.

3) Every word I wrote is verifiable by the sources I cited. Again, NPR, Fox News, Townhall, and Wisconsin Right Now all support the body of work I wrote. Your complaint against me claims that my words were somehow not worded "neutrally". That's ridiculous and patently false. I would like you to point out a specific line I wrote in my contribution that is not neutral. Just one. You can't.

4) My sources are all reputable. In the talk page for the Waukesha Parade Attack (which was mysteriously originally published on Wikipedia as a mere "car crash", implying that it was some kind of an accident), one of the moderators or editors claimed that Fox News was not a reputable source. This seems to me to be a clear indicator of outright political bias, and further points to the motive for the censorship of relevant information of the criminal actions by Darrell Brooks. The public has a right to know this information. They have a right to know his motives. Censoring this information from the public is disturbing and indicates an agenda on your part.

5) My contributions, that took an hour and a half to research and write up, were not deleted by you for being 'false', they were deleted because you have a bias against Fox News. Don't deny it. It's true.

6) Based on the suspicious editing history of this page (not only the previously misleading title, but in the editing wars in the body of the article), the fact that other biased moderators decided to title the entire page a mere "Car Crash" rather than an intentional attack, the evidence is clear that a group of politically-biased moderators are descending upon this page to control a public narrative of who Darrell Brooks is and what his motives were. Which is wrong and immoral. Wikipedia should be dedicated to getting the truth to the public, the whole truth, not just half of the truth slanted to fit a political narrative, which is exactly what the result of your censorship of my words accomplishes.

7) Rather than telling me precisely what is wrong with my contributions to the page (because you can't sat, because there is nothing wrong with my contribution), you decided to complain to a moderator at Wikipedia and demand that they completely ban me from ever contributing again to the page! Therefore PROVING that you are actually trying to censor me! It's like you have no self-awareness. This proves that you act in bad faith. But you

8) None of this rigorous censorship was ever applied to James Alex Fields or his Wikipedia page after Charlottesville. No one rushed to defend his character or public image. But somehow, when the shoe is on the other foot, and a criminal intentionally kills 6 white people (and counting), Wikipedia's editors pull out all of the stops to censor any discussion of his racial views or motivations, and censor any evidence of his publicly-stated racist comments against white people. It seems like there is a pattern of Wikipedia not allowing evidence into the public view that would incriminate certain people.

- Sumausa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumausa (talk • contribs) 15:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Partially blocked and warned for aggressive behavior in edit summaries.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think we should also let them know that Wikipedia only takes reliable sources, and is not a place to right great wrongs. If the user is reading this, I hope they realize that whatever bias the media has, Wikipedia will echo, and if they want to set the record straight, they should find another method. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ  14:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Sumausa speaking. I would like to note one last important thing, that is that despite the request by Andy to have me "topic-ban[ned] from the article itself", even the moderator who responded did not grant a permanent ban. Only 24 hours. At least somebody around here isn't unreasonable.

Though I will note, there is something disturbing in the private message I received. Something that should be obvious to anyone who has ever published anything. That is the claim that I must "try to reach a consensus" with other editors of the page if I make an edit. There are two huge problems with this:

1) You can't get large numbers of people to agree on anything. Look at politics and elections. There is no such thing as a "consensus", only a plurality or majority.

2) To say only with the agreement of other people who will never agree on a given set of facts is an unreasonable burden to place on anyone. Ultimately, as the moderator knows, only the moderators decide what is allowed on Wikipedia. Not some hypothetical "consensus" that can never exist. There will always be people disagreeing with my words, or the truth. Or both. But that doesn't make the truth false, or my words false either. The burden on me as an editor should not be to get people with an intractable bias to agree with me - that will never happen. The burden should be to simply show the evidence as it stands. And I had half-a-dozen sources. What more can a man do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumausa (talk • contribs) 15:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I should probably have said 'partial block', rather than 'topic ban' since that was what I meant. And as for whether it needed to be permanent, I'd have to suggest that it would rather depend on your response. Not my decision to make anyway, since I'm not an admin (Wikipedia doesn't have 'moderators') and accordingly don't get to decide. Beyond that, I can only suggest that if you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you will have to accept that policies etc decided on by contributors as a whole will apply to you, whether you agree with them or not. Like anyone else, you are free to argue for them to be changed, though I doubt that the sort of conspiracy-theory-pedalling nonsense seen above will get you far. As for your assertions regarding my motives, I think you will find, if you bother to look through my editing history, that I have a consistent pattern of acting to ensure that the Biographies of living persons policy is complied with in regard to anyone accused of a crime but as yet unconvicted, and that while I have my own political perspectives, like anyone else, I have always attempted to keep them aside while dealing with such issues. And note that precisely nothing you have written above constitutes the slightest evidence that my actions were motivated by anything contrary to Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * ANI is a poor choice of venue to argue that you're right and everybody else is wrong, or that Wikipedia policies and process are unworkable. You're not being conspired against, and editors who insist that disagreement with others or their own non-compliance with policy amounts to censorship tend to have short editing careers. Please take this opportunity to understand how Wikipedia woks. Otherwise, you may face broader editing restrictions. Wikipedia isn't a battleground.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, certainly the right wing media is thumping the drum. But it's interesting that Sumausa keeps claiming that NPR! Agrees! (in an attempt, I expect, to claim liberal cover for the charge), when the NPR source cited doesn't at all back up the Brooks-vs-white-people charge. Furthermore, Sumausa, neither you, Fox News, or any of us are mindreaders.  We do not know, and can not know, whether Brooks "intentionally" set out to do anything, as you keep trying to put into the article, in violation of our strict WP:BLP policy.  That is for the courts to decide, not Wikipedia. Ultimately, don't put much credence in that you were topic banned for only 24 hours.  That doesn't mean no one thought you were wrong, or that you'd committed only a minor peccadillo.  What that was is a warning shot, to give you the chance to step back, better acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and hopefully become a productive editor.  If you come back with guns blazing this time tomorrow, the next block won't be so minor.   Ravenswing      16:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Exactly. It's a hint to start paying attention to other edirors and to policy. Based on their behavior above, I'm going to extend their partial block term unless I see evidence that they're going to start paying attention and stop arguing about everything.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you don't believe in consensus, you're not going to last long on Wikipedia. Consensus is a policy, the core rules of Wikipedia. You will need to learn how to achieve a consensus for edits. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * There's a pattern of accounts - not new ones, but autoconfirmed ones with a handful of edits - pushing the same narrative as this author; there is clearly some off-wiki nonsense going on. Here's another one on the talkpage today (49 edits, two previous blocks). Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup. I'm sure there is 'off-wiki nonsense' going on. Sections of the right-wing media, along with the usual bloggers and forums, are pushing the 'it was anti-white terrorism' line for all its worth. As far as I can tell though, they are doing so because that is their usual MO, rather than because they care that much about what Wikipedia has to say. Wikipedia really isn't the focus of this particular ideological-bullshit-fest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems correct. Keyboard warriors want to fight a race war, Wikipedia's just a convenient spot to do it. --JBL (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I will also advise User:Sumausa that there are times when overly long posts may make the poster feel better but do not communicate anything to the community except that the poster feels strongly. Before posting at great length, it might be useful to ask whether other editors will read and be persuaded (although keyboard warriors don't usually ask that).  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that User:Sumausa is currently blocked for a week due to edit warring & personal attacks, so this will likely archive & we'll see what happens when they return to editing. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably much of the same, if he does. The rambling on his talk page in response to the block decidedly pushes the credo that he's right and everyone else is wrong.   Ravenswing      22:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Bad userbox template I am unable to find source of
I recently discovered the clearly policy-violating userbox template “User Hip-hop music sucks” but can’t seem to find the source page. Dronebogus (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's at Template:User hip hop music sucks. Number   5  7  12:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Template:User hip hop music sucks? Also, I'm not sure I see how this violates any policies -- seems to be a fairly harmless bit of humour? — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 12:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It has been nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User hip hop music sucks, as well as another Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Punk sucks similar userbox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * it’s funny if you hate hip hop, but if you like hip hop (like I do) it’s incredibly mean-spirited and divisive. WP:USERBOX forbids userboxes that are inflammatory in nature, and it’s been used for trivial matters (like “this user hates Sean Penn”) as well as serious ones. Dronebogus (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an opinion. Not hate speech; not a BLP vio and truly not a statement demeaning those that don't share the opinion.  Tide  rolls  13:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur. I don't see a policy violation. It is not "inflammatory in nature". QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think calling something so trivial and light-hearted "inflammatory" is a stretch. It's not like hip hop is an identity. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 13:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with these folks. "Inflammatory" is for people who are looking to stir trouble; the userbox in question was made by, a highly active and positive contributor. "Substantially divisive" is for content that is widely controversial and quick to dispute when mentioned. The way the text is also formatted makes it an obvious joke, so no harm is intended. Panini! 🥪 13:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The original poster has withdrawn their deletion requests. Panini! 🥪 13:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Radizero
Could someone indef this account please? This account is very obviously just a kid screwing around - every edit they have made here consists of strange spam and vandalism where they are making nonsense claims that they are satoshi, the creator of bitcoin, and adding their contact details to pages asking people to email them to receive cryptocurrency (now oversighted). They have repeatedly vandalised pages with incomprehensible word salad, and they don't seem to have made a single productive contribution. They were blocked for a month for this previously, and are currently indefed on two other projects for the same behaviour, now that the block here has expired they have returned and created a nonsense userpage where they attack a living person describing them as a fraud and claiming that they are the real satoshi. Even if they weren't exclusively using Wikipedia for screwing around I don't think there's much chance that they'd be able to contribute here successfully, their English skills are so severely lacking that most of what they write is near incomprehensible. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Might not mean any harm but clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by TagaworShah
Since 29 October 2021 TagaworShah has initiated a lengthy, persistent attempt to change the origins of the Kingdom of Commagene into "Armenian", and to add WP:UNDUE weight in favour of a very small minority view that vaguely refers to Commagene being of "Armenian" origin. Just recently he brought a part of his attempts to WP:DRN; his stance was rebuffed there by the volunteering admin.

Ever since, he still has been attempting to push the same POV in spite of the utter vast majority sources. The articles he has so far targeted are Mount Nemrut and Antiochus I Theos of Commagene.

Yesterday, he left a message on my talk page that he wants to case another dispute resolution case. I believe this has firmly entered the realm of WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:DROPTHESTICK, and hence, WP:TENDENTIOUS. This has to stop. I also believe he has engaged in WP:GAME, particularly WP:SANCTIONGAME. He has been extremely hostile from the get-go:


 * 1) How about checking the talk page before reverting, you too could benefit from checking out WP:ONLYREVERT. You are clearly mistaken, how about you actually read the source and the quotes provided above. Canepa was unambiguous about the Pantheon including Armenian religious traditions, so how about instead of using your own assumptions you actually read the source, restore my edit per WP:RMV (it’s wikipedia policy), stop reverting disruptively, and actually discuss on the talk page, it exits for a reason.
 * 2) It is so disheartening that editors that have edited for such a long time as y’all cannot let go of your own ethnic convictions to subjectively look at the sources.

Only to post WP:GAMEy comments like these:


 * 1) How about you stop with the personal attacks, yes saying an editor is tendentiously editing without proper evidence is considered a personal attacks and the way you keep accusing me of that is borderline harassment.
 * 2) Accusing other editors of battleground behavior for simply disagreeing with you and pointing out your mistakes is uncivil, as is reverting without discussion.
 * 3) Also your “veteran editors” comment was extremely unnecessary, what was the the purpose of that comment exactly?

Unfortunately this behaviour eventually changed the tone of the discussion into a grim one, and thus no one is innocent in this case. Regardless, I would still like to point the origin of this out.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an unfair assessment of our content dispute. First and foremost, where did I ever try to change the origins of the Kingdom of Commagene into Armenian? None of my edits or discussions even pertained to that in the slightest, it has always been solely regarding the ancestry of Anthiochis I Theos of Commagene. And how am I forum shopping? The first discussion that was taken to the DRN was pertaining to the inscriptions on the slabs of Mount Nemrut. I then started a new discussion on the Antiochus page specifically about his Ancestry per the recommendation of the DRN volunteer, it is a completely different discussion per the DRN volunteer, the 3O was about the ancestry of Anthiochus, not what the slabs on Mount nemrut say. I provided an abundance of reliable sources that can be found on the talk page which support the view that Antiochus had Armenian ancestors in addition to Greek and Iranian ones. If you look at the talk page I was completely open to giving these sources their due widget if they were a minority view however HistoryofIran refused to even have a fair discussion instead going on to throw Wikipedia essays and intimidation methods to make me stop discussing. This ANI was only opened now because I listed the dispute for a third opinion after nine days of no response. I did not edit war and my edits were of good faith and reflected what the sources said. I admit my tone at the beginning of the Mount Nemrut discussion wasn’t the best, and I apologize for that, but ever since the DRN and new discussion, I have tried my best to be as civil as possible and asked HistoryofIran several times to stop throwing around conduct accusations especially when he showed the same behavior I did; and instead actually talk about the sources and edits but that did not seem to work. I just want to make my position clear as this report is highly exaggerating it. I never tried to say Commagene was Armenian, and the second discussion was outside of the scope of the DRN per the volunteer who told me specifically to start a new discussion and when that discussion about a different issue came to a stalemate, I requested a third opinion.  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

And while i’m here let me just clarify our discussions further by providing some diffs. These are the three changes I made to the Mount Nemrut and Antiochus I Theos of Commagene articles.

1. …two lions, two eagles and various Greek, Iranian and Armenian gods…

2. These slabs display the ancestors of Antiochus, who included Armenians, Greeks, and Persians.

3. Antiochus was half Iranian and Armenian, a distant member of the Orontid dyansty, and half greek.

Of course all of these additions were supported by inline citations of reliable sources, which can be found on the talk page and used to be on my sandbox but is now located here User:TagaworShah/Commagene. For the first one, HistoryofIran reworded the section and we came to a compromise, when I called it a compromise HistoryofIran refused to call it that and kept the hostility of the conversation going. As we can clearly see here nowhere was I trying to change the origins of the Kingdom of Commagene to Armenian, I didn’t even edit that article, really the only point of contention was the ancestry of Anthiochus.

I would also like to note that HistoryofIran has been hostile from the start too and kept the hostility of the conversation going despite my attempts at cooling it down by suggesting we actually talk about the edits not the editors.

1.Reverting my good faith edits after I already started a talk page discussion, which is not what you’re supposed to do per WP:RMV as that can lead to hostility(which it unfortunately did). Could have at least had the courtesy to discuss why he believed the citations didn’t match the information instead of being quick to revert hence why I recommended WP:ONLYREVERT.

2.He then went one to center the conversation about me instead of the edits which is when I offered an olive branch to cool things down “What we can do is stop this “uncivil” accusations mess and actually get into the meat of the issue. I implemented a compromise to the Armenian gods issue and you haven’t reverted it so I can assume we are good on that front.” but he refused.

3.Also constantly accusing me of Tendeitous editing without any proper proof. I did not edit war, I started the conversation on the talk page immediately, my citations matched what I said in my view, if he thought that the citations didn’t match what I was writing he should’ve at least assumed good faith that editors can perceive things differently but no he went on to repeatedly accuse me of tendeitous editing.

Not to mention the only comment I made that could be taken as a light personal attack, although I was repeating the guidelines on Nationalism and HistoryofIran does have a record of it, I should of been more careful when referencing that page and I realize that now. However, Historyofiran went right back and said the exact same thing to me:

1.”Antiochus in his own inscription word for word literally says Persian and Greek, yet you deny that as well? And you accuse others of being influenced by their own ethnic convictions?” Let me note that none of my edits as you can see above denied Antiochus having persian or greek ancestry. Also in that same edit he called me incompetent for reading a source in a different manner than him, every editor has their biases, including HistoryofIran, calling someone incompetent for reading a quote differently than you is wrong.

2.Also trying to intimidate me with him and his colleagues being veteran editors as if flexing the time you edited somehow gives you more weight in a conversation. Also throwing around wikipedia essays that didn’t even pertain to me as a form of intimidation. The final form was reporting me, I never threatened to do that to him so I don’t understand how I was playing the sanctions game.

As for the DRN. the volunteering admin clearly stated that the DRN was specifically about what the slabs on mount nemrut said and not the ancestry of Antiochus. "THerefor- any inclusion of a statement that the slab confirms this ancestry is WP:synth and WP:OR. No compromise is possible without a RS that states the slab confirms Armenian ancestry. This mediator suggests that the filing editor takes this argument to Antiochus's page rather than continuing it at the Mount Nemrut page"

As you can clearly see here, the problem was the slabs not saying his ancestry not the actual ancestry. She said the ancestry was not within the scope of the DRN and to start a new conversation specifically about the ancestry of Anthiochus on that talk page not about what the slabs on mount nemrut say. Also the volunteer saw no problem with my sources about Antiochus having Armenian ancestors, only that the SLABS didn’t mention that: "Okay- I have reviewed those sources- and I don't see anything wrong with them"

So I took the conversation over to that talk page and tried my best to maintain civility despite getting threatened of being reported for simply continuing the discussion several times. Historyofiran refused to even have a fair discussion, he reverted my edit without actually checking the sources, he just assumed they were the same ones as the Mount Nemrut, which they werent. Even he eventually agreed that my sources did say Antiochus had Armenian ancestors. I offered for us to consider due weight but he simply refused any inclusion of the sources in the article despite them being by very reliable subject matter experts. That is when the discussion reached a stalemate and I asked for a third opinion. 

The third opinion was not about what the slabs on mount nemrut said but about the ancestry of Anthiochus which the volunteer confirmed that the DRN did not cover. So the accusations of Tendeitous editing because of “forumshopping” is wrong and to me looks like a WP:SANCTIONGAME on HistoryofIran’s part as he is exaggerating my point to make it seem nationalistic and unsourced by saying I claimed the entire kingdom was exclusively “Armenian” which as we can see above that was certainly not the case, and claiming i’m forumshopping for something already covered by a DRN but per the volunteer herself the ancestry was not covered. I urge the volunteers to take a look at the full conversation, as it looks like Historyofiran thinks he can just exaggerate what i’m doing to impose sanctions on me and the admins won’t look over the full conversation, literally WP:SANCTIONGAME. In almost a year of editing, this is my first time getting reported to ANI so forgive me if this was too long, also im a mobile editor so this was very hard for me to do, I just wanted to make sure the Administrators had both sides of the story so they can make a fair decision. Sincerely,  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Content Dispute Complicated by Conduct
This has started out as a content dispute which is compounded by conduct, including tendentious editing and walls of text. As is noted above, there was a DRN case concerning an inscription at Mount Nemrut, which User:Nightenbelle closed, saying that any attempt to infer Armenian ancestry relied on synthesis amounting to original research.

So we have this continuation of arguments that is too long, difficult to read. Either: Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This dispute should be transferred to Arbitration Enforcement as a continuation of the Azerbaijani-Armenian wars, and the admins there can determine who is more at fault, or
 * Some admin can take discretionary sanction action here, or
 * The community can impose an interaction ban.


 * I have read through the DRN thread and through Talk:Antiochus I Theos of Commagene, and it appears to me that, though there's somewhat of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude from both sides, this is just a slightly heated and protracted content dispute. I believe both are arguing in good faith, and the main problem seems to be that they don't believe this of each other. It's nothing for ANI, let alone for WP:AE, if you ask me. Both sides should either try to be more efficient in working toward a consensus, or simply disengage. I understand that this is all very stressful, but please try to be much more concise in your comments, and sometimes not to post at all. Asking for a WP:3O was a very good move, but it's extremely discouraging for other editors to participate when faced with a wall of text. The likelihood that some uninvolved editor will step in to help solve a content dispute is inversely proportional to the amount of text present on the talk pages where it's held. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 23:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I completely agree! Sorry for the long post, there was a lot of context behind the conversation and it’s my first(and hopefully last) time getting reported. I will try and make my future discussion posts more concise. Thank you.  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that TagaworShah initially attempted to push for a partial 'Armenian' origin for the pantheon of Commagene, which sources unanimously agree was Greek/Macedonian-Persian/Iranian. To do so he misused a citation which did not even support his addition and even went against what the source itself actually said. He later attempted to do this in the same manner but just for the 'Armenian' origin of the Commagenean branch, which he was called out for by me and another user in the DRN and Talk:Mount Nemrut. This I believe is more proof of WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How is that Tendentious editing? In my view, I interpret that quote, and still do, as supporting what I added, every editor has their biases including you, that’s why it’s important to Assume Good Faith. I literally accepted the way you rewrote the section and said it was fine so I see absolutely no reason why that would be considered Tendentious. In addition, as for the ancestry of Antiochus, I provided several sources which can be found here User:TagaworShah/Commagene; that support my claim, emphasis on the first 7 sources. Just because we interpret text differently doesn’t mean i’m tendentiously editing, there comes a time where every editor, including you, needs to consider their bias when reading sources. That’s exactly why I requested a third uninvolved opinion. All of this is explained in detail above, at this point this is just a WP:SANCTIONGAME.  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

As the DRN volunteer- I just want to add, It does appear that User:TagaworShah is determined to force issues of Armenian Ancestry in topics where maybe they don't fit or are WP:UNDUE However, I don't think that it is worth brining here..... yet. I think if they don't tone it down and back off, they will, eventually, face sanctions, administrative action, etc. and rightfully so. I also have seen User:HistoryofIran appear over and over and over in cases on this page or the DRN- and they are dangerously close to WP:OWN and WP:Battleground at times. Basically- It is my opinion that while nothing should be done now- both of you two need to change how you interact with other editors because there will come a point where your many positive contributions no longer outweigh the negative effect of your combative interactions. That day is not today. And both of you do enough positive editing- I would hate to see either of you reach the point where you are a detriment to the project. Please, both of you work on your interaction style and try to be more kind to other editors and inclusive of other perspectives. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

insulting language and disruptive edits
keeps re-editing even though sources say opposite and now he uses an insulting language after I proved my points here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_best-selling_manga&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruderhymer (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Ruderhymer, I've alerted Cosmo Sentinel about this discussion on their talk page, which you should have done. Woodroar (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and he is not responding.. So is allowed to use that kind of language on wikipedia?
 * No, he is not.   Ravenswing     21:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Correction; WP:PROFANEDISCUSSIONS, people are allowed to swear in proper context and when around people who tolerate it, as well as when it's necessary for discussing sometinh (such as an article that has profanity in it). Profanity directed towards someone in an incivil way is the no-go. I've warned them on their talk page. Panini! 🥪 16:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

User:EliProzes personal attacks
, alongside various IP addresses, have been WP:POV pushing on the article Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines) for the past few months. In one contribution which they reverted, they upheld the falsification that this independent Catholic church was part of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines. Additionally, on 24 November 2021, they returned reverting all contributions which were restoring a NPOV for the article against their notions with the following summary: "Some Asshole F*cked this page up. I just fixed it." Upon the involvement of others, I reverted their second revert of another contributor, and have opted to report this personal attack. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Editor continues to mindlessly restore their challenged content without discussion. Slywriter (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I blocked the user indef, 8 edits and not a single one is good.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Infact1
This user (which I suspect is a sockpuppet) of either User:Salt.ent or User:ExtraDetails2021 copied my user page and pasted it onto their user page via this revision. I have previously reported both to WP:SPI via Sockpuppet investigations/ExtraDetails2021, however the conclusion is that both are non-related despite having similar edit summary of "fake news" and also removing extactly the same content repeatedly without caring about the warnings issued. Is there anyway to hide that revision that they copied onto their userpage so they don't restore it because the content is exactly the same as my userpage, I don't want to be accused that I'm related to this unknown disruptive user all of a sudden in the future.

Do note that I don't have interaction with this user before hence there isn't any reason to copy my userpage one for one and only change the first sentence of the lead and also certain template inclusion, hence my suspicion may be correct that they are either one of the two sockpuppet. I'm following Park Shin-hye and Choi Tae-joon articles which are my area of interest hence this is how I came upon this user when monitoring my watchlist.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  09:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Infact1 indef blocked by -- Euryalus (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Euryalus Thanks for the update. Regarding the revision deletion/hiding, is that possible to be fulfil?  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  11:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. In my view it doesn't fit the WP:Revdel criteria, but will leave this section open for while in case anyone else has a strong view. I dont  think you need to worry that anyone will think you're the same editor as this person, just because their page history shows they copied the userpage. But I do appreciate that their action was unwelcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Euryalus Ok understood, thanks you for the reply. Happy editing and have a great weekend.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  13:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:24BB:9FE5:EE96:7C05
Hi. This IP editor keeps adding unsourced information, and then accuses me of edit warring multiple times, and then says that they are going to add references for their unreferenced contribution. Strange reactions despite their edit history. <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 16:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh and now they are saying that I have "low-level incivility" because I wrote that unreferenced information can't stay on the page until it is referenced and that their reactions were "suspicious". Nice interaction. They claim to know "article development" but don't even cite refs. <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 16:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please try and remain truthful. When I called you out for low-level incivility, it was - as my comment makes clear - in response to you referring to "Suspicious IP activity", with no justification for commenting on me, rather than the article. It's rather odd that a very minor content kerfuffle which is being discussed on the talk page and being cleared up in the article needs to be discussed at ANI. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:24BB:9FE5:EE96:7C05 (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It was just DDE at first, now incivility/NPA keeps growing ("try and remain truthful"?). <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 16:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why have you posted a misleading comment above? "I have "low-level incivility" because I wrote that unreferenced information can't stay on the page until it is referenced" is not truthful, as I have pointed out. Why did you start by throwing mud on the talk page by referring to "Suspicious IP activity", without any proof or justification? Why do you think it acceptable to open an ANI thread just because you were reverted and I asked you to hold off for a little while as I updated the Reception section? (That's done, by the way, and the lead now is correct again). If you want to start throwing mud at people and then posting misleading statements at ANI, I do shake my head in disbelief... 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:24BB:9FE5:EE96:7C05 (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing is misleading. This editor is continuing to distort the facts. And apparently they thought adding one review for cinematography and three for costume design was enough for their unreferenced contribution. Instead of constantly dissing the editors, review whether your supposed work is complete. Also, stop the disturbing behavior. I kindly request the admins to take necessary action for this editor. <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 17:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think "they are saying that I have "low-level incivility" because I wrote that unreferenced information can't stay on the page until it is referenced" isn't misleading, I can't take you seriously. My comment was extremely clear "As to "Suspicious IP activity", please comment on the content, not the editor - such low-level incivility is too common and always unwelcome." I am not dissing anyone and my behaviour is not "disturbing". I have updated the Reception section of the article so the lead is a proper reflection of what was written. That's not "disturbing", or even disruptive. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:24BB:9FE5:EE96:7C05 (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/SchroCat/Archive, this is the same IP range. - MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am SchroCat (or was before scrambling my password). I do not hide that at all. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:24BB:9FE5:EE96:7C05 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I wasn't going to continue to reply because of this person's behavior. Clearly this incivil editor thinks they own the article, basically calls me liar (see above) in addition to other things and then accuses me of "throwing insults", and their edits are disruptive. They continue to add unsourced information. The fact that they use their "oh I scrambled my password" as an excuse to use multiple IP accounts and do whatever they want is confounding to me, especially given their past behavior and attitudes. I believe a block is necessary at this point. <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 08:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop referring to other editors as "disruptive" when they are clearly not. You have done so here and here. This is throwing insults at people, as you are not commenting on the edits being made, just on me (and I an not an "incivil editor" - or even an uncivil one). Please stop. I am not sure how adding sourced material (from reliable sources) to an article is "disruptive". There is a talk page you are ignoring and any questions or comments can (should?) be addressed there. I do not "use multiple IP accounts": I am on a dynamic IP that automatically changes or updates and I have no control over that. Use of such IP systems is not outside Wikipedia's policies, and neither is editing as an IP. I have again left a message on your talk page this morning asking you to use the talk page to discuss, and I hope you manage to make your way there to discuss what you think is "unsourced information" that I have added, or what you think still needs sourcing in the article. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You clearly are. One can use static IP. Pointing a mistake out even though you spelled "am" wrong yourself is hilarious. <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 08:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "One can use static IP". No. One can't. One uses the system of one's provider, which in this case is dynamic. Again, I'll stress, this is not against any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I'll ignore the renewed dig. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * One CAN use it. Do not change the subject. You don't own the article. You can't insult people. You can't add unreferenced information. You can't say "oh I retired and scrambled my password" and come back to disrupt the encyclopedia more. Bye. <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 19:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not changing any part of the subject: I'm replying to comments you've made. I'm also not insulting people - quite the reverse: I am showing some reserve in not responding to your continual accusations that I am disruptive. Only one of us is trying to communicate on the talk page and only one of us is adding sources and references to the article, rather than just edit warring. Only one of us is throwing out accusations about my IP address and only one of us is more focused in throwing insults. If you can't use the talk page to discuss the matter civilly, I can only guess what your complaints are about the article. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:45B7:DA9E:F1BB:44EB (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The article should be returned to its status before disputed additions were made. WP:BRD must be abide by. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi GoodDay, It's not entirely clear what is actually being disputed though - this section is all an exercise in clutching at straws for little benefit. I hope he isn't complaining about the addition of reliably sourced information to the Reception section - that would be churlish of him in the extreme. Aside from that, I've tried to refer him to both STATUSQUO and BRD on other areas, but all to no avail. After a couple of forays onto the talk page (which provided incorrect advice) he has ignored the thread, despite repeated requests for him to return and discuss. It's all rather frustrating and disheartening. Cheers. The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:45B7:DA9E:F1BB:44EB (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, don't use "he" if you don't know the pronouns of the person you don't know. As anyone can see from what's written above, this IP editor has added unsourced information to the page and persistently added it back when this information was deleted. After a while, they added a few references and claimed that the work was completed. They have kept reverting my edits and done nothing but own the page and claimed that my edit for removing the unreferenced sentence was a bold edit and the status quo included their recent unexplained and unsourced changes. Although days have passed, this editor still has not been able to add enough sources required by the sentence on the page. During this time, I started a discussion on the talk page, following WP:DDE, but the editor insisted on "article development" and that unsourced information may remain until they add the source "soon". When I said this was wrong and their behavior was questionable, I was accused of "a low-level incivility" (and they turned out to be a supposedly retired editor who was previously blocked for "persistent disruption and uncivil behavior", "personal attacks or harassment", "edit warring", and "abusing multiple accounts"). Then when I mentioned their actions on the page here, I was accused of being untruthful, or a liar we might say. Then they claimed that I am in the wrong, and they still argue that I write things that insult people when the only thing I've written is that this editor is disruptive. <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 20:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What pronoun would you like me to use for you? For me, please don't use "they": I am an individual, not a group, so "he" or "him" are the correct forms. I'm becoming increasingly annoyed with your continual incivilities. I also think it shows a measure of desperation to try and use a block log as some form of 'gotcha' evidence.
 * This could all be avoided if you'd actually use the talk page properly to discuss matters, rather than go straight into incivility with "Suspicious IP activity" - and accusation with no justification behind it. If you have anything sensible to say about the article, please feel free to use the article talk page, because this thread is the usual pointless time sink. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:45B7:DA9E:F1BB:44EB (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? They is a gender-neutral singular pronoun. It is used when you don't know the gender of the person in question... <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 20:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you see what I'm saying? This editor just won't stop playing the innocent. This could all be avoided if he actually added references in the first place. He is annoyed with my "continual incivilities" (because I only said he was disruptive), yet he just called me desperate, a continuation of his two days of incivility. "Suspicious IP activity" and all that, I've already explained everything above, this editor is ignoring it. <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 20:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Nyxaros, by the time of this revert by the IP, all those elements are pretty clearly sourced, it seems to me. I don't really understand what you're trying to fight over. It's a few words in the lead, and the lead doesn't need to have all elements cited as long as they're cited in the text. Now, you could wonder exactly what "production design" entails--but why can't you do that wondering on the talk page? Drmies (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was on the talk page at first. The original issue was that it was totally unreferenced. The editor gradually added the sources in the text. I think he still needs to add a few more references praising the cast. But now he just keeps insulting for no reason and expects me to discuss with him on the talk page. It doesn't make much sense to me to expect someone who has been insulted to be in contact with the person who insulted them. I don't know why he is allowed to write such things to other editors. Is it okay to revert to his unreferenced edits, own the page and misrepresent BRD and STATUSQUO? I don't know why he is at least not warned, too, especially given the fact that he has a long history of violations. <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 23:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have asked several times that you outline your concerns about any unsourced material on the talk page. Please feel free to do so. You have referred again to "unreferenced edits": what needs to be sourced, in your opinion? Drmies has already indicated that he considers the queries text in the lead to be "pretty clearly sourced", so what else is there? Please reply on the talk page with details. Thanks. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:45B7:DA9E:F1BB:44EB (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nyxaros, again you’ve reverted without using the talk page to discuss. It’s increasingly tiresome to be given short, unhelpful messages by edit summary while you’re ignoring the talk page to revert to something that hasn’t been discussed on the talk page and hasn’t been in the page long enough to gain consensus or have a directly discussed consensus. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve asked you to discuss things, but you’ve been absent from the talk page, while continuing to revert, for a long time. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:55D6:37C5:2B4C:9C54 (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This person, along with other things (as I stated above multiple times), expects other editors to accept the fact that they are the owner of the page, their edits are set in stone / the status quo, and for any changes to the talk page, everyone must reach the consensus approved by him. No one is obliged to discuss with you on the talk page before making any reasonable changes. Especially given your behavior and attitude... <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 06:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t expect anything of the sort, and the accusation of ownership is another in a long line of incivilities you’ve thrown at me - and that’s getting extremely tiresome. I don’t expect discussion before a change is made, and many reasonable changes have been made by other editors. What I do expect is that when there’s a revert, there should be a discussion on the talk page, not a long slow burn edit war with one person refusing to discuss things. Thank you for finally using the talk page (although if you could refrain from the pointy comments there it would make life easier), and I look forward to you providing the diffs and examples I’ve asked for there. I’m sure the section you point to isn’t perfect, so I look forward to seeing where the phrasing is “baseless, unexplained and terrible”. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:55D6:37C5:2B4C:9C54 (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not surprising to see this editor, who has basically called me a "desperate" and "liar" and has made quite a splash here in the past (and still does to some extent, especially since he edits in retirement without creating an account), keep lying. <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 15:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide a diff of exactly where I have called you a "desperate liar"? I'll ignore yet another uncivil comment you've made about me, but suffice to say I reject your assertion that I "keep lying". 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9816:1424:7638:C8AE (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh no!!! You forgot??? Read the whole section. Yet another "innocent" comment denying the facts and ignoring the actions... <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 16:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a diff of exactly where I have called you a "desperate liar"? I have not done so. It is a false accusation to claim I have said such a thing. I will happily withdraw the accusation of you making false accusations if you can provide a diff from anywhere on Wikipedia where I have called you a "desperate liar". If you cannot, I expect to see a withdrawal of the accusation. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9816:1424:7638:C8AE (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I am getting increasingly aggravated by this editor's grudge against me. There is yet another incivility with an accusation of ownership with this comment on a third-party's talk page. I am getting close to the end of my patience with ignoring the ongoing untrue accusations, insults and incivility. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9816:1424:7638:C8AE (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's sad. Imagine how patient I am, who is the actual injured party here. Adding unsourced info then semi-realizing the mistake and trying to cite references for days, incivility/insults: it shows a measure of desperation = desperate / try and remain truthful = untruthful, dishonest, liar / and others..., misrepresenting or distorting the facts. It goes. <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 16:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are not the injured party here: you are not "injured" in any way, shape or form. Glad you've acknowledged that I have not called you a "desperate liar": it was not an accusation you should have made. You can knock off the rest of the insults, incivility, sniping and untruthful accusations too. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9816:1424:7638:C8AE (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well you did use the word "desperation" and the phrase "try and remain truthful". So while you may not have specifically called them a "desperate liar", you did imply that they are desperate and untruthful, which is pretty darn close to the same thing. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 21:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. I can take words completely out of context too and, once quote marks are put around them, turn them into accusations of a direct quote that was never said or even meant. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3 (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. You have been taking words completely out of context already, I didn't "acknowledge" anything yet you wrote that I did. Anyone can see your insults and behavior to this day. You never meant to retire, never meant to add unsourced info and then overreact to citing references, never meant to accuse others because they state the obvious, never meant to be rude, never meant to overlook your mistakes, never meant to distort the facts, never meant to violate any policy and guideline... You apparently do them unintentionally, it's just out of your hands. <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 13:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Bye, bye. Your rants against me started off in a ridiculous vein and are going wider and wider off the mark. (And please don't change your posts if they've been replied to, as you did here - you should indicate that you've altered your comment if you do so). 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3 (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Does that mean the nonsense is finally stopping? What a relief! Hopefully I won't have to reply to this editor ever again! <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 13:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I wonder how long this back-and-forth will continue? Minkai ( rawr! )(see where I screwed up) 21:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, one thing's come out of this for sure: those IPs are almost certainly SchroCat (and if not it's someone who's carefully studied his trademark style of hairsplitting, beside-the-point argumentation). <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 00:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Johnny Cash vandal is back


Can we get another rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2601:2C4:C401:3B30:0:0:0:0/64 from Texas? Nothing good comes from this range; it's all incompetent disruption and self-promotion. Binksternet (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Leonold70
This User continues to add unsourced content to Articles, their talk page is littered with Warnings since June and i would like to point out that they have shown neither an ability to address this issue nor to communicate in response to warnings on their talk page. Here is some examples of Leonold70's edits that are unsourced and where Leonold70 did not provide an a reliable source. The first three are the edited ones and the last three are the Current edits for comparison

Chip3004 (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you linked the diffs, rather than the edited versions. We cannot see from those links what this editor added to which you object.   Ravenswing      13:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is partly copied from my report at AIV (you should at least have pinged me about, ), because this is rather obvious and long-term. Isn't there the area with those links, "(diff) ← Previous revision" (top left)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  15:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok I linked the un edited edits prior to Leonold70 edits Chip3004 (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? What’s an “unendited edit”? Your reply doesn’t make sense. Someone’s posted an explanation of how to do a diff in the box in the top right of this thread. You should post the edits you want to highlight using the instructions in that box. DeCausa (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, I followed the instructions in the box Chip3004 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This user is seemingly editing in good faith, maybe they simply don't know how to add sources or see their talk page and pings? Examples such as these to, , and this one to all seem to be going in the right direction, albeit with no source. I don't see the problem with adding a citation needed tag to good edits like these (I remember one time I tried to remove a claim without citation and an editor reverted it and got mad at me). Users handle uncited additions differently, and seemingly only the ones who opposed it were the ones who reached out; this user made over 100 edits in the past couple of months, mainly to children's television, and has a relatively high revert rate. Most of their warnings come from users who edit articles related to the Thomas the Tank Engine franchise. This isn't to say that the majority of their edits, mainly ones involving a plot description or addition, aren't too hot in quality.  Panini! 🥪 13:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Competence (and communication) is required. If this user has been warned multiple times about adding uncited information (including in BLPs), and they are not responding to such warnings, it does not change whether they're editing in good faith or not. At some point, if most of their edits are getting reverted, and they don't appear to be figuring out why, it's not our job to keep cleaning up after them ad vitam aeternam. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dont forget the exclamation point; on its own was taken. How have I never seen this policy before? That's disappointing, but policies are policies.
 * Allow me to reconsider my stance, then: this user has been given persistent guidance and warnings over a period of six months. Whether or not they don't know how to see it or they are choosing to ignore it, it has become a chore for the editors that they are affecting. I would suggest pulling the plug. Panini! 🥪 17:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious that if Leonold70 continues to add Unsourced or Poorly sourced content to articles then he will need to be blocked if Leonold70 continues to do that. Chip3004 (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Crazy Attack on Editors by an IP
An IP several hours ago made abusive attack against other editors at Talk:J. K. Rowling, I am not sure how to notify them on a shared IP address, that I have raised their edit here. Could an uninvolved editor look into it as per WP:RPA. As a likely target of the abuse I think it would be better if someone else took the appropriate action. ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 12:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You would just notify them on the IP talk page. As it is an IPV6 address it is unlikely to be shared, and as it has made no other edits, it is safe to assume you can post a message there. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advise, I have let the IP know. I notice the comment has been hidden now, I am not sure if that is enough, considering it is a verbal attack on other editors that goes beyond the at times wide disagreement in the RfC.  ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 13:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the now appears to be 2 IP's with similar tone, but different levels of abuse The IP of concern is User:2600:1702:4960:1DE0:90B0:AA68:4BDD:8E3F I did not think this sort of verbal abuse and baseless accusations should be tolerated on Wikipedia ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 14:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Help! can someone helpfully explain why no action might not have been taken. ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 17:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What action do you need taken? The rant has been collapsed and hidden.  The user is using a dynamically assigned IPv6 address, and the rant was left long enough ago that it is unlikely the same person, if they come back, will use the same IP address.  They have not, as yet, come back under this or any other address.  Since they have left, I'm not sure what else anyone could do.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. I understand. ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 17:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As a practical matter, if there's a diff that bothers any editor, they can email it to me and I will consider a revdel. It may be better to just let it go.  That page has a big sea of words and most will pass unnoticed. Jehochman Talk 17:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Response from said Crazy IP editor
First of all, to clear things up,, nothing in there was directed at you, and after skimming over that discussion section again, I will confirm that none of it applies to you; it was regarding sustained, low-level disruptive behaviour among multiple editors with a particular POV, but was never intended to be taken to mean that all editors who share that POV are engaging in disruption. I also will note that when other editors practise tendentious editing, it is very difficult for any of us to recognise if we happen to share their POV (and every POV has both good faith and tendentious editors in its ranks).

I am happy to strike out whatever parts in that comment you find objectionable; at least some of it was policy-based argument, and should not be suppressed. I will also say that I have no intention of engaging in any of the extended back and forth bickering on the matter; just the comment. I will leave a message on your user talk as well; just wanted to also leave a response here, for the record. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:BDD5:3580:625A:3321 (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the IP made the ill-conceived choice to respond after the section was closed, I'm calling for a block based on their anti-trans (and misogynist to boot) rant in the aforementioned section:
 * females are weaker, only females can become pregnant, and only males can impregnate them, potentially against their will. None of that has anything to do with how anyone "identifies", and claiming it does is dishonest.
 * Comments such as this have no place on the wiki, and serve only to drive off our trans editors. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As the editor the IP was primarily targeting, caricaturing, and casting ASPERSIONS towards in their comments, I would point to this rant, which misquotes a comment I made years ago into almost the opposite of the intended meaning, as particularly revealing. To have seen that quote, the person behind the keyboard was almost certainly either (1) a participant in old gender debates, since indef-blocked or otherwise departed (there are a few of those) or (2) someone acting as a MEATPUPPET who was pointed towards old debates by one of their participants (or bystanders). Either way, the IP's actions are disruptive and should be stopped, as best possible with the tools available. Newimpartial (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Has the IP been vandalising articles or edit-warring? GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Repeated WP:CIVIL violations are always disruptive, and editing in spite of a ban (whether by SOCK or by MEAT) is always to be stopped, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Create local account for User:Kenny023
Hi. I'm a sysop on zhwiki. Due to a strange bug phab:T244635, users who have no local account on enwiki will be logged out on zhwiki. Could you use Special:CreateLocalAccount for User:Kenny023. Thanks! Xiplus (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by Random Haste
Random Haste (talk · contribs) on Kempegowda International Airport has been adding their own analysis of destinations in the Airlines and destinations section. Lots of reverts of rationale reverts by other editors by the Random Haste. One such example, Air India never operated to Addis Ababa from Bangalore, Adithya003 reverted this addition here, but Random Haste has been reverting this removal:, ,. They have also violated WP:3RR on several days on the page, recently, today, 1 December as well. They are also adding travel websites as sources for airline destinations when in fact these are clearly not a verifiable sources. Majority of their addition of resumption of international flights from this airport are purely based this article which solely states opening of international borders in India for scheduled flights, so basically making all the addtions a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH.

Please refer the article history for the level of disruptive edits that have been going on since a while. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 15:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi....I would like to bring to your notice, LeoFrank (talk · contribs) that i was trying to remove some content that this user called Random Haste (talk · contribs) had added by his own analysis.....i was trying to explain him that these flights were temporary and unsourced additions and not regular flights....but he was going on reverting my edits marking them as vandalism by providing some booking engine sources.....i was fed up of explaining him and he threatened me not to revert his edits again otherwise i would face the negative consequences...actually he was adding vandal content and marking my reverts as vandal


 * And one more thing....i was trying to add some sourced content in the article Rajiv Gandhi International Airport and was constantly following the edits done in both the airport articles....he was reverting my edits in the BLR Airport article was saying that this is BLR airport's article, is the third busiest airport india (which he was assuming i don't know), this article is not meant to be vandalized like this (which was being done by him)....and that this was not like HYD Airport,..which is still the sixth busiest accorsding to him (but actually 4th)...so in his view bigger airport articles cannot be added content without his persimission...but that a bit smaller airport like HYD...can be vandalized, spoilt...anything...
 * I just wanted to explain you the level of self assumed authoritarianship took by Random Haste in BLR airport article that nothing should be added in that article without his permisssion
 * so i would suggest you to take action on him. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:C001:D0A0:6D01:161C:5D83:2BA (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As per Random Haste's message on my talk here, they have indicated clearly of their WP:COI with the article and also still don't seem to show any understanding of citation. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 07:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Emmentalist about DinosaursLoveExistence


Emmentalist is a new user who nominated James Chapman (journalist) for deletion with their first edit. There is some blatant COI editing in that article's history. However, at the AFD, this user is accusing basically every editor of the article of paid editing, in particular the article creator DinosaursLoveExistence. That user's creations were the subject of a recent ANI thread that got derailed talking about other banned editors and had no resolution. Something is going on here that needs administrator attention, but I'm not quite sure what. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 04:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @力 Thanks for this. I've slightly amended the title, I hope you don't mind. I thought I'd explain a little further. I've put up quite a bit at James Chapman Talk and on the AfC discussion too. I'm a new signed-in user, having edited for a few months unsigned to try it out. I thought I'd concentrate on a small number of articles to learn the rules. Do say if I get something wrong re: good WP form. It's all very much in good faith. Re: @dinosaurs love existence: I started on an article 'Ros Altmann' which took me to the James Chapman article. I started to edit the second then realised it was all COI (it's how I learned what COI is...). I then looked at the page creator and on to what the creator created around the same time. I found article after article which had no real basis at all. I've flagged two for quick delete (again, it's how I leaned about quick delete). But there are many, many more. I see at @dinosaursloveexistence's talk page that many article are flagged for deletion and much else, without challenge or comment from dino. Dino seems to be creating very simple pages, mainly without references, on mainly un-notable people (although some could be notable if their page was properly created). Strikingly, there are lots of unreferenced biographical details about family and so on. My tacit conclusion is that dino has been paid to create simple pages, has done so, then has moved on. When pages are picked up years later for being un-notable, etc, dino just lets it go - having been paid for it years before. If James chapman is deleted (do say what you think at the AfD page) and the other two (Tom Alexander, Lynn Barton) are too, then I plan to put @dinosaursloveexistence up for an ANI discussion. I wasn't aware that there had been one, and thank you for flagging. As I say, assuming my deletions are followed through, I think that AfC discussion needs to be properly resolved. I also comment on two other James Chapman editors; but I qualify my comment. First, I note that @brownhairedgirl makes 1000 edits per day and has literally edited continuously, 24 hours a day, for years. I don't understand how that's possible, but would very much like to be educated on that. Finally, Phillip Cross, where I provide an external link, is flagged for the reasons at the link. I hope that all helps and I'm very keen to learn more by discussing any thoughts you have here. Sorry this is so long, but I think it's necessary in view of your (constructive) comment. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it’s a bit of a jump to assume COI here. The user is a prolific article creator and the vast majority just don’t look like subjects that anyone would pay someone to create. There are many motivations for users creating non-notable stubs in volume (and I’m not saying either way whether that’s what’s happening here) - I wouldn’t assume COI. You’re also way off on the other user you mention. It seems to me you need to calm down on attributing motivations to people otherwise you’ll end up sanctioned for WP:PA. DeCausa (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Decausa Now I've learned what WP:PA is. Hadn't go to that policy yet - working my way through. There's definitely no PA intended but I take your point in the spirit it's intended. Thanks. To be clear, I have put my reasoning down at the AfC discussion and at the Jameschapman Talk page and I don't think I agree with you about dino. I could of course be wrong, but a reasoned referral to an ANI can't be PA of itself or there would be no such ANI discussions. The main tell, I think, is the inclusion in dino's articles of personal biographical details which are not referenced nor likely available anywhere other than directly from the subject (the Tom Alexander (businessman) article is a good example). Actually, I think that particular subject could be a notable subject if a proper effort had been made to create a bona fide page, but the article definitely isn't that. It seems essentially a template created by dino which the subject can then alter if they wish. There are quite a few exceedingly obscure trade associations amongst dino's creations, too. Trade associations often begin as the creation of a PR agency, and the articles were created at the same time as the trade associations were. I also noticed that some such associations were associated with Bell Pottinger PR agency (see the James Chapman article AfC). Finally, I presume people who edit covertly for money create many other simple articles to obscure that fact in their 'contributions' history. I think that's what could behind all those other non-notable articles you mention. That's another reason I suspect COI. Re: the editor who makes a thousand edits a day and edits continuously - perhaps that's a thing and I'd really genuinely and massively appreciate it if you could explain it to me ('You're also way off on the other user'). My feeling was that the account might be used by people doing shifts. I could be totally wrong on that, though, so I'm merely raising the question for others to consider and maybe answer, and not making a claim. I do make that caveat wherever I comment. Emmentalist (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Don’t do that, unless you have solid grounds. Read WP:ASPERSIONS. DeCausa (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @DeCausa I presume you mean the last part. I've read that policy now. I think the best thing is to ask @brownhairedgirl about it. I'll do that politely then revert. Emmentalist (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Finally, @DeCausa I've found out about semi-automatic editing tools like AWB. I asked at the editors site I mentioned in my last and was helped by @Qwerfjkl. Thanks so much, both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmentalist (talk • contribs) 17:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe just to close this off, @力 Thanks for raising my stuff. I'm very new and have learned a great deal from our exchange. Lots of folks have come in to tell me about semi-automatic editing, including the amazingly experienced editor you alluded to at the start. Actually, I think I was running before I could walk, a bit. The AfD has, you'll see, duly been deleted. I'm going to get on with more straightforward editing for a bit! All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern about warning by admin
Hi, I have been publically and falsely defamed by an admin. What recourse do I have through Wikipedia before I go to law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley Payne (talk • contribs) 10:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a first step you need to decide whether to pursue this through Wikipedia or through the courts. As explained at no legal threats we do not discuss issues where there are impending legal threats. As a second step, if you decide to pursue this through Wikipedia, you need to provide evidence. At a quick look it seems that you are the one abusing others in places such as and . Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no libel, merely a reasonable warning in repose to this edit of yours. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Combining the above diffs with earlier edits from September like this and this, I feel confident saying you have a major attitude problem and I'm surprised you haven't been blocked yet. Aoi (青い) (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * They have been blocked. Indefinitely. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 11:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised they were not immediately blocked for a comment like that. Now blocked, they'll have plenty of time to pursue any public defamation action. So it's a blessing for all concerned. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish the editor lots of luck in pursuing the libel action in the courts. It will certainly not succeed without it. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism of User talk:InternetScavenger89 performed by User:97.122.95.9 reported by User:InternetScavenger89
WP:Vandalism-only account Vandalism of my user talk page -- Internet Scavenger 89  04:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I applied a short block. Let me know if it persists after that. Johnuniq (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sock/Meat puppets? IP-hopping troll/vandal? I don't know...


I first reported this related-vandal behavior at WP:AIV earlier today and was advised to report it here so here goes:
 * – apparent vandalism-only account. This IP address is part of a group of serial vandals/trolls/meat or sock puppets that all geolocate to closely-related IP addresses in the Philippines Indonesia. They/he/she/it incrementally change dates or institute other small changes on various articles including Alex Van Halen, Fleetwood Mac, Brian May, etc. On November 1st & 2nd the progenitor IP address - 180.251.148.214 - did a massive amount of edits - ALL of which were reverted.
 * The three connected IP addresses are as follows:
 * 180.251.148.214
 * 180.246.48.17...see filter log
 * 180.249.50.248
 * This type of creeping vandalism is annoying and frustrating and wearing for other editors to have to deal with on an ongoing basis, like a type of Wikipedia death by a 1000 paper cuts. I don't know what can be done, if anything, about it but I wanted there to be a record somewhere around here. I am sure they/he/she/it will be back again and again. Shearonink (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) The total amount of edits of all three accounts is about 40, or less.
 * 2) Only the 180.246.48.17 has edited within the last week, and it has half a dozen edits, all reverted.
 * 3) I see in total maybe two edit filter entries.
 * 4) The IPs locate to Indonesia, not the Philippines. Maybe this information will remind an observer of prior activity that might be relevant.
 * 5) I'm leaving this open for a while in case the activity resumes, or somebody provides a useful clue.
 * 6) Otherwise, there's not much more to be done. If they concentrated on a small number of articles we could semi-protect them, but I'm not seeing any such pattern. Jehochman Talk 13:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My mistake on the geolocation, I struck through my error. They/he/she were just doing the same types of things to the same articles, I noticed the edits, and thought "Hmmm...WP:DUCK? Hmmm." Yeah, they haven't come back, might just have been a momentary trolling blip. Thanks . Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Alghazi981



 * changes "Persian" to "Arabian"        or just adds "Arabian" , or removes "Persian"  without any source, and given the pattern clearly in a tendentious way.


 * removes maintenance templates and changes numbers without a source.


 * Puffs up info with regard to the Arabian Anazzah tribe.


 * Apparently doesn't like Iraq, Kuwait , and Shi'ism.

Apart from some efforts to bring WP articles in accord with Islamic conventions (in itself innocent enough)   and some more generic content removal, these are more or less all of their edits. They received a number of warnings, which as a mobile editor they perhaps did not see, but I think there's enough to conclude that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you have been charitable. About 98% of this editor's contributions have been reverted.  If they don't somehow show a willingness to learn, then unfortunately they will need to be blocked.  Let's wait a bit and see if they respond to this report. If they continue making troublesome edits, then the next admin can block them. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

User:49.178.110.40 inserting news item
keeps inserting a news item about a rape in Government of Assam  This news of a rape in not appropriate in a article on a government. Could the article be protected? Chaipau (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the context of this article; looking at the edit history, the article in question receives little too much actual edits, and cconsists mostly of IP vandalism., the proper place to request for page protection is Requests for page protection.
 * In the context of the IP user; they've been editing for about 4 days and has a very high revert rate. Editing-wise, they usually add new content (mainly new sections) to articles that are broad in purpose with specific events. See Walford Anglican School, Legislative violence, and Government of Assam. When these are reverted, they engage in edit warring and call the reverter disruptive. Other cases of reverts include poor additions. The IP editor has been warned today and yesterday on their talk page. Panini! 🥪 17:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Semi for a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

203.145.95.X harassment, personal attack and possible part of off site canvassing behaviours



 * old ANI thread 1
 * old ANI thread 2
 * old ANI thread 1
 * old ANI thread 2
 * old ANI thread 1
 * old ANI thread 2

Ok, i have been asked to make a shorter thread. Here is one thread for one ip range. If you like to read the previous drama: here.

The ip made groundless claim that 210.6.10.X ip range was my meatsock on 21:46, 8 November 2021 by this edit (Special:Diff/1054238016). Which the ip has received warning by User:Ohnoitsjamie

However, way before that edit, the ip already trolling me by false claim I have suggested something (offsite) somewhere by this edit (Special:Diff/1052306852), which exactly the same disruptive edit as the edit of 210.6.10.X ip range (Special:Diff/1050888402, ) on the same talk page. SPI clerk user:Tamzin simply called 210.6.10.X ip range as troll (mentioned in previous ANI October thread) or in blockable conduct (mentioned here). But i am not sure other admin would consider 210.6.10.X ip range and 203.145.95.X (this thread) are meatsock, or same person that ip hopping with another ISP, or else. Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings's RfC attracted a lot of unregistered ip from different HK ip ranges as apparent off site canvassing, just i fails to dig out the exact thread, only their possible point of contact in Telegram (app) (Read the above ANI thread for details). Or, may be people may not agree there is any off site canvassing, so that this thread talk about edit inside wikipedia.

The ip range also harassed other registered editor, and matching the pattern of yet another ANI thread back in January 2021, which either harassed other people's English level, or other editor not Hongkonger enough to edit wikipedia's Hong Kong content.

In specific, now the 203.145.95.X ip ranged harassed user: Citobun in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong

Special:Diff/1054239450 on 21:57, 8 November 2021

So, any thought? Matthew hk (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to the range at the top of this thread. I see that the user responded to my warning here, where they agreed to stop making accusations. Do you have any examples (with links to the diff) of harassment from that IP range since I warned them? Claiming that another user is not "adequately familiar" with a topic may be a bit uncivil, but it's not harassment or an attack. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * For the record, this is a quote from an ip ( 1.64.46.X) from the January 2021 ANI thread, but since it is from different ip range so that never able to actually verify it is controlled by same person or just coincidence or not: . So, would you think use today or 8 November or date that someone send a user talk message to 203.145.95.X ip range, that "from Hong Kong is not a mandatory requirement to edit Hong Kong -related topic" Able to show WP:RS to allow other people to WP:V is more important" ?


 * BTW Citobun did say this to the ip gang already in January 2021 thread Matthew hk (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * And actually 203.145.95.X ip range and the (rival?) ip range just caused the article City University of Hong Kong edit protected . Despite 124.217.188.145 seem  more  clear cut disruptive by add obsolete  place name New Kowloon. ( Guess what, 124.217 ip range, also edit Country article, that you protected)


 * While seem two ips take turn to add obsolete place name to article in South Island line (West)


 * Special:Diff/1052070292 by
 * Special:Diff/1054164236 by 1RR


 * 203.145.95.32 did stop and not having 2RR and instead made this Special:Diff/1054230185


 * But the problem is, you can't add placename that was used in 100 year ago. Hong Kong place name changed from time to time (See Ma Tau Chung) so that such stuff need WP:RS to verify the modern place name of the area.
 * Matthew hk (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This looks like a content dispute in which all parties are participating in talk page discussions. If the dispute comes to a statemate, please follow dispute resolution procedures. I have no further interest in this, please don't ping me about it again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Would this be an abuse of WP:AN/I? 219.76.24.216 (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Matthew hk for opening this thread. Sorry that I am busy in real life this week and can't contribute very much to this discussion. But I would say: Hong Kong subjects have had, for a long time, problems with disruptive IP editors whom I suspect are the same person as there is a great deal of subject overlap among the IPs. I last opened a discussion about this here. Their common editing pattern can be summed up as persistently adding obscure place names (e.g. Staunton Creek, New Kowloon, etc), other obscure/incorrect names (e.g. "Harbour Crossing Tunnel"), highlighting obscure geographic trivia that usually consists of WP:OR (example here, and so on. Instead of providing WP:RS, they just start revert wars and make personal attacks. It's hard to address the problem since they are constantly changing IP addresses. Citobun (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * To be fair 124.217.188.X ip seems linked to the creator of Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin, a globally locked user (see Afd, 124.217.188.X ip vote stacking to try to keep the article, and no other user and ip really agree it) of which probably a lock evasion, but CU will not do the check for ip and locked user linkage anyway.


 * 124.217.188.X ip and 203.145.95.X seems different person as there is edit war between them in City U article. Just 124.217.188.X probably won't able to open an account or else it will escalated to SPI quickly, while the latter chose to personal attack and voluntarily not registered to enjoy the collateral damage of edit protection of articles (or may even worse, may mistook as the same person as 124.217.188.X ips) So that you may need to open thread for 124.217.188.X ip range as people want to read concise thread and don't want to spend time to know that really happened. Matthew hk (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, these are not harassment after they fails to provide WP:RS Special:Diff/1055348314 ...... Matthew hk (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason why you would take things out of context this way? That was all about what you did, first, calling "flag station" a "slang" and second, disregarding the fact that the term appeared the HKU paper quoted. harassment after they fails [sic] to provide WP:RS? 203.145.94.111 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As of November 17, the IP is still pushing obscure place names (e.g. the use of the name Butterfly Beach to describe the entire surrounding area within Tuen Mun) without reliable sources. Citobun (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The IP is also stalking the most recent pages I have edited. For instance, I have most recently edited Shek Kip Mei fire and Eastern Express (newspaper). Immediately thereafter, the IP edited the same pages, making changes that I have objected to on other pages in the past (e.g. adding the obscure place name "New Kowloon" and changing the spelling of "Hong Kong" to "Hongkong"). Citobun (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I still can't figure out what their agenda actually is, but I've reverted their edits on Shek Kip Mei fire, but their use of 'Hongkong' on Eastern Express (newspaper) seems to be justified as The Standard was actually named the 'Hongkong Standard' during that time period. Padgriffin  Griffin's Nest 03:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What Citobun's has been doing is at best out of plain unawareness (and at the very worst, though quite unlikely, whitewashing history with recent laypeople's understanding). From what I noticed that's what happened with the former name of the Hongkong Standard. In the case of Shek Kip Mei fire, it's common sense that back in the early 1950s New Kowloon is much less developed than Kowloon to the south of the 1860-1898 border (given it's part of the 1898 leased territory rather than the ceded territory of 1860 across this border). This distinction with Kowloon isn't something which ought to be left out. The Shek Kip Mei area is also the densest compared with other squatter areas in New Kowloon for it's located right across the old border. I thought I don't need to cite that the sky is blue but here are some relevant information for reference if anyone found them necessary: . It was not until the 1950s that with the influx of refugees and the Shek Kip Mei fire that the government decided to develop the leased territory as much as Kowloon, especially New Kowloon and slightly later Tsuen Wan (inclusive of Kwai Chung), for their proximity to Kowloon. 219.76.15.133 (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the continued personal attacks and irrelevant history lesson. I assure you I know Hong Kong history and place names. The simple fact of the matter is that you are pushing obscure, seldom-used place names and refuse to work collaboratively. Citobun (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My two cents is that you should stay cool, make good use of the citation needed and the better source needed tags, bring issues to talk pages, rather than getting antagonistic and exasperating and beginning edit wars. Do not undo helpful edits, as you did in, e.g., . 219.76.15.143 (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Padgriffin: You may want to take a look at what I just posted at WPHK talk. 116.92.226.246 (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Matthew hk's personal attacks
(Continued from /IncidentArchive1084.)

Here you are: "Also, it is a genuine suggestion on seek medical advice.", "Zh-wiki do have infested so that no one has CU right, but it is delusional so bad that...", "Just seek medical advice if you (the ip hopper(s)) have persecutory delusion...", "You guy delusional really bad,". 219.76.18.80 (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are four links above but two duplicates (that is, there are two different diffs, each pointing to Matthew hk making a comment at ANI on November 4 and 7). In the ANI archive, I asked for evidence of "an actual problem". What I meant was something substantive to do with article content, not squabbling at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes four quotes from two edits.
 * (If you aren't going to deal with PAs in AN/I, then an actual problem I had learnt from talk pages and observed in diffs is that Matthew hk has refused to proofread (whereas for Citobun it's been with his wholesale reverts and provocative editing style; and for Atsme and Valereee their unawareness or unfamiliarity in the subject matters and unwillingness to hold back their wrong edits).) 219.76.18.74 (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Matt hk has been editing wikipedia for years, so forgive me, but I am confused and can't see what personal attack you're on about. Admin's are more likely to lean towards the experience editor than a jumping IP complaints. :/ (storm in a tea-cup again?) Govvy (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That'd be systemic bias isn't it? But then fyi this bloke has been like this for a long time. Possibly all along. The personal attacks in the diff links above happened here at AN/I but that happened on and off too. 219.76.18.78 (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * On HandThatFeeds' merger of two "related" sections:   I was not aware of the other section about 203.145.95.x and I still don't think the two sections are related. What I reported deals specifically with the PAs by Matthew hk (and possibly others). 219.76.18.75 (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: As of 25 November 2021, the IP is still pushing obscure place names (e.g. at Shek Kip Mei fire). This has been going on for years and isn't going to stop. The IP is the one all along making personal attacks, not User:Matthew hk. Their accusation is a weak attempt at confusing the discussion. Citobun (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Aaaaand the IP is continuing to add place names that have been challenged for lack of any citation despite being asked numerous times to provide a reliable source. Citobun (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The IP (most recently 203.145.94.139) is continuing to stalk my recent edits. This is harassment. Citobun (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Can someone protect Tuen Mun South extension? The IP has added their made-up place name, still without a source, numerous times today. Citobun (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I protected the page for 2 weeks.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Citobun (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Help? Anyone?
The lack of action here is really shocking. Here is a simple rundown of what is happening:


 * Hong Kong editors are grapping with an anonymous user who changes IPs constantly throughout the day, pushing obscure and uncited geographic place names on various Hong Kong articles (e.g. Tuen Mun South extension)
 * This person has been asked numerous times to provide WP:RS
 * They don't provide any WP:RS, just constantly revert (or contribute sources that do not actually support the content)
 * They make personal attacks (e.g. unceasing snide remarks toward Matthew hk's English (they have been doing this for a very long time), snide remarks toward my supposed ignorance of Hong Kong geography, etc)
 * They are WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, stalking my edit history and editing the same articles (adding obscure place names), and at the same time pinging me with taunts

In summary: this person doesn't respect the WP:RS policy nor Civility. They are extremely nasty to interact with and clearly aren't here to build an encyclopedia, but stubbornly wage a campaign to promote obscure Hong Kong place names. As a start, please, protect the problematic pages. Then block any IP that continues to add uncited, obscure place names and other WP:OR trivia to Hong Kong articles. Citobun (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * IMHO This guy definitely isn't going to stop- their history shows that they'll happily wait out semis to re-add their stuff and it's likely that these IPs are operated by a single person rather than a Meatfarm. All attempts at engaging them to create some sort of dispute resolution has led absolutely nowhere, and something needs to be done at this point. Padgriffin  Griffin's Nest 04:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It might be worth making an edit filter here for this. The effective of such all depends on how consistent the person behind this range is. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Ignored Unblock request
I requested for a partial block to be undone more than 3 weeks ago. It is absurd that I should have to wait this long for an answer. At the advice of User:Bishonen, the blocking admin, I am appealing the block here IAW WP:IAR (the blocking admin even suggested this course of action).

Background
 * I saw that material and references involving the Daily Wire were being removed. That dispute led to multiple discussions about the reliability of the source
 * WP:RSN
 * WP:AN #1
 * WP:AN #2
 * WP:ANEW
 * Largely after those discussions, I edited the Daily Wire page as multiple remarks in the Daily Wire criticism section were unreferenced (WP:BLP/WP:V), but they were re-added shortly thereafter (for example, criticism linked to climate change denial despite the fact that the website does not deny climate change...many people debate the extent/what we should do about it; to lump them all together as deniers is absurd). Others were conclusions/WP:OR based on the articles, but not directly supported; additional articles were added.
 * After contentious discussion with multiple editors and iterative changes (including WP:WIKISTALKING), corrections to the verbiage were made and/or sources added. However, several editors seem to be hell-bent on portraying DW in an extremely negative light adding criticism without the criticism of that criticism which rather clearly shows their hyperpartisan bent/methodology to be flawed. I objected and explained why.
 * Bishonen apparently felt my summary of the article/quotes were intentionally flawed and misleading and, without warning, blocked me for a month. I explained in my I was gone for a little over a week and, upon return, immediately appealed my block on the following grounds.
 * Procedural: No warning was given prior to the block, the block feels personal, and even the blocking admin agrees that the block rationale is unusual.
 * Substance: I readily admit I omitted quotes, but no misdirection was intended. The publication published the remarks as part of their reporting, ergo, they stated it as much as the sources did. The source of the criticism is hyperpartisan, not the non-partisan group they claim to be. Their analysis is demonstrably/highly flawed and should not be included per WP:UNDUE/WP:RECENTISM without clear caveats
 * Behavioral: I have agree to refrain from any actions on that page until the block would have been over as a sign of good faith, ergo, the block is not needed.

To date, no Admin has reviewed the request. Buffs (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * notification as required. No reply needed, Bish. Just following procedure Buffs (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The partial block is going to expire in less then a week. Allow it to expire. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, I made comments on Buffs' talk page for the reviewing admin to read, but didn't review the block, because I didn't want to deal with the expected "involved" argument (which I don't think applies, but didn't want to spend time argue about). I think the block was correct, and would not have unblocked.  But I will agree that our unblock review system is kind of broken.  Every time a long-neglected unblock request is brought up here, I resolve to be better and review more unblocks, then I do so for like 1 day, and then just drop it because it's not fun.  I need to do better than that, but we need to do better than that.  There are, what, I'd estimate 4-5 admins that together do about 95% of the unblock reviews.  We can't expect them to carry even more of the weight. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, ^^^ this attitude is part of the problem. No one is willing to review anything "just let it expire" = ignore genuine requests/drive away more editors. Why bother to have any appeal process if no one is willing to review it? Admins effectively become prosecutor/judge/jury/executioner with no oversight... Buffs (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think a point could be made that repeated requests for unblocking should incur additional intentional delays in responses to discourage repeat requests (effectively Admin-shopping)...I looked at others requesting unblocks. Many are on unblock request #4+... Buffs (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I served one-year. It changed me from an Elias to a Barnes, in my approach. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Even procedurally, it isn't justified
 * The cynical Barnes executes Elias, so...I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to imply that is a positive outcome. Buffs (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * At least you had a platoon of Arbitrators at least listen to your points and give a ruling. Buffs (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Arbcom toughened me with their implementation of their ruling in 2013, including the eventual locking of my user talkpage. After successfully getting re-instated after one year, it took me about three more years to get a topic-ban repealed, while waiting for another one to expire. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Foreground Your best course of action. Stop complaining & let the partial block run its course. Otherwise, you'll create the impression that you're being combative. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment at a glance, there are quite a few non-productive comments on Talk:The Daily Wire by Buffs, and very little about specific changes to the article. Removing Buffs from that article for a short while looks like it was the correct thing to do.  As far as commuting to time served, I agree with both Floq and GoodDay - this should have been addressed earlier, but at this point we might as well just wait until it expires. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 20:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, you're kindof but not quite agreeing with me; I don't think it should be ignored until it expires, I think someone should accept/decline it. I'm just on the decline side. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to put words on your mouth. I was agreeing with you on this should have been addressed earlier, and with GoodDay on we might as well just wait until it expires. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 20:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So, this should have been addressed earlier and your solution is to ignore it some more? Buffs (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm saying I think the initial block was justified, and a debate now over whether to make it a 28 day block or a 30 day block is a waste of time. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 21:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Having had a look at Buffs’ unblock request, I’m not sure why it wasn’t declined long ago. It’s argumentative with little apparent recognition of what they’ve done wrong. Based on the content of the request, keep the block till full term. DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * +1. --JBL (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been ignored for 3+ weeks trying to be patient and wait for a result with no reply at all. When I bring it up at ANI, no one addresses the points I made, the response is "2 days isn't important" (implying I should have complained sooner) and "don't argue about it. You'll seem combative". Thanks for the "advice," Bishonen. As "justified" as I am (Bishonen's words, not mine), it's clear that admins aren't interested in doing anything that isn't easy. Buffs (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not quite as bleak as "No one is willing to review anything". It's not that all unblocks are being ignored, it's that no one so far has volunteered to review yours, while they've reviewed many other people's.  That's unfortunate, but there are several possible reasons. One possibility is that they're doing triage; it seems more important to review sitewide blocks, or permanent partial blocks, than a block from one page for one month.  Especially one that appears to have been justified.  Another possibility is that they suspect that, if they review it and decline the unblock, you'll start harassing and insulting them.  You do give off that vibe.  For example, if I can across this thread with fresh eyes, I'd notice your snide comment to Bishonen about her attempt to help you above, and say "life is too short to deal with someone like this", and move on to deal with less obnoxious editors.  You're kind of relentlessly aggressive; people don't like that, on WP and in real life. Maybe there are other reasons I haven't thought of, but those seem the most likely for why your request isn't being reviewed, and other people's are. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've harassed no one ever. Based on this reaction, I think her advice was poor. That's an assessment of the situation: fruitless. For you to draw the conclusion that I'm going to harass others when I'm the one being wikistalked is absurd. Buffs (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I just feel the need to chime in here briefly to say Buffs, I believe you edit in good faith, but your argumentation style certainly can come off as borderline bludgeon-y and tendentious. I don't mean this as an insult, but to say that Floquenbeam may be right even if you have the purest of intentions.  Just intended as a word to the wise. Dumuzid (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you explain why being unblocked from this specific article/talk is so important to you if you were already willing to voluntarily avoid the article/talk for the duration of the block? What's the substantive difference between these two outcomes? I can understand the displeasure with the unblock request not being handled sooner. However, this kind of situation becomes increasingly unavoidable as the number of active admins drops precipitously as it has for the last few years. Alex Eng <small style="font-size:80%;">( TALK ) 22:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to act in good faith and reach a middle ground. The point is that the block was (and is) unnecessary. At no point did Bishonen even attempt to talk to me or warn me. Had she said "If you continue X, I'll block you for a month", I would at least have had the chance to stop. WP:BEFOREBLOCK is a policy, not a suggestion:
 * Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these. Welcome newcomers, do not bite them, and assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Newcomers should make an effort to learn about our policies and guidelines so that they can learn how to avoid making mistakes. A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable. Template warnings that state that a user may be blocked for disruption or other blockable behavior may also be issued by regular editors rather than by administrators only.
 * However, warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking. 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. On the other hand, users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately.
 * There was no attempt at a warning of any kind, just straight to a block. You don't have to like me/my edits/agree with me to see this step was completely skipped; there was no attempt at prior communication. Buffs (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The point of warnings and WP:BEFOREBLOCK is to make the user aware of what they’re doing wrong so they stop. It’s quite clear from your talk page that you continue to think you’ve done nothing wrong and the block was wrong ab initio. The warning issue is therefore a red herring. Good block. Do you acknowledge your fault in this? DeCausa (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't do struggle sessions/public groveling. Regardless of what I have or haven't done, whether I'm sorry or not, or whether I even understand what was wrong or not is irrelevant. Given the chance, I could have and would have stopped regardless of whether I think I was "right" or not had an admin addressed the issue with me. Given that I was acting in good faith, that opportunity, as required by policy, was not afforded to me. Ergo, the block should be overturned. Buffs (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth I have reviewed and declined this unblock request. I do believe there is a bad habit of the less than trivial unblock requests being forgotten about. Not sure what the solution is though. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 00:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I'll close this to prevent further digging. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r

 * Repeated, unexplained reversions of valid contributions by multiple editors, mostly to TV and broadcast station articles. In many cases, another user has removed factually-wrong information and this user has re-inserted it. For instance, WBLU-LP contained a claim that "WBLU-LP as a low-power station would have been able to remain on the air with an analog signal up until July 13, 2021 at the very latest" which is nonsense because the station was on analogue U-62, which falls in the 700MHz band which was auctioned to mobile telephone companies, per Digital dividend after digital television transition, 2008 United States wireless spectrum auction and the sources cited by those articles. This editor reverted a valid contribution to re-insert the false info. A review of this user's contributions reveals many edits like this, to different stations in both the US and Canada, which have been ongoing for months and somehow slipping just under the radar. The user's talk page history shows many complaints and many warnings from the people whose valid contributions are being reverted; the user merely brushes off the complaints and the conduct continues unabated. 66.102.87.40 (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I reinserted your info with a few tweaks. And my edits are in good faith and merely intended to correct erroneous information. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * That was actually my bad, IP; I wrote the original statement, and I should've clarified that if they moved to a 2-51 channel between 2011 and 2021 (which most 51-69 LP stations did if they survived into the digital era), they would have been able to stay on the air through that means (and they would have had to, which is likely why Daystar didn't want to deal with that hassle and took it dark). Regardless of your dispute with the above, that was 100% on me, and I'll clear that up ASAP.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

IP Harassment by 184.147.248.119
Offensive material:

Please check here for other possible offensive material.--John the Janitor (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I protest the characterization that I am doing the harassment. Instead I will accuse some Wikipedia editors of playing team sports and harassing me because I believe some of them are manipulatively framing their politics and prejudices as "human rights' here on Wikipedia. None of my points of criticism of talk pages I have edited don't have solid evidence what I say is true. For instance, there is only one "pushback" page for Greece. Is anyone with a straight face going to claim to me Greece population 11m, is the only country in the world currently trying to discourage further migration? Rather than address that lack of consistency the creator of the page, who lives in a country 30 times the population of Greece and also engaged in pushbacks, made a lame excuse he doesn't have time? Or is anyone going to claim to me that certain Wikipedia editors aren't, after framing Greeks as "nationalists" for objecting  to name recognition, today trying to whitewash half the former Yugoslavians little switch of identity into antihellenic founders of the Hellenistic period and ongoing irredentism? WTF? And there is no mention on the Wikipedia's alleged "human rights" page of how 'human rights" definitions are being followed a-la-carte even at the highest levels? The current members of the alleged UN human rights council fricken doesn't follow its own principles towards migrants. How is that not a valid point? Instead of addressing my points, certain editors keep repeatedly trying to silence my criticisms on talk pages because I disagree with their definition of alleged "human rights" which is at the heart of the issue (I haven't even touched a single wikipedia article)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you here to argue with editors that follow those articles, or are you here to collaborate with us? 331dot (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The question you frame is combative and doesn't address a single point I've made above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not about discussing your points, but your behavior. Your lack of an answer actually answers that question for me. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ??? Again you're combative by creating a false narrative. You can't analyze my behavior without first addressing what I've written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If asking a question is "combative" that says more about you than me. You are treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your "question" was patronizing. It's blatantly obvious you had made your mind up even before you posed your "question". I would point out you have yet to address a single one of criticisms above. How exactly are you going to determine "my behavior" as you put it without actually first confirming what I say isn't true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your views or position are not relevant to your behavior; you could be arguing that the sky is blue. It doesn't matter. What matters is how you go about arguing your position, and right now you aren't going about it the right way. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I profoundly disagree with your personal moral theory that what I have to say is not relevant to the discussion. . In law, courts examine evidence they don't just accuse someone of bad behavior without ever addressing the substance of what they have done and said. Presumed innocence.. not guilt as your initial patronizing "my behavior" question implied. Granted online communities are prone to tribalism among editors which often leads to shut down divergent viewpoints, especially outsiders.  My understanding is here on Wikipedia that the articles come first though. Instead of more evasion, why not show me what I've said is inaccurate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, again. It does not matter what your arguments are when you're stomping around talk pages and user talk pages calling people "bigots", "leftists" "biased", etc.  You simply need to stop doing that, and perhaps people will engage with you.  If you don't, there's a simple remedy for that. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is you that are missing my point as my criticisms are valid. Once again not a single attempt to address any of my points. Instead  you are accusing me of slander without checking to see if its slander.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * That's enough, I think. Blocked for a week. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Stalker
Somebody please block this vandal stalker of me ASAP -- Yankees10 19:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright it appears somebody handled it.-- Yankees10 19:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Shrek99178


This user's only edits have been to List of films banned in the United States, where they have persistently added unsourced and highly dubious entries, e.g.. The entries do not specify where and by whom the films were banned, since in the United States films are protected by freedom of speech. Non-automated edit summaries are short and nonsensical. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 05:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User partially blocked (from List of films banned in the United States) for 72 hours. Almost blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE but thought the partial block might prompt discussion by the user.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Egon20
I noticed this user at Talk:Islam insisting that Allah should be spelled with 3 L's in English. This user also has (largely based on their own interpretation) insisted that the Koran says the world is flat, added a bunch of Italian monarchist propaganda, and insisted Napoleon was Muslim. I don't think they're here to constructively build an encyclopedia. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 17:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear from about this...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A quick browse of their recent edits finds nothing even vaguely constructive, including stuff like . I would recommend blocking them as WP:NOTHERE. --JBL (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked their contribs, and indeed, their plan, indeed, does seem like a bad joke. Support WP:NOTHERE block. Minkai ( rawr! )(see where I screwed up) 20:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is one of the strangest incidents I've seen at ANI, on par with Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1085. Who on Earth seriously believes the sources this guy's cherry picking? I see, in particular, that the sources used in the linked revisions are mostly self-published sources like forum posts. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 23:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the edit JBL pointed to, this editor then put it in again, which I reverted and is when I saw their edits. They also made the same edit at misogyny. I agree that this user seems WP:NOTHERE. Crossroads -talk- 06:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * At best this user is time-wasting with their fundamental lack of understanding of sourcing requirements or Wikipedia's goals as an encyclopedia, and their pushing of extreme fringe views with unreliable or no sourcing is disruptive. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I declare myself innocent, whatever I am accused. Egon20 (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Man, what a classy way to go out. --JBL (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC).

User removing women from their professional categories
BostonMensa has been using HotCat to take women out of non-diffusing parent categories so that they are only in subcategories (see for example 1 2 3). This violates WP:EGRS point 5, and many of these categories are prominently templated as being non-diffusing. I tried to start a conversation at their talk page, but they did not reply and instead re-did one of the edits. I commented on their talk page 2 more times, and pointed them to the similar discussion at Category talk:American women political scientists. They still did not respond, but have continued to use automated editing tools to remove women from professional categories that they are not supposed to be diffused out of. Example edits after I tried 3 times to start a discussion include 1, 2, 3. There is already a lot to clean up here, and if they continue using automated tools to rapidly segregate women out of being members of their professions, then the cleanup job will get that much harder. - Astrophobe  (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur that this is problematic behavior, to the point where I blocked a different user (User:ThurstonMitchell) for similar mass removals of non-diffusing parent categories last July. That block was with an indefinite term, but I intended it to run only until they agreed to stop doing these removals, which they never ended up doing. BostonMensa's non-responsiveness to user talk page discussion (instead blanking the page without response) suggests a similar trajectory. However, BostonMensa has not edited since the talk page blanking four days ago, so blocking would likely be premature unless they resume. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Chicdat continues his disruptive editing
Chicdat continues his unsourced reverting at List of the oldest people by country by falsely asserting that personal interpretations of editors are sufficient to outweigh WP:RS. We've had a talk page discussion on this matter lasting for over a month, where no one shared his view. I had provided an unambiguous reliable source, but Chicdat left a message on my talk page arguing "Wikipedia editors [i. e. first and formost Chicdat himself] have interpreted "night of 21 October" as "in the early hours of 22 October"" (My source doesn't state "night of 21 October", but simply 21 October, that's why I chose it!). I don't have to reach a personal "consensus" with him and we already had a discussion at his talk page where he accused me of a personal attack for disagreeing with him. Hence, I have decided to take this dispute to the ANI. He is also lying in the edit summary that it will be his " first, last, and only revert", whereas in reality he made this edit just four days ago. Renewal6 (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, first time in a while any longevity disputes have made it here. I'll never understand why this subject, of all things, raises people's blood pressure so much. Since Gerneth himself only had alcohol at celebrations (yes, that was in the article), would it be too much to ask everyone here just have a cup of tea? I think Chicdat was referring to this being the only revert after you added the source, the first one was before you added the source supporting October 21. Since I see no discussion since November 5th I don't mind keeping an eye on any further discussion, and if you need outside input I'll just drop a followup note to yours at WT:WikiProject Longevity. (And no, "you're wrong" was not a personal attack, maybe a little gruff but nothing sanctionable) The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 15:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I provided a source that unambiguously states 21 Oct. If Chicdat wants to revert my edits, he'll be obliged to provide a source that unambiguously states 22 Oct. Reverting my edits by referring to a personal interpretation of an ambiguous (let‘s assume that) source, is plain disruption. His comment at my talk page (see above) totally misses the point and fails WP:NOR: On Wikipedia, we should go by the reliable sources, not by dubious interpretations of "longevity editors" contradicting them. Renewal6 (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

you should take a second look. This edit looks to me like it misrepresents the source, which says "Wenige Tage nach seinem Geburtstag verstarb er am 21. Oktober 2019.", machine-translation "A few days after his birthday, he died on October 21, 2019." I don't see how you're getting Oct 22 from that. Levivich 18:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I will note for context that the OP and Chichdat have an extensive history of edit-warring with each other on a number of pages, which I have previously warned them both for . --Blablubbs (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Blablubbs: Yes, but in the meantime I took the dispute to the relevant talk pages as you had advised, so this fact does not delegitimise my arguments put forward above. Renewal6 (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want help with content, I'm happy to point you the right direction. Dispute resolution is so overly complicated even the historic citizens of Byzantium would weep just trying to figure it out, but it's your best bet for working out a content dispute; I'm happy to help with that, I know it's frustrating to have something drag on for a month but it sometimes takes a few tries to get everything sorted out. (And despite the name, WikiProject Longevity is actually a product of resisting the legacy of the "longevity editors"; trust me when I say there's no love lost, I personally have been the topic of plenty of tirades on The 110 Club and similar, so the people who see your messages there won't be the drooling fanboys who treat longevity as some sort of quasi-reality-show contest to stave off death the longest) The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want help with content, I want help with Chicdat's disruptive editing. Contentwise everything has been said and the source I added to the article is unambiguous (see Levivich's comment above). I would support a no action closure of this thread, if Chicdat promised not to revert my edits again without providing a reliable source. Renewal6 (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, when the source says "21" and Wikipedia says "22", that's a black-and-white WP:V error. If there were multiple sources and some said "21" and others said "22", that would be a content dispute. But I searched yesterday and could not find a single source that said "22". "Editors decided" can't be a counter argument to WP:V, per WP:NOR. In my view this is basic, basic stuff. Levivich 14:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So I guess the simple question is: can you show where in the source it says 22, or what you mean by Longevity editors tend to interpret the source's wording as 22 October? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As is currently topic banned from editing in "Wikipedia:"-space, I would like to clarify if he is allowed to respond here under WP:BANEX point 2, "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution". ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I, after extensive searches yesterday, was able to find Gustav Gerneth's official death certificate (FEW's comment, third down from top), which unambiguously states * 15 Oktober 1905 † 21 Oktober 2019 Therefore I would like to sincerely apologi[s/z]e for all reverts I made, and will not ever change Gerneth's death date to 22 October again. I'm sorry especially for reverting you about 25 times on seven different pages. I hope this discussion can be closed without action, and I would like to finally say: (sorry for the all caps) THIS FALLS UNDER WP:BANEX (LEGITIMATE AND NECESSARY DISPUTE RESOLUTION). 🐔 Chicdat  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  11:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on that and on the above, the dispute has been successfully resolved by this thread, so I agree with Chicdat that no further action is required. Renewal6 (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)